Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Correct AuthenticatorAssertionRawResponse.Id type #513

Open
Regenhardt opened this issue Mar 6, 2024 · 3 comments
Open

Correct AuthenticatorAssertionRawResponse.Id type #513

Regenhardt opened this issue Mar 6, 2024 · 3 comments
Milestone

Comments

@Regenhardt
Copy link
Contributor

The AuthenticatorAssertionRawResponse class has two byte[] members Id and RawId. Both used, although RawId is just checked for existence and in tests.

As per MDN Id is literally the base64url encoded value of RawId, I think Id should rather be a string and not base64url-decoded when received, but kept as string. The places currently using the Id property should use RawId instead.

I just debugged into an assertion, and Id and RawId do indeed have the exact same value in the backend.

@Regenhardt
Copy link
Contributor Author

Since a major update is planned anyway, would you accept a PR amending that?

@abergs
Copy link
Collaborator

abergs commented Oct 29, 2024

@Regenhardt Yeah this is interesting and 4.0 would be a good opportunity to fix this. I do wonder about the implications that this will have though.

@abergs
Copy link
Collaborator

abergs commented Oct 29, 2024

@Regenhardt You're welcome to submit a PR and we can further discuss the feasibility

@abergs abergs added this to the Version 4 milestone Oct 29, 2024
@abergs abergs modified the milestones: Version 4, Version 5 Nov 18, 2024
Regenhardt added a commit to Regenhardt/fido2-net-lib that referenced this issue Dec 30, 2024
RawId is decoded to the raw byte value, while Id is the same value in base64url-encoded form.

passwordless-lib#513
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants