Bundle: checker lists of one service defined in two configurations are merged by position, and a checker is silently lost
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
Nobody has claimed this yet.
Assessment
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Newbie friendliness
- 48/100
Research direction
Start by reading the configuration tree definitions for checker aliases, algorithm lists, and serializer lists, then trace how ConfigurationHelper merges configuration from multiple sources. Reproduce the issue with the supplied when@prod configuration and compare debug:config jose checkers across environments. Done means repeated configuration preserves all intended checkers without accidental duplicates, while algorithm and serializer lists retain the safer last-list semantics described in the issue.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Description
Version(s) affected
All released versions (3.4.x, 4.0.x, 4.1.x, 4.2.x), and the 4.3.x and 5.0.x branches.
Description
The bundle declares its lists of checker aliases with useAttributeAsKey('name'). When the jose configuration of one service comes from more than one place (a when@<env> block, a second file such as config/packages/prod/jose.yaml, or another bundle using ConfigurationHelper), Symfony merges two lists that carry a key attribute key by key. A YAML sequence is keyed by position, so the second list overwrites the first one index by index.
jose:
checkers:
claims:
api:
claims: ['exp', 'iat', 'nbf']
when@prod:
jose:
checkers:
claims:
api:
claims: ['aud_api']
In prod, jose.claim_checker.api is built from ['aud_api', 'iat', 'nbf']. The expiration check is gone there, while it runs in dev and test. The container compiles without any warning. The typ list of a header checker manager has no key attribute and is appended, so one manager definition merges its two lists in two different ways.
Lists concerned:
checkers.headers.<name>.headers,checkers.claims.<name>.claimsjws.loaders.<name>.header_checkers,jwe.loaders.<name>.header_checkersnested_token.loaders.<name>.jws_header_checkersandjwe_header_checkers- on 4.3.x,
selective_disclosure.verifiers.<name>.header_checkers,key_binding_header_checkersandclaim_checkers
The algorithm and serializer lists are declared the same way: ['RS256', 'HS256'] followed by ['ES256'] gives ['ES256', 'HS256'].
A checker added to a manager by another bundle through ConfigurationHelper::addHeaderChecker() or addClaimChecker() is lost the same way when the application also configures that manager.
Applications that configure each service in one place are not affected. Where a service is configured in two places with lists meant to add up, a check written in the configuration does not run in the environment that has the second configuration, and the tokens it would reject are accepted there.
How to reproduce
Configure the same checker manager in a when@prod block as above, then compare bin/console debug:config jose checkers --env=dev with --env=prod.
Possible Solution
- Remove
useAttributeAsKey('name')from the checker alias lists, so that a second configuration adds checkers and never removes one, and drop duplicate aliases after the merge (ConfigurationHelperprepends a copy of the firstjoseconfiguration, so the same alias can be seen twice). - For the algorithm and serializer lists, appending would widen what a service accepts:
performNoDeepMerging()(the last list wins) is the safer semantics there. - Changelog: a second list now adds to the first one instead of overwriting it by position. This can only add checks, but tokens accepted before may be rejected after the upgrade.
- Once the lists add up, one manager can receive two checkers for the same claim or header parameter, which #756 is about.
Additional Context
Found by the Anthropic OSS Scanner (ANT-2026-TNDTH33Z).
- Dominant language
- PHP
- Stars
- 954
- Forks
- 119
- Avg merge
- 48m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 17
Getting set up
This project ships no dev container, Dockerfile or contributing guide, so setting up is up to you: start from its README, and see our first-contribution guide for the general steps.
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
More from web-token/jwt-framework
-
enhancement
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 74/100
web-token/jwt-framework#757 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
bug
Difficulty 3/5 1-2 days Newbie friendliness 68/100
web-token/jwt-framework#773 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
bug
Difficulty 4/5 3-5 days Newbie friendliness 57/100
web-token/jwt-framework#772 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
enhancement
Difficulty 4/5 3-5 days Newbie friendliness 55/100
web-token/jwt-framework#771 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
bug
Difficulty 4/5 3-5 days Newbie friendliness 48/100
web-token/jwt-framework#770 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
All issues in web-token/jwt-framework
Similar issues
-
enhancement priority Sales
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 78/100
novalo-dev/Prestashop-MCP-Server#201 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 75/100
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
Include flows spanning the full report time windowPossibly taken @somethingwithproof claimed this today. Open
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 77/100
Cacti/plugin_flowview#306 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
bug origin: upstream priority: low
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 78/100
mattytap/Mattytap-Sermons#105 ·
-
priority:low type:bug
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 82/100
crazy-goat/workerman-bundle#1189 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day