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

requestUserInfo appends ?schema=openid to userinfo endpoint, which breaks LinkedIn OIDC login #448

Open
gkreitz opened this issue Oct 11, 2024 · 0 comments · May be fixed by #449
Open

requestUserInfo appends ?schema=openid to userinfo endpoint, which breaks LinkedIn OIDC login #448

gkreitz opened this issue Oct 11, 2024 · 0 comments · May be fixed by #449

Comments

@gkreitz
Copy link

gkreitz commented Oct 11, 2024

The function requestUserInfo appends ?schema=openid to the userinfo endpoint URL. I'm unsure why, I've tried googling a bit and cannot find a reason but haven't found anything (for instance, https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html does not contain the word "schema"). The parameter goes back to the initial commit of this library, so commit history gives no clue.

Adding this parameter breaks logging in with LinkedIn ( https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/linkedin/consumer/integrations/self-serve/sign-in-with-linkedin-v2 ), as their userinfo endpoint seems to check for extra query parameters and reject the request with a 403, and the message "Unpermitted fields present in PARAMETER: Data Processing Exception while processing fields [/schema]". The symptom when using the library is an OpenIDConnectClientException with the message "The communication to retrieve user data has failed with status code 403" (to help anyone debugging that error message find their way here).

Unless there's some reason to keep ?schema=openid, I'd propose simply removing it. That would also fix #388, and remove the need for #389. Alternatively, one could add some option/function to toggle the behavior.

@gkreitz gkreitz linked a pull request Oct 11, 2024 that will close this issue
1 task
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

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

1 participant