Your team wrote `middleware.ts` carefully — Edge-safe imports only, `jose` instead of `jsonwebtoken`, no direct database calls — because that's what Edge middleware demanded. Then you upgraded to Next.js 16, skimmed the release notes, and moved on. Nothing broke. Which is exactly the problem: `middleware.ts` still runs, but it's now the _deprecated_ way to do the one job every non-trivial app needs — checking a request before a single line of your app runs. The framework renamed the file, moved the runtime under it, and left the old name working just long enough for teams to miss the change entirely. ## What you'll learn By the end of this article you'll be able to: * Explain what **`proxy.ts`** is, why Next.js 16 renamed `middleware.ts` to it, and what actually changed under the hood. * State exactly which runtime `proxy.ts` runs on — and why you can no longer choose. * Migrate an existing `middleware.ts` file with the official codemod, including the config options that renamed alongside it. * Recognize the one capability trade Next.js made, and decide whether it affects your app. * Write a `proxy.ts` that checks auth, sets a header, and rewrites a request — the shape that covers most real uses. ## Who this is for You've shipped a Next.js App Router app and have (or have used) a `middleware.ts` file for things like auth checks or redirects. You don't need prior Edge-runtime experience — this article explains what that runtime was and why it mattered. ## Table of contents * The problem: a boundary with two names and a hidden runtime * The mental model: proxy.ts is the network boundary, not a request handler * Migrating middleware.ts to proxy.ts, step by step * Edge cases and gotchas * Best practices * FAQ * Cheat sheet * Key takeaways ## The problem: a boundary with two names and a hidden runtime This article is written against **Next.js 16.3** (the current Active LTS release, verified against the framework's own file-convention and upgrade docs, and its GitHub releases, in September 2026). If you're reading this from a much later version, re-check the docs linked below before trusting a specific detail — that's the honest habit this series keeps asking of you, and this topic is exactly why. Here's the wrong-way-first version, because it's what most teams actually did. A Next.js 15 app has this `middleware.ts`: // middleware.ts — Next.js 15, Edge runtime (the only option) import { NextResponse } from "next/server"; import { jwtVerify } from "jose"; // Edge-safe; jsonwebtoken would not run here export async function middleware(request: Request) { const token = request.headers.get("cookie")?.match(/session=([^;]+)/)?.[1]; if (!token) return NextResponse.redirect(new URL("/login", request.url)); try { await jwtVerify(token, secretKey); // must be Edge-runtime-compatible return NextResponse.next(); } catch { return NextResponse.redirect(new URL("/login", request.url)); } } export const config = { matcher: ["/dashboard/:path*"] }; Every choice in that file — `jose` over `jsonwebtoken`, no direct Postgres client, no `fs` — exists because Edge middleware ran on a restricted, non-Node runtime. That constraint was real and it shaped how an entire generation of Next.js auth code got written. Then Next.js 16 ships, and the docs start talking about `proxy.ts` instead. The team upgrades. `middleware.ts` still runs — Next.js kept it working on purpose — so nothing visibly breaks, and the rename gets filed under "not our problem yet." Two things go quietly wrong from there: 1. New code in the same repo starts appearing as `proxy.ts` (copied from a blog post, a teammate's other project, or the docs), and now the app has both a `middleware.ts` and a mental model split between two names for the same job. 2. Someone "helpfully" migrates the file and copies the runtime opt-in along with it: // proxy.ts — this line is now meaningless export const runtime = "edge"; // ❌ ignored — proxy always runs on Node.js `proxy.ts` doesn't fail loudly here — it just runs on the Node.js runtime regardless, because that runtime **cannot be configured**. The Edge runtime isn't an option for `proxy.ts` at all. If your mental model is still "Edge middleware, just renamed," you'll misjudge what you can and can't do inside it. ## The mental model: proxy.ts is the network boundary, not a request handler **The mental model:** `proxy.ts` is the one file that sits in front of your entire app, on every request that matches its `matcher`, and runs before the App Router resolves a route — before any layout, page, Server Component, or Server Action executes. Next.js 16 renamed it from `middleware.ts` specifically to stop you from thinking of it as a request handler in the Express sense (a function in a chain, alongside your route logic). It's a **network boundary** : the place where you decide whether a request is even allowed to reach the app, and what it's allowed to carry in with it (a header, a rewritten path, a redirect). The rename came with a runtime decision, not just new vocabulary: `proxy.ts` runs exclusively on the **Node.js runtime**. There is no `export const runtime = "edge"` for it — the option doesn't exist, because a proxy that always runs the same way, in the same environment, is the entire point. `middleware.ts` is still there for teams that specifically need Edge behavior, but it's documented as deprecated, scheduled for removal in a future major version. You're not choosing between two files going forward; you're on a deprecation clock. What that buys you: `proxy.ts` can use anything the Node.js runtime supports — Node's built-in `crypto`, a real database driver for a session lookup, any npm package that assumes Node — without auditing it for Edge compatibility first. What it costs you: if your app specifically wanted Edge's global, low-latency execution for this boundary, that option is gone for new code. For the overwhelming majority of auth/redirect/rewrite logic, that trade is invisible; for a handful of latency-critical, globally-distributed checks, it's worth knowing about before you commit. ## Migrating middleware.ts to proxy.ts, step by step **Step 1 — run the codemod, don't hand-edit.** Next.js ships an automated migration: npx @next/codemod@canary middleware-to-proxy This renames `middleware.ts` → `proxy.ts`, renames the exported `middleware` function to `proxy`, and updates the config keys that renamed alongside it (for example `skipMiddlewareUrlNormalize` → `skipProxyUrlNormalize`, and `experimental.middlewareClientMaxBodySize` → `experimental.proxyClientMaxBodySize` in `next.config.js`). Run it, then read the diff — a codemod is a strong first draft, not a substitute for review. **Key concept:** the codemod changes names, not behavior. Whatever your middleware did, your proxy does identically — the boundary's job hasn't moved, only its label and its guaranteed runtime. **Step 2 — delete any runtime opt-in.** If your old file had `export const config = { runtime: "edge" }` or similar, remove it. It has no effect on `proxy.ts`, and leaving it in is the kind of thing that confuses the next engineer more than it confuses the framework. **Step 3 — keep the matcher, unmodified.** The `matcher` config that scopes which paths trigger the boundary is unchanged: // proxy.ts export const config = { matcher: ["/dashboard/:path*", "/api/protected/:path*"], }; **Step 4 — now you can simplify, if it helps.** Because you're guaranteed Node.js, you can replace an Edge-safe workaround with the straightforward version, if one exists: // proxy.ts — Next.js 16, Node.js runtime (the only option, and now a guarantee) import { NextResponse } from "next/server"; import { jwtVerify } from "jose"; // still works fine — no need to rip it out import type { NextRequest } from "next/server"; export function proxy(request: NextRequest) { const token = request.cookies.get("session")?.value; if (!token) { const loginUrl = new URL("/login", request.url); loginUrl.searchParams.set("from", request.nextUrl.pathname); return NextResponse.redirect(loginUrl); } return NextResponse.next(); } export const config = { matcher: ["/dashboard/:path*"] }; **Key concept:** nothing here _had_ to change — `jose` runs fine on Node.js too. The point isn't "rewrite everything," it's that you're no longer required to reach for an Edge-safe library when a plain Node one would do, and you won't hit a surprise if a dependency assumes `Buffer` or `crypto.createHmac` exists. ## Edge cases and gotchas * **`middleware.ts` still works — for now.** Next.js 16 didn't remove it; it's deprecated and slated for removal in a future major version. If you need the Edge runtime specifically (for its global execution model), keep using `middleware.ts` with its `runtime` opt-in and track the deprecation notice for when that stops being an option. * **The runtime is not configurable, in either direction.** You can't opt `proxy.ts` into Edge, and there's no flag to force `middleware.ts` onto Node.js. The two files map to two fixed runtimes; migrating means accepting the new one. * **Config keys renamed, not just the file.** If your `next.config.js` sets `skipMiddlewareUrlNormalize` or `experimental.middlewareClientMaxBodySize`, those need the `proxy`-prefixed equivalents after migration — the codemod handles this, a manual rename easily misses it. * **This doesn't remove the Edge runtime from Next.js.** Route Handlers and pages can still opt into the Edge runtime where it's supported. The one place Edge specifically disappeared is the network-boundary file — don't over-generalize the change to the rest of the framework. * **The rewrite/redirect logic itself hasn't changed.** `NextResponse.next()`, `.redirect()`, `.rewrite()`, and reading/writing cookies and headers all work the same way in `proxy.ts` as they did in `middleware.ts`. The migration is about the file's name, its exported function's name, and its runtime — not its API. ## Best practices * **Reach for`proxy.ts` for boundary decisions**, not business logic: auth gating, locale/region redirects, A/B routing, header injection, and blocking bad requests before they cost you a route render. If a check needs your app's Server Components or database models to decide, it usually belongs past the boundary, not inside it. * **Run the codemod on every`middleware.ts` you own**, even ones that "still work fine." The deprecation clock is real, and doing it now — while you can compare the diff against a file you understand — is cheaper than doing it later under a removal deadline. * **Keep the`matcher` as narrow as the job needs.** A boundary that runs on every request, including static assets it doesn't care about, is pure overhead; scope it to the paths that actually need the check. * **Don't move Edge-specific code into`proxy.ts` unexamined.** If a library was chosen specifically for Edge compatibility, it's fine to leave it — but don't assume you now need a _different_ library, either. Change what the runtime actually requires you to change, nothing more. ## FAQ ### Is `proxy.ts` a completely new file, or a rename? It's a rename with a runtime attached. Same conceptual job as `middleware.ts` — code that runs before the App Router resolves a route — but the exported function is now called `proxy`, the file is `proxy.ts`, and it always runs on the Node.js runtime. ### Do I have to migrate right now? No — `middleware.ts` still works in Next.js 16. But it's documented as deprecated and due for removal in a future major version, so treat this as scheduled work, not optional cleanup. ### Can I run `proxy.ts` on the Edge runtime if I really want to? No. The runtime for `proxy.ts` is fixed to Node.js and isn't configurable. If your use case specifically needs Edge, that's what `middleware.ts` remains for, while it's still available. ### Will the migration change what my auth/redirect logic does? It shouldn't. The codemod renames the file, the function, and the handful of config keys that renamed with it. The request/response API — `NextResponse.next()`, `.redirect()`, `.rewrite()`, cookies, headers — is unchanged. ### Does this affect Route Handlers or pages that use the Edge runtime? No. The Edge-runtime removal is specific to the network-boundary file. Route Handlers and pages can still opt into Edge where Next.js supports it there. ## Cheat sheet Task | Next.js 16 way | Notes ---|---|--- File name | `proxy.ts` (was `middleware.ts`) | Old name still works, deprecated Exported function | `export function proxy(...)` | Was `export function middleware(...)` Runtime | Node.js only, not configurable | No Edge option for `proxy.ts` Scope which paths run it | `export const config = { matcher: [...] }` | Unchanged from `middleware.ts` Migrate automatically | `npx @next/codemod@canary middleware-to-proxy` | Renames file, function, and config keys Renamed config keys | `skipMiddlewareUrlNormalize` → `skipProxyUrlNormalize`; `experimental.middlewareClientMaxBodySize` → `experimental.proxyClientMaxBodySize` | Codemod handles these Need Edge runtime specifically | Keep `middleware.ts` for now | Tracked for future removal Redirect / rewrite / headers API | `NextResponse.next()` / `.redirect()` / `.rewrite()` | Identical to `middleware.ts` // The canonical proxy.ts shape: check, then let through or redirect import { NextResponse } from "next/server"; import type { NextRequest } from "next/server"; export function proxy(request: NextRequest) { const isAllowed = /* your boundary check — auth, locale, A/B, etc. */ true; if (!isAllowed) return NextResponse.redirect(new URL("/login", request.url)); return NextResponse.next(); } export const config = { matcher: ["/dashboard/:path*"] }; ## 🎮 Try it yourself **▶️ Open the interactive playground →** _Runs right in your browser — poke at it and watch the concept react live._ ## Key takeaways * `proxy.ts` is Next.js 16's rename of `middleware.ts` — same job (the network boundary in front of your app), new name, and a fixed Node.js runtime that can't be configured. * `middleware.ts` still runs today, but it's deprecated; the official codemod (`npx @next/codemod@canary middleware-to-proxy`) migrates the file, the function name, and the config keys together. * The Edge runtime isn't gone from Next.js — it's gone specifically from this one boundary file, so don't over-apply the change to Route Handlers or pages. * Because the boundary now runs on Node.js unconditionally, you can use ordinary Node-only libraries there without an Edge-compatibility audit — but you don't have to change code that already worked. This series has already covered two things `proxy.ts` sits in front of: the request eventually reaches Server Actions and the mutation flow they run, and whatever renders downstream is shaped by Cache Components and what streams versus what's cached. Neither is required reading here, but both make more sense once you know what already ran before them. ## 🧠 Test yourself Think it clicked? **Take the 7-question quiz →** _Instant feedback, a hint on every question, and an explanation for each answer — right or wrong._ Your `middleware.ts` still works today — but it's running on borrowed time and an assumption about the Edge runtime that no longer holds for new code. Migrate it this week, while the diff is small and the reasoning is fresh, rather than in a rush when the removal notice finally lands. What's the messiest thing your boundary file currently does — and would you trust it to run on Node.js without a second look? 🚀 **Want more like this?** Every guide, playground, and quiz lives on **bestpractic.org** — open it and **sign up free** so the next one finds you. _Thanks for reading! Let's stay connected:_ * ⭐ **GitHub** — follow me and star the projects: github.com/parsajiravand * 💬 **Discord** — join the frontend best-practices community: discord.gg/d9KRhuAwQ * 📸 **Instagram** — frontend best practices, daily: @bestpractice___

The jsonwebtoken code used in Node.js applications may let a maliciously crafted token bypass security checks.

最近の「StegaBin」キャンペーンは、26個の悪意のあるnpmパッケージを利用して多段階の認証情報盗難作戦を展開しているため、開発者コミュニティ内で深刻な懸念が高まっています。 SocketのAI搭載型脅威検出システムによって特定されたこれらのパッケージは、一見無害なテキスト内にコマンドアンドコントロール（C2）インフラストラクチャを隠すために新しい手法を使用しています。 文字レベルステガノグラフィとして知られるこの方法により、攻撃者は悪意のあるペイロードを隠蔽でき、検出がより困難になります。 2026年2月間に2日間かけて公開されたこれら26個のnpmパッケージは、JavaScriptエコシステムで広く使用されている人気のあるライブラリのタイポスクワットです。 多くのパッケージは合法的に見え、express、lodash、jsonwebtokenなどの有名なパッケージを模倣しています。パッケージは疑わしさなくインストールするように設計されており、これは攻撃者が開発者を標的とするための理想的なベクトルです。 このキャンペーンを特に革新的にしているのは、Pastebin型のデッドドロップリゾルバーの使用です。悪意のあるnpmパッケージは、Pastebinでホストされているテキストファイル内に隠されたC2インフラストラクチャに解決されます。 文字レベルの置換を適用することにより、攻撃者はC2 URLをエンコードしているため、無害なコンピュータサイエンスエッセイとして見えます。 これらのURLはインストール中にデコードされ、感染したマシンをVercelでホストされているドメインセットに誘導し、最終的にmacOS、Linux、Windowsを含むさまざまなプラットフォームにシェルペイロードをデプロイします。 ペイロードの主な機能は、リモートアクセストロイの木馬（RAT）と情報盗難ツールキットをデプロイすることです。 デプロイされると、情報盗難ツールは被害者のマシンからSSHキー、Git認証情報、ブラウザに保存されたシークレット、クリップボード内容を含む幅広い機密データを対象とします。 これは開発者を直接狙った多面的な攻撃であり、ペイロードは開発環境の重要な認証情報を盗みます。 実行時に、マルウェアは開発者環境を標的にするために設計された9モジュールの情報盗難ツールキットをダウンロードします。 モジュールには、SSHキーを流出させる、Gitリポジトリデータ、ブラウザ認証情報、暗号化ウォレット情報を盗む機能が含まれています。マルウェアはキーロガー、クリップボードスティーラー、およびソースコード内のシークレットを検出するためのTruffleHogスキャナーもデプロイしています。 盗まれた認証情報は攻撃者のC2サーバーに送信され、収集と流出が行われます。 FTP流出とファイル検索機能を含むこのツールキットの汎用性により、攻撃者は操作のさまざまな段階で機密データを継続的に収集できます。 直接的な認証情報盗難に加えて、キャンペーンはVSCode設定を介した継続的な感染の手法も採用しています。 ホワイトスペース操作を巧妙に使用することで、開発者がVSCodeでプロジェクトを開くたびにマルウェアが再実行され、感染を削除することが難しくなります。 このキャンペーンはFAMOUS CHOLLIMAの脅威アクターの特徴を示しており、Lazarus Groupと関連があり、暗号通貨とWeb3開発者を標的として知られています。 高度な回避技術とステガノグラフィの使用は、これらの攻撃者が操作を改善していることをさらに示しています。 組織と開発者は、依存関係を慎重に確認し、信頼できないパッケージのインストールを避けることを強くお勧めします。 翻訳元:

StegaBinという新しいサプライチェーン攻撃が、26個の悪質なnpmパッケージを通じてJavaScript開発者をターゲットにしており、これらのパッケージは一般的なオープンソースライブラリに見えますが、実際には認証情報を盗むマルチステージツールキットとリモートアクセストロイの木馬（RAT）を密かに展開しています。 このキャンペーンは北朝鮮に関連するFAMOUS CHOLLIMA脅威アクターにリンクされており、暗号通貨とWeb3開発者に対する以前の「Contagious Interview」操作から知られています。 SocketのAIベースの検出が、2026年2月25～26日に公開された26個のnpmパッケージにフラグを立てました。それぞれが一時的なアカウントからプッシュされ、express、fastify、lodash、uuid、ioredis、jsonwebtoken、mqtt、kafkajs、およびその他の広く使用されているプロジェクトのなりすましを行っており、いくつかの「-lint」テーマ型開発ツールのなりすましも含まれています。 正当に見えるようにし、すぐには破損を回避するために、悪質なパッケージは、なりすましている本物のライブラリを依存関係として宣言することさえあり、インストーラーがバックグラウンドで実行されている間、被害者のプロジェクトは引き続きビルドされます。 26個すべてのパッケージは、vendor/scrypt-js/version.jsにある単一の悪質なファイルを共有しており、scripts/test/install.jsを指すnpmインストールフックを介して実行されます。 StegaBinキャンペーン このローダーは高度に難読化されており、テキストステガノグラフィデコーダーを実装しており、無害に見えるコンピューターサイエンスエッセイを含む3つのPastebinペーストをプルし、その後、体系的に変更された文字から隠されたC2ドメインを抽出します。 デコードされた出力は、復元力のあるステージングインフラストラクチャとして使用される31個のVercelホスト型ドメインのリストであり、そのうち分析中にペイロードを実際に提供していたのは1つだけです。 詳細情報を発見 コンピュータセキュリティ 情報セキュリティ プライバシー保護技術 そこから、マルウェアは、オペレーティングシステムごとのプラットフォーム固有のシェルペイロードを取得します。macOSとWindowsではcurlベース、Linuxではwgetベースで、すべてVercel C2エンドポイント経由でルーティングされます。 トークンゲート型ブートストラップが、必要に応じてNode.jsとPythonをインストール、または更新し、追加のparser.jsエージェントと依存関係をダウンロードし、初期スクリプトのトレースをワイプする前にバックグラウンドで実行します。 parser.jsコンポーネントは、103[.]106[.]67[.]63:1244のバックエンドサーバーに接続するライトウェイトRATとして機能し、コマンドを待機し、フォローアップペイロードを調整します。 悪質なnpmパッケージ 侵害されたホストをシミュレートすることで、研究者はC2が開発者ワークステーション向けにカスタマイズされた9モジュールの情報窃盗ツールキットを配信していることを観察しました。VSCodeの永続性、キーロギングとクリップボード盗難、ブラウザの認証情報収集、TruffleHogベースのシークレットスキャン、GitおよびSSH流出、および永続性のためのStegaBinローダーの再デプロイなどが含まれています。 version.jsはRC4文字列暗号化、配列回転、自己防衛型アンチデバッグ、および制御フロー平坦化により高度に難読化されています。 あるモジュールは、186スペースのホワイトスペーストリックでVSCode tasks.jsonを悪用し、フォルダを開くたびにVercel C2を呼び出す悪質なコマンドを隠し、macOS、Linux、およびWindows上の感染を静かに再確立します。 その他は、クロスプラットフォームキーロギングとクリップボード監視、主要なChromiumおよびGeckoベースのブラウザのブラウザデータ盗難、暗号ウォレットとシードフレーズの体系的スキャン、およびSSHキー、Gitトークン、およびリポジトリの一括盗難を実装しています。 詳細情報を発見 パスワードマネージャー パスワードマネージャー セキュアVoIP電話 このツーリングは以前のContagious Interviewの波と密接に一致しており、FAMOUS CHOLLIMAおよび暗号通貨とWeb3開発者環境への焦点の帰属を強化しています。 組織は、StegaBinをDPRK npmサプライチェーン攻撃の高度な進化として扱い、依存関係の衛生を強化し、疑わしいPastebinおよびVercelトラフィックをできるだけブロックし、開発者エンドポイントで異常なnpmインストールフック、VSCodeタスク変更、および103[.]106[.]67[.]63および関連インフラストラクチャへのアウトバウンド接続を監視する必要があります。 翻訳元:

Blog com notícias sobre, Linux, Android, Segurança , etc

That way we don't have to sign everytime. Backend + Front end Update: Add jsonwebtoken crate for HS256 JWT generation and validation Create JWT service with token generation/validation methods Impl...

This implements #391, and I've tested it for compatibility with the JWTs that the AT Protocol codebase produces (it's a little complex on the node.js/javascript side, so I haven't inclu...

YouTube video by Philip Thomas

A full-stack JWT authentication demo with Express.js backend and React frontend, featuring secure token management, password hashing, and protected routes in a modern monorepo setup. - toruiw...

What's Changed Update launchpad hyperspace by @mtabacman in #16 Added Pharo 12 support Changed JSONWebToken dependency to load github://ba-st-dependencies/JSONWebToken Full Changelog: v3.0.0...v3...

For years, if you wanted to sign and verify JWTs in Node.js, your go-to library was `jsonwebtoken`. It’s simple, battle-tested, and still widely used. > But 2025 is not 2015. Security standards have evolved, so have our build tools, JavaScript runtimes, and cryptographic best practices. If you're still using `jsonwebtoken`, you're missing out on a **faster** , **more secure** , and **fully modern alternative** : `jose`. This post will explain why **`jose` should be your new default** and what makes it more suitable for modern development. ## What Is `jose`? `jose` is a modern implementation of the JOSE (JavaScript Object Signing and Encryption) standards. It supports: * JSON Web Tokens (JWT) * JSON Web Keys (JWK) * JSON Web Signature (JWS) * JSON Web Encryption (JWE) …and more, all using **native Web Crypto APIs** and with full support for **Node.js** , **browsers** , **TypeScript** , and **ESM**. Unlike `jsonwebtoken`, `jose` is not a legacy library. It's **actively maintained** , security-focused, and ready for the current JavaScript ecosystem. ## The Problems with `jsonwebtoken` While `jsonwebtoken` works, it comes with serious limitations: ### 1. No ESM Support If you're using ESM-only runtimes or bundlers (e.g., Vite, Bun, Deno), `jsonwebtoken` simply doesn't work out of the box. ### 2. Outdated Cryptography It relies on older crypto implementations and doesn't support modern algorithms like EdDSA or RSA-PSS. ### 3. Poor Maintenance While still popular, development is slow. Security patches happen, but new features are rare. ### 4. CommonJS + Callbacks The library still uses legacy patterns like callbacks and CommonJS modules, which don’t align with modern JavaScript projects. ## Why `jose` Is the Better Choice Here’s what makes `jose` stand out: ### ✅ Modern Algorithm Support Supports a wide range of cryptographic algorithms: * HMAC (`HS256`, `HS512`) * RSA (`RS256`, `PS512`) * ECDSA (`ES256`, `ES512`) * EdDSA (`Ed25519`) This gives you flexibility to adopt the best option for your use case. ### ✅ First-Class TypeScript Built with TypeScript from the ground up. You get intelligent autocompletion, type safety, and better DX. ### ✅ Fully ESM-Compatible Seamless integration with modern bundlers and runtimes. ### ✅ Works in the Browser Need to validate or sign a JWT on the frontend? `jose` works in the browser with the same API. ### ✅ Actively Maintained Created by panva, a trusted maintainer in the auth/crypto ecosystem. You can expect fast updates and solid security. ## Example: Signing and Verifying Tokens ### `jose` (Modern Way) import { SignJWT, jwtVerify } from 'jose' const secret = new TextEncoder().encode('super-secret') const token = await new SignJWT({ userId: 42 }) .setProtectedHeader({ alg: 'HS256' }) .setExpirationTime('1h') .sign(secret) const { payload } = await jwtVerify(token, secret) console.log(payload.userId) // 42 ### 🧓 `jsonwebtoken` (Legacy Way) import jwt from 'jsonwebtoken' const token = jwt.sign({ userId: 42 }, 'super-secret', { expiresIn: '1h' }) const payload = jwt.verify(token, 'super-secret') console.log(payload.userId) // 42 ## Migrating from `jsonwebtoken` to `jose` You can replace your usage in 2 steps: ### 1. Replace `sign` // jsonwebtoken jwt.sign(payload, secret, options) // jose await new SignJWT(payload) .setProtectedHeader({ alg: 'HS256' }) .setExpirationTime('1h') .sign(secret) ### 2. Replace `verify` // jsonwebtoken jwt.verify(token, secret) // jose const { payload } = await jwtVerify(token, secret) You’ll also need to convert your secret to a `Uint8Array` using `TextEncoder`. ## Real-World Use Cases for `jose` * Secure API authentication with JWTs * Stateless session tokens * OAuth2/OpenID Connect providers * Microservice-to-microservice token validation * Web Crypto-compatible browser JWT validation ## When You Might Still Use `jsonwebtoken` * You're working in a **legacy CommonJS** project. * You only need simple JWT signing and verification and don’t want to refactor. * You're limited to environments where installing `jose` isn't feasible. Even then, it’s wise to plan a migration eventually. ## TL;DR Feature | `jose` | `jsonwebtoken` ---|---|--- TypeScript Support | ✅ Native | ☑️ Partial ESM Support | ✅ Yes | ❌ No Browser Compatibility | ✅ Yes | ❌ No Algorithm Support | ✅ Broad (EdDSA, ES, PS, etc.) | ⚠️ Limited Maintenance | ✅ Active (Panva) | 💤 Slow Crypto Security | ✅ Uses native Web Crypto API | ⚠️ Custom crypto API Style | ✅ Promise-based, functional | ❌ Callback/Sync **Use`jose` if you're building modern apps.** **Keep`jsonwebtoken` if you're stuck with legacy code — but plan to migrate.** If you found this helpful, feel free to share or comment with your JWT migration experience! Let’s connect!!: 🤝 LinkedIn GitHub

pastebin.com #### https://pastebin.com/DhqQ0jdH This isnt the full code, as the entire code would just be alot to read and go out of the scope of what I am asking, I am using bcrypt, axum, axum-login and jsonwebtoken, is this so far a good attempt and authentication? I know I will probably need to impliment a sql backend but some direction on where to go from here or if there are any issues would be much appreicated. The goal of this is to impliment basic authentication so the login page can be accessed, and upon accessing it, you are given a JWT, which hopefully axum_login can handle, and lets you have access to the rest of the pages as long as that JWT is present in the header or however axum_login handles it