feat(deps): bump github.com/lestrrat-go/jwx/v2 from 2.0.11 to 2.0.18

[dependabot]

Bumps github.com/lestrrat-go/jwx/v2 from 2.0.11 to 2.0.18.

Release notes

Sourced from github.com/lestrrat-go/jwx/v2's releases.

v2.0.18

v2.0.18 03 Dec 2023
[Security Fixes]
  * [jwe] A large number in p2c parameter for PBKDF2 based encryptions could cause a DoS attack,
    similar to https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-36083.  All users who use JWE via this
    package should upgrade. While the JOSE spec allows for encryption using JWE on JWTs, users of
    the `jwt` package are not immediately susceptible unless they explicitly try to decrypt
    JWTs -- by default the `jwt` package verifies signatures, but does not decrypt messages.
    [GHSA-7f9x-gw85-8grf]

v2.0.17

v2.0.17 20 Nov 2023
[Bug Fixes]
  * [jws] Previously, `jws.UnregisterSigner` did not remove the previous signer instance when
    the signer was registered and unregistered multiple times ([#1016](https://github.com/lestrrat-go/jwx/issues/1016)). This has been fixed.
[New Features]

[jwe] (EXPERIMENTAL) jwe.WithCEK has been added to extract the content encryption key (CEK) from the Decrypt operation.
[jwe] (EXPERIMENTAL) jwe.EncryptStatic has been added to encrypt content using a static CEK.
Using static CEKs has serious security implications, and you should not use
this unless you completely understand the risks involved.

v2.0.16

v2.0.16 31 Oct 2023
[Security]
  * [jws] ECDSA signature verification requires us to check if the signature
    is of the desired length of bytes, but this check that used to exist before
    had been removed in [#65](https://github.com/lestrrat-go/jwx/issues/65), resulting in certain malformed signatures to pass
    verification.
One of the ways this could happen if R is a 31 byte integer and S is 32 byte integer,
both containing the correct signature values, but R is not zero-padded.
Correct = R: [ 0 , ... ] (32 bytes) S: [ ... ] (32 bytes)

Wrong   = R: [ ... ] (31 bytes)     S: [ ... ] (32 bytes)
In order for this check to pass, you would still need to have all 63 bytes

populated with the correct signature. The only modification a bad actor

may be able to do is to add one more byte at the end, in which case the

first 32 bytes (including what would have been S's first byte) is used for R,

and S would contain the rest. But this will only result in the verification to

fail. Therefore this in itself should not pose any security risk, albeit

allowing some illegally formated messages to be verified.



[jwk] jwk.Key objects now have a Validate() method to validate the data
</tr></table>

... (truncated)

Changelog

Sourced from github.com/lestrrat-go/jwx/v2's changelog.

v2.0.18 03 Dec 2023 [Security Fixes]

• [jwe] A large number in p2c parameter for PBKDF2 based encryptions could cause a DoS attack, similar to https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-36083. All users who use JWE via this package should upgrade. While the JOSE spec allows for encryption using JWE on JWTs, users of the jwt package are not immediately susceptible unless they explicitly try to decrypt JWTs -- by default the jwt package verifies signatures, but does not decrypt messages. [GHSA-7f9x-gw85-8grf]

v2.0.17 20 Nov 2023 [Bug Fixes]

• [jws] Previously, jws.UnregisterSigner did not remove the previous signer instance when the signer was registered and unregistered multiple times (#1016). This has been fixed.

[New Features]

• [jwe] (EXPERIMENTAL) jwe.WithCEK has been added to extract the content encryption key (CEK) from the Decrypt operation.
• [jwe] (EXPERIMENTAL) jwe.EncryptStatic has been added to encrypt content using a static CEK. Using static CEKs has serious security implications, and you should not use this unless you completely understand the risks involved.

v2.0.16 31 Oct 2023 [Security]

• [jws] ECDSA signature verification requires us to check if the signature is of the desired length of bytes, but this check that used to exist before had been removed in #65, resulting in certain malformed signatures to pass verification.

  One of the ways this could happen if R is a 31 byte integer and S is 32 byte integer, both containing the correct signature values, but R is not zero-padded.

  Correct = R: [ 0 , ... ] (32 bytes) S: [ ... ] (32 bytes) Wrong = R: [ ... ] (31 bytes) S: [ ... ] (32 bytes)

  In order for this check to pass, you would still need to have all 63 bytes populated with the correct signature. The only modification a bad actor may be able to do is to add one more byte at the end, in which case the first 32 bytes (including what would have been S's first byte) is used for R, and S would contain the rest. But this will only result in the verification to fail. Therefore this in itself should not pose any security risk, albeit allowing some illegally formated messages to be verified.

• [jwk] jwk.Key objects now have a Validate() method to validate the data stored in the keys. However, this still does not necessarily mean that the key's are valid for use in cryptographic operations. If Validate() is successful, it only means that the keys are in the right format, including the presence of required fields and that certain fields have proper length, etc.

[New Features]

• [jws] Added jws.WithValidateKey() to force calling key.Validate() before signing or verification.

... (truncated)

Commits

• e75b7c8 v2.0.18 (#1022)
• c02af3e v2.0.17 (#1019)
• 3e23a27 Merge branch 'develop/v2' into v2
• 1f04380 Update Changes
• 16acb8b Fix ParseInsecure to parse the token even when a key is given (#1008)
• 2ee2c13 Slightly tweak docs (#1010)
• d93668b fix typo (#1009)
• 1e3b478 Add (jwk.Key).Validate (#1005)
• 1ecc78f [jws] check signature length (#1004)
• 8074e35 merge for v2.0.15 (#998)
• Additional commits viewable in compare view

Dependabot will resolve any conflicts with this PR as long as you don't alter it yourself. You can also trigger a rebase manually by commenting @dependabot rebase.

---

Dependabot commands and options

You can trigger Dependabot actions by commenting on this PR:

• @dependabot rebase will rebase this PR
• @dependabot recreate will recreate this PR, overwriting any edits that have been made to it
• @dependabot merge will merge this PR after your CI passes on it
• @dependabot squash and merge will squash and merge this PR after your CI passes on it
• @dependabot cancel merge will cancel a previously requested merge and block automerging
• @dependabot reopen will reopen this PR if it is closed
• @dependabot close will close this PR and stop Dependabot recreating it. You can achieve the same result by closing it manually
• @dependabot show <dependency name> ignore conditions will show all of the ignore conditions of the specified dependency
• @dependabot ignore this major version will close this PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for this major version (unless you reopen the PR or upgrade to it yourself)
• @dependabot ignore this minor version will close this PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for this minor version (unless you reopen the PR or upgrade to it yourself)
• @dependabot ignore this dependency will close this PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for this dependency (unless you reopen the PR or upgrade to it yourself)
  You can disable automated security fix PRs for this repo from the Security Alerts page.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (109ef61) 63.86% compared to head (07b421f) 63.86%.
Report is 20 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #164   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   63.86%   63.86%           
=======================================
  Files          24       24           
  Lines        1118     1118           
=======================================
  Hits          714      714           
  Misses        389      389           
  Partials       15       15           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	63.86% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.