github-starred/better-auth
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth.git synced 2026-05-23 07:18:56 -05:00
Code Issues 2.5k Packages Projects Releases 112 Wiki Activity

Please update the official documentation to avoid security issues #1360

New Issue
Closed
opened 2026-03-13 08:34:50 -05:00 by GiteaMirror · 5 comments
GiteaMirror commented 2026-03-13 08:34:50 -05:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @sovetski on GitHub (Jun 15, 2025).

For me, the code and information provided here is not complete: https://www.better-auth.com/docs/integrations/next#middleware

This code is not secure:

const sessionCookie = getSessionCookie(request);

if (!sessionCookie) {
	return NextResponse.redirect(new URL("/", request.url));
}

I know that we have this information:

it's recommended to only check for the existence of a session cookie to handle redirection

But the problem is that many developers will just ignore this kind of text and will think your provided code will protect their application. And if we want to acces to the restricted pages, we can just bypass the middleware by adding manually a cookie named better-auth.session_token with a random value. I think the documentation with the current version can be a source of many security related issues, especially for the websites developed by junior developers (or AI agent)

I recommend that you add a warning here, to say "you have to protect your application and the code above is not secure"

Image

Or you can just provide a secure code example?

Originally created by @sovetski on GitHub (Jun 15, 2025). For me, the code and information provided here is not complete: https://www.better-auth.com/docs/integrations/next#middleware This code is not secure: ```js const sessionCookie = getSessionCookie(request); if (!sessionCookie) { return NextResponse.redirect(new URL("/", request.url)); } ``` I know that we have this information: > it's recommended to only check for the existence of a session cookie to handle redirection But the problem is that many developers will just ignore this kind of text and will think your provided code will protect their application. And if we want to acces to the restricted pages, we can just bypass the middleware by adding manually a cookie named `better-auth.session_token` with a random value. I think the documentation with the current version can be a source of many security related issues, especially for the websites developed by junior developers (or AI agent) I recommend that you add a warning here, to say "you have to protect your application and the code above is not secure" ![Image](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/0c97c4d4-5b22-4eb1-8c31-c4264f59ec84) Or you can just provide a secure code example?
GiteaMirror added the securitydocumentation labels 2026-03-13 08:34:50 -05:00
GiteaMirror commented 2026-03-13 08:34:51 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@kylegillen commented on GitHub (Jun 15, 2025):

Could someone point me to a secure implementation example?

@kylegillen commented on GitHub (Jun 15, 2025): Could someone point me to a secure implementation example?
GiteaMirror commented 2026-03-13 08:34:52 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@de-mawo commented on GitHub (Jun 21, 2025):

Also waiting for a secure implementation of this

@de-mawo commented on GitHub (Jun 21, 2025): Also waiting for a secure implementation of this
GiteaMirror commented 2026-03-13 08:34:53 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@ping-maxwell commented on GitHub (Jun 22, 2025):

Hey guys, I'll open a PR addressing this issue.

In regards of an example implementation of checking for a secure session per page/route:

Image

cc. @kylegillen @de-mawo

@ping-maxwell commented on GitHub (Jun 22, 2025): Hey guys, I'll open a PR addressing this issue. In regards of an example implementation of checking for a secure session per page/route: <img width="874" alt="Image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/29cda3df-40bd-4f28-a5f1-560496a9fff5" /> cc. @kylegillen @de-mawo
GiteaMirror commented 2026-03-13 08:34:53 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@ping-maxwell commented on GitHub (Jun 22, 2025):

https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/pull/3135

@ping-maxwell commented on GitHub (Jun 22, 2025): https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/pull/3135
GiteaMirror commented 2026-03-13 08:34:54 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@TimurBas commented on GitHub (Jul 22, 2025):

@ping-maxwell can be closed as #3135 is merged to main branch.

@TimurBas commented on GitHub (Jul 22, 2025): @ping-maxwell can be closed as #3135 is merged to main branch.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
adapter
astro
awaiting external contributor
blocked
breaking
breaking change
bug
c-devops
core
credentials
database
dependencies
devops
devtools
docs
documentation
duplicate
elysia
enhancement
enterprise
expo
express
fastify
good first issue
help wanted
hono
identity
infra
integration
invalid
javascript
locked
maintenance
need-more-information
needs: info
needs: repro
nextjs
nuxt
oauth
organization
P0
payments
perf
platform
plugin
pull-request
Mirrored from GitHub Pull Request
 question
ready
regression
remix
security
social-provider
solid
stale
svelte
tanstack-start
tracking
version-bump
vue
wontfix
No Label documentation security
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
GiteaMirror ninjasurge
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: github-starred/better-auth#1360
Delete Branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?