github-starred/better-auth
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth.git synced 2026-05-24 16:11:53 -05:00
Code Issues 2.5k Packages Projects Releases 112 Wiki Activity

[GH-ISSUE #4125] oauth2 basic auth-header #18468

New Issue
Closed
opened 2026-04-15 16:55:34 -05:00 by GiteaMirror · 2 comments
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-15 16:55:34 -05:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @CodeWithAlexander on GitHub (Aug 21, 2025).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/issues/4125

Is this suited for github?

  • Yes, this is suited for github

To Reproduce

  1. Send a refresh token request a Generic OAuth provider.
  2. Observe the error: invalid-authorization-header.

Current vs. Expected behavior

Currently when I try to refresh the OAuth token I am getting invalid headers as a response, note this wasn't happening on older versions of better-auth.
not sure why the authentication scheme was removed from the headers

What version of Better Auth are you using?

1.3.4

System info

System:
    OS: Windows 11 10.0.26100
    CPU: (16) x64 AMD Ryzen 7 5700U with Radeon Graphics
    Memory: 2.23 GB / 15.33 GB
  Browsers:
    Edge: Chromium (139.0.3405.102)
    Internet Explorer: 11.0.26100.1882

Which area(s) are affected? (Select all that apply)

Package, Backend

Auth config (if applicable)

import { betterAuth } from "better-auth"
export const auth = betterAuth({
  emailAndPassword: {  
    enabled: true
  },
});

Additional context

No response

Originally created by @CodeWithAlexander on GitHub (Aug 21, 2025). Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/issues/4125 ### Is this suited for github? - [x] Yes, this is suited for github ### To Reproduce 1. Send a refresh token request a Generic OAuth provider. 2. Observe the error: invalid-authorization-header. ### Current vs. Expected behavior Currently when I try to refresh the OAuth token I am getting invalid headers as a response, note this wasn't happening on older versions of better-auth. not sure why the authentication scheme was removed from the headers ### What version of Better Auth are you using? 1.3.4 ### System info ```bash System: OS: Windows 11 10.0.26100 CPU: (16) x64 AMD Ryzen 7 5700U with Radeon Graphics Memory: 2.23 GB / 15.33 GB Browsers: Edge: Chromium (139.0.3405.102) Internet Explorer: 11.0.26100.1882 ``` ### Which area(s) are affected? (Select all that apply) Package, Backend ### Auth config (if applicable) ```typescript import { betterAuth } from "better-auth" export const auth = betterAuth({ emailAndPassword: { enabled: true }, }); ``` ### Additional context _No response_
GiteaMirror added the locked label 2026-04-15 16:55:34 -05:00
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-15 16:55:36 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@dosubot[bot] commented on GitHub (Aug 21, 2025):

Hi @CodeWithAlexander! I'm Dosu and I’m helping the better-auth team.

This is a regression in Better Auth v1.3.4: the refresh token request's Authorization header is missing the required Basic prefix, which most OAuth2 providers (including GitHub) expect. The code currently sets the header to just the base64-encoded credentials, but omits the prefix, causing the invalid-authorization-header error you’re seeing [source].

Workaround:
If you can patch your local install, update the refreshAccessToken function in packages/better-auth/src/oauth2/refresh-access-token.ts so that when using "basic" authentication, it sets the header like this:

headers["authorization"] = "Basic " + base64.encode(`${options.clientId}:${options.clientSecret ?? ""}`);

This matches the correct behavior (and what the code does for the authorization code flow). Until an official fix lands, this patch will restore compatibility with providers expecting the standard OAuth2 header format [source].

No config change will fix this; it requires the code patch above.

To reply, just mention @dosu.

How did I do? Good | Irrelevant | Incorrect | Verbose | Hallucination | Report 🐛 | Other  Chat with Dosu Join Discord Share on X

<!-- gh-comment-id:3211025172 --> @dosubot[bot] commented on GitHub (Aug 21, 2025): <!-- Greeting --> Hi @CodeWithAlexander! I'm [Dosu](https://go.dosu.dev/dosubot) and I’m helping the better-auth team. <!-- Answer --> This is a regression in Better Auth v1.3.4: the refresh token request's Authorization header is missing the required `Basic ` prefix, which most OAuth2 providers (including GitHub) expect. The code currently sets the header to just the base64-encoded credentials, but omits the prefix, causing the `invalid-authorization-header` error you’re seeing [[source](https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/pull/3824)]. **Workaround:** If you can patch your local install, update the `refreshAccessToken` function in `packages/better-auth/src/oauth2/refresh-access-token.ts` so that when using `"basic"` authentication, it sets the header like this: ```ts headers["authorization"] = "Basic " + base64.encode(`${options.clientId}:${options.clientSecret ?? ""}`); ``` This matches the correct behavior (and what the code does for the authorization code flow). Until an official fix lands, this patch will restore compatibility with providers expecting the standard OAuth2 header format [[source](https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/pull/3846)]. No config change will fix this; it requires the code patch above. <!-- Dosu Comment Footer --> *To reply, just mention [@dosu](https://go.dosu.dev/dosubot).* --- <sup>How did I do? [Good](https://app.dosu.dev/response-feedback/05c61e69-ba27-4f60-a4c4-4f1e06839c7e?feedback_type=great_response) | [Irrelevant](https://app.dosu.dev/response-feedback/05c61e69-ba27-4f60-a4c4-4f1e06839c7e?feedback_type=irrelevant_answer) | [Incorrect](https://app.dosu.dev/response-feedback/05c61e69-ba27-4f60-a4c4-4f1e06839c7e?feedback_type=incorrect_sources) | [Verbose](https://app.dosu.dev/response-feedback/05c61e69-ba27-4f60-a4c4-4f1e06839c7e?feedback_type=too_verbose) | [Hallucination](https://app.dosu.dev/response-feedback/05c61e69-ba27-4f60-a4c4-4f1e06839c7e?feedback_type=hallucination) | [Report 🐛](https://app.dosu.dev/response-feedback/05c61e69-ba27-4f60-a4c4-4f1e06839c7e?feedback_type=bug_report) | [Other](https://app.dosu.dev/response-feedback/05c61e69-ba27-4f60-a4c4-4f1e06839c7e?feedback_type=other)</sup>&nbsp;&nbsp;[![Chat with Dosu](https://dosu.dev/dosu-chat-badge.svg)](https://app.dosu.dev/cdda13d9-dd27-4d31-b09a-5d8bec92de21/ask?utm_source=github)&nbsp;[![Join Discord](https://img.shields.io/badge/join-5865F2?logo=discord&logoColor=white&label=)](https://go.dosu.dev/discord-bot)&nbsp;[![Share on X](https://img.shields.io/badge/X-share-black)](https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=%40dosu_ai%20helped%20me%20solve%20this%20issue!&url=https%3A//github.com/better-auth/better-auth/issues/4125)
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-15 16:55:36 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@himself65 commented on GitHub (Aug 21, 2025):

Can you show the minimal reproducing code? how did you send the reqeust to the backend?

<!-- gh-comment-id:3211065605 --> @himself65 commented on GitHub (Aug 21, 2025): Can you show the minimal reproducing code? how did you send the reqeust to the backend?
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 locked
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#18468
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?