Re: TomEE 11 - Examples & MP JWT TCK Failures with CXF 4.2.0

Thanks for your answer, David!

Actually, the commit in CXF is this one: =
https://github.com/apache/cxf/pull/2807/changes#diff-eddf423fac99200bd14e1=
15467dc35809e1855cefdf3bae77f9394b8c050fc94L419 with a totally different =
message "CXF-9116: Remove org.apache.cxf.feature.LoggingFeature=E2=80=9C =
- don=E2=80=99t think removing logging should lead to a behavior change. =
Reta from CXF did comment in his PR for the logging feature removal for =
this change. The following

"some refactoring here: a number of cxf-*-security tests were failing =
due to logging change: apparently when DefaultLogEventMapper is called, =
the underlying HTTP request is already recycled and fails with NPE =
(https://github.com/jetty/jetty.project/issues/12080 ). To mitigate =
that, at least for getUserPrincipal() - capturing principal early.=E2=80=9C=


So I think the change was introduced because of test failures in Jetty - =
I will leave a ping to our thread there, so we might get some thoughts =
by Reta :)

Gru=C3=9F
Richard=20


> Am 17.02.2026 um 18:52 schrieb David Blevins =
<[email protected]>:
>=20
> Thanks for all this detail.   I don't recall the default in MP JWT off =
the top of my head.  Would need to consult the spec, possibly TCK if the =
spec didn't have a clear answer.  Note if the spec isn't clear, let me =
know and I'll update it once we find the answer.
>=20
> I can confirm that calling and caching getPrincipal before an HTTP =
request is read is not valid for any HTTP-based security mechanism; =
basic auth, digest auth, jwt, http session based, soap security, etc, =
etc.  It rules out everything except SSL/TLS certificate-based client =
authentication, which is connection based.
>=20
> Even if they waited till the HTTP message was read and cached for the =
duration of just the request, that's still not really possible because =
of these methods:
>=20
> - HttpServletRequest.login(String username, String password);
> - HttpServletRequest.logout();
> - HttpServletRequest.authenticate(HttpServletResponse response);
>=20
> What they actually do, if anything at all, is completely dependent on =
the underlying security framework.  As is the concept of how long a =
security identity lasts during a request.
>=20
> Sounds like a situation where someone is using security framework X =
which is slow, so some well-intentioned code got added that ultimately =
isn't valid outside of that exact user's scenario.
>=20
> Here's how I would approach resolving this:
>=20
> - Find the commit that added the caching
>    - The commit message might tell on itself (x system is slow so =
let's cache)
>    - Figure out how they imagined the caching would work: when things =
are removed, added, and in what scope they imagined the cached value was =
valid (request, session, connection, globally).
>=20
> - Analyze a stack trace of the first getPrincipal that's cached.  =
Figure out how we possibly got there as it's not valid.  Even if caching =
is removed, you still can't call getPrincipal without an HTTP request, =
so this has to be solved and fixed.
>=20
>=20
> -David
>=20
>> On Feb 17, 2026, at 6:18=E2=80=AFAM, Richard Zowalla =
<[email protected]> wrote:
>>=20
>> I believe the actual issue is related to the caching mechanism in =
CXF's updated code. Due to this caching, the token validation now =
happens as soon as getPrincipal() is called, which occurs much earlier =
in CXF 4.2.0 than in previous versions.
>>=20
>> As a result, our current TomEE code fails because at that point in =
the request lifecycle, no Authorization header may be present (e.g., for =
@PermitAll endpoints), and the token validation simply fails.
>>=20
>> Additionally, I couldn't find clear guidance in the MP JWT =
specification regarding the default behavior for non-annotated JAX-RS =
methods, i.e., methods without @RolesAllowed, @PermitAll, or @DenyAll.
>>=20
>> It appears this may be vendor-specific. Should the default be:
>>   =E2=80=A2 @PermitAll (allow unauthenticated access)?
>>   =E2=80=A2 @DenyAll (require authentication)?
>>   =E2=80=A2 Something else?
>>=20
>> Gru=C3=9F
>> Richard
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>> Am 17.02.2026 um 14:54 schrieb Richard Zowalla <[email protected]>:
>>>=20
>>> Hi all,
>>>=20
>>> Due to a change in CXF 4.2.0 [1], specifically caching the principal =
instead of looking it up on demand, we are seeing several test failures =
in the MP JWT area - I am now wondering if this a thing CXF needs to =
address or if we need to update our integration. For this reason and =
after some debugging, I would like to get some additional context from =
the past regarding the architecture of our CXF/MP JWT integration :)
>>>=20
>>> The failure in question can be reproduced by running =
OrderTest#shouldBeRunning() from the main branch in =
examples/mp-rest-jwt-principal, or by executing parts of the MP JWT TCK, =
which are also failing.
>>>=20
>>> The test calls an endpoint that, according to the test assumptions, =
shouldn=E2=80=99t be protected. It passes on TomEE 10 / CXF 4.1.5 (which =
does not cache the principal). The relevant code on our side is mainly =
in MPJWTFilter, especially the MPJWTServletRequestWrapper and its use of =
validate(=E2=80=A6).
>>>=20
>>> Since I=E2=80=99m not an active MP JWT user, I have some (maybe =
dumb?) questions:
>>>=20
>>> According to [2], an application annotated with =
@LoginConfig(authMethod =3D "MP-JWT") requires MP-JWT Access Control =
(potentially for all endpoints?).
>>>=20
>>> If that is the case, the status() method of OrderRestin =
https://github.com/apache/tomee/blob/main/examples/mp-rest-jwt-principal/s=
rc/main/java/org/superbiz/store/rest/OrderRest.java should require a =
JWT, no?
>>>=20
>>> However, we don=E2=80=99t add a token to the REST client in =
https://github.com/apache/tomee/blob/main/examples/mp-rest-jwt-principal/s=
rc/test/java/org/superbiz/store/OrderRestClient.java#L35, so the request =
is sent without a bearer token and fails with a 401.=20
>>>=20
>>> This worked on TomEE 10 / CXF 4.1.5 and earlier.
>>>=20
>>> I suspect some MP JWT TCK failures are caused by the same issue. See =
the build here: =
https://ci-builds.apache.org/job/TomEe/job/master-build-full/org.apache.to=
mee$microprofile-jwt-tck/2071/
>>>=20
>>> Question:
>>>=20
>>> What is the expected behavior? =46rom my reading of the spec, it =
seems this endpoint shouldn=E2=80=99t be invocable without a valid =
token?
>>>=20
>>> Could anyone with more experience in this area (David, JL, anyone?) =
provide some insight?
>>>=20
>>> Thanks and Gru=C3=9F
>>> Richard
>>>=20
>>> [1] =
https://github.com/apache/cxf/pull/2807/changes#diff-eddf423fac99200bd14e1=
15467dc35809e1855cefdf3bae77f9394b8c050fc94L419
>>> [2] =
https://download.eclipse.org/microprofile/microprofile-jwt-auth-2.1/microp=
rofile-jwt-auth-spec-2.1.html#_marking_a_jax_rs_application_as_requiring_m=
p_jwt_access_control
>>>=20
>>=20
>=20
>=20