Posts made by FASupportBot

Load testing FusionAuth typically involves using a modern tool like k6 to simulate your expected traffic patterns. Here's the general approach:

1. Use k6 or other HTTP-capable load testing tools: While k6 is a good modern option, FusionAuth can be load tested with any HTTP-capable load testing tool such as Gatling, JMeter, or Locust. FusionAuth also provides an open source load testing repository with pre-built scenarios including creating tenants and applications, registering users, logging users in via the Login API, and full Authorization Code grant flows.

2. Profile your traffic: Use your load testing tool to determine what your actual traffic patterns will look like, especially accounting for your spiky demand. This helps you understand the load FusionAuth will need to handle. Look beyond just averages—also check the p95 (95th percentile) response time to understand the experience of your slowest users.

3. Test in a production-like environment: It's critical to load test against an environment that mirrors your expected production setup. If you're using FusionAuth Cloud, the Basic Cloud tier (single node running FusionAuth, Elasticsearch, and PostgreSQL together) is not representative and not recommended for load testing. Instead, use a Business Cloud or High-Availability plan for meaningful load testing. You can spin up an HA instance, run your tests, and tear it down—you'll only be charged for the time it's running.

4. Notify FusionAuth if testing on Cloud: If you're load testing on FusionAuth Cloud, open a support ticket to let the team know when you plan to stress test, as they monitor CPU and other metrics.

5. Monitor the right components: Performance bottlenecks are typically the database or CPU nodes. Both logins and user creation are CPU-intensive due to password hashing. If testing a multi-node system behind a load balancer, disable sticky sessions as they are not required for FusionAuth.

6. IP allowlisting considerations: If you're using FusionAuth Cloud, you may need to consider IP allowlisting depending on your security configuration. FusionAuth Cloud has protections in place to prevent DoS attacks and keep services running smoothly.

The specific approach can vary based on your exact traffic patterns and requirements, but these are the key components most customers use when load testing FusionAuth.

Related Documentation

• Load Test Documentation - Comprehensive guide on load testing FusionAuth, including tool recommendations and best practices
• FusionAuth Load Tests GitHub Repository - Open source load testing scripts with pre-built scenarios
• Handling Spiky Game Traffic: Registration & Autoscaling Best Practices - Specific guidance for handling spiky traffic patterns during high-demand scenarios
• FusionAuth Cloud High Availability Architecture - Details on HA deployment options for production-like testing
• FusionAuth Cloud Security - Information about Cloud security protections and rate limiting
• Troubleshooting Performance - Guide for troubleshooting performance issues
• Scaling Your Auth - Best Practices for Performance and Security - General guidance on scaling authentication systems

We need to include FusionAuth in our regular performance testing to handle very spiky demand patterns in our application. This is a requirement before we can scale up in production and will be an ongoing need. What guidance can you provide on how to best approach load testing FusionAuth in our test environments?

Yes, you can use your FusionAuth licenses across multiple environments, but you should use the appropriate license type for each:

License Structure

In your account portal at account.fusionauth.io, you should see two licenses:

1. Production License — use this for your production environment only
2. Non-Production License — use this for your dev and staging environments

Best Practice

• Deploy the Non-Production license to your dev and staging instances
• Deploy the Production license to your production instance

Both licenses can be active simultaneously across different deployments without conflict. The license key itself is tied to your account and does not interfere with your managed FusionAuth Cloud setup when used in self-hosted deployments.

Important Notes

• The non-production license can be used across as many non-production environments as you need — dev, staging, QA, UAT, CI/CD, or even individual developer local instances. There's no limit on the number of instances using the non-production key.

• Do not use the production license on non-production environments — this would cause test logins to count toward your Monthly Active Users (MAU) and affect your billing.

• License costs are not based on the number of instances — whether you have 1, 2, or 100 instances, the license cost is related only to your plan tier and MAU count.

• Using self-hosted licenses won't affect your FusionAuth Cloud deployment — the licenses operate independently, so activating your license keys on self-hosted instances will not disrupt your existing managed environment.

Related Documentation

• Licensing Documentation — Overview of FusionAuth licensing concepts
• License FAQ: Non-Production Licenses — Details on using licenses for dev/QA/UAT servers
• License FAQ: Multiple Deployments — How license costs work with multiple instances
• Account Portal Documentation — Where to find your license keys
• Cloud vs Self-Hosted — Comparison of hosting options

I am migrating from FusionAuth Cloud to a self-hosted deployment. I have successfully set up a new cluster and imported the database from the managed environment.

In the self-hosted FusionAuth instance, I see an option to add a license key. When I check my account portal at account.fusionauth.io, I see a primary license key.

Questions:

• Can I use this same license key in parallel across multiple environments (dev, staging, production)?
• Will using the key in my self-hosted deployment impact or conflict with the existing managed FusionAuth setup?

I want to ensure I don't accidentally disrupt the current managed environment while setting up the new self-hosted instances.

The act claim was reserved in FusionAuth 1.70.0 because it is defined in RFC 8693 (OAuth 2.0 Token Exchange) as a standard claim representing the "actor" in delegated token scenarios. FusionAuth began enforcing this reservation to ensure compliance with the RFC and prevent conflicts with the claim's intended usage in token exchange flows.

Why This Is Classified as Minor

FusionAuth follows semantic versioning, and this change was classified as minor rather than breaking because:

• The act claim is a standardized RFC claim with a specific defined purpose
• Using non-standard values in RFC-defined claims can cause interoperability issues with other OAuth/OIDC systems
• The change aligns FusionAuth's behavior with industry standards

However, the lack of logging when a reserved claim is silently discarded is a valid concern and makes troubleshooting difficult.

Recommended Solutions

1. Use a Custom Claim Namespace

Instead of using act directly, use a namespaced custom claim that won't conflict with RFC-defined claims:

// In your JWT populate lambda
jwt['https://yourapp.com/actor'] = 'your-actor-id';

This approach is standard practice in OAuth/OIDC and prevents future collisions with reserved claims.

2. Use applicationId or Other Non-Reserved Claims

If the actor represents an application or service account, consider using the built-in applicationId claim or another custom claim that describes your specific use case (e.g., actorId, serviceAccountId).

Why Reserved Claims Cannot Be Overridden

Reserved claims like act, sub, iss, aud, etc., are protected because they have specific meanings defined by RFCs and must maintain consistent behavior for:

• Interoperability: Other systems expect these claims to have specific formats and meanings
• Security: Claims like iss and aud are critical for token validation and cannot be arbitrarily changed
• Standards Compliance: FusionAuth aims to be a standards-compliant identity provider

Migration Path

If you're currently using act in production:

1. Update your JWT populate lambda to use a namespaced custom claim
2. Update your application to read from the new claim name
3. Test thoroughly in a non-production environment before upgrading

If you need to maintain backward compatibility during migration, you could temporarily set both claims in your lambda (the custom namespaced one and attempt to set act, knowing it will be discarded) and update your application to check for both, prioritizing the custom claim.

---

Related Documentation

• JWT Populate Lambda - Documentation on customizing JWT claims with lambdas
• Client Credentials JWT Populate Lambda - Documentation for lambdas in the Client Credentials grant
• OAuth Token Exchange (RFC 8693) - FusionAuth's implementation of RFC 8693, which defines the act claim
• FusionAuth 1.70.0 Release Notes - Release notes for version 1.70.0
• FusionAuth 1.70 Announcement: Token Exchange - Blog post explaining the new token exchange feature and scoped delegation
• GitHub Issue #1721: JWT claim overriding, namespacing or the ability to unreserve claims - Open issue discussing the ability to override or unreserve claims

Additional Context on Reserved Claims

As of FusionAuth 1.70.0, the following claims are reserved in JWT Populate Lambdas and cannot be modified:

• act (added in 1.70.0)
• amr
• auth_time
• authenticationType
• cnf
• fa_uid
• gty
• iat
• sub
• tid
• tty

Note: The exp claim can be lowered (shortened) but not extended or removed.

For other lambda types (Client Credentials, UserInfo, Token Exchange), different sets of reserved claims apply. Always use namespaced custom claims (e.g., https://example.com/my-claim) to avoid conflicts with current or future reserved claims.

After upgrading to FusionAuth 1.70.0, a JWT populate lambda that was previously setting the act claim now silently fails. The lambda executes successfully, but the act claim is discarded without any warning or error log.

The application had been using act to represent the actor while maintaining internal user IDs (since sub cannot be overridden). This worked fine in earlier versions, but after upgrading to 1.70.0, the claim is no longer present in the JWT, breaking authentication.

Questions:

1. Why was act made a reserved claim in 1.70.0?
2. Is there any way to override reserved claims or disable this behavior?
3. Why is there no warning log when FusionAuth discards a reserved claim set by a lambda?
4. How is this considered a minor change rather than a breaking change when it silently breaks existing implementations?

This pattern seems risky — any claim name in use today could become reserved in a future RFC, causing working implementations to fail after an upgrade with no visibility into what changed.

This is a confirmed bug in FusionAuth 1.69.2. The issue is in how FusionAuth validates the origin from clientDataJSON during WebAuthn registration.

This has been fixed and will be released in the next release. Subscribe to the release announcements to be notified when that happens.

After upgrading FusionAuth from 1.55.x to 1.69.2, WebAuthn passkey registration is failing for a native Android application using Credential Manager.

Setup

• FusionAuth Server: 1.69.2
• WebAuthn workflow: reauthentication
• Relying Party ID: a web domain (e.g., dashboard.example.com)
• Android implementation: Credential Manager API
• Digital Asset Links configured correctly between the web domain and Android app

The Problem

When completing registration via POST /api/webauthn/register/complete, FusionAuth returns HTTP 400:

{
  "statusCode": 400,
  "exception": {
    "fieldErrors": {
      "origin": [
        {
          "code": "[invalid]origin",
          "message": "The [origin] property is not valid. The provided value must match the value returned by the authenticator. Expected [android:apk-key-hash:<certificate-hash>] but found [dashboard.example.com]."
        }
      ]
    }
  }
}

The Android Credential Manager produces an origin in the clientDataJSON with the format:

android:apk-key-hash:<base64url-sha256-of-signing-certificate>

This is the standard Android format and cannot be modified by the application. FusionAuth 1.69.2 appears to validate this origin against the web RP domain and rejects it.

What Changed

Before 1.69.0, the implementation supplied top-level origin and rpId fields when completing registration. According to the current documentation, these fields are deprecated and ignored starting with 1.69.0. The new implementation now passes only:

await fusionAuthClient.completeWebAuthnRegistration({
  userId,
  credential,
});

FusionAuth now reads the origin directly from the signed clientDataJSON and validates it strictly. While this is correct from a security perspective, it doesn't recognize the Android APK hash format as a valid origin associated with the configured web RP through Digital Asset Links.

Questions

1. Does FusionAuth 1.69.2 support passkey registration and authentication initiated directly from a native Android application using Credential Manager?
2. Does the new relying-party validation support origins in the android:apk-key-hash:<certificate-hash> format?
3. Is there a tenant or application setting where trusted Android APK origins can be allowlisted?
4. Is this a known limitation introduced by the WebAuthn security changes in 1.69.0?
5. Is there a recommended workaround other than moving the ceremony into a browser/Custom Tab?

The data sub-object containing auth_time and authentication_type in refresh token metadata is not currently a documented or officially supported feature in FusionAuth. Its presence is inconsistent across authentication flows, as you've observed — it appears for some authentication types but not others (notably absent for MFA + PASSWORD flows).

According to the official documentation, the only documented fields within refresh token metaData are:

• metaData.device — An object containing device information (name, type, description, lastAccessedAddress, lastAccessedInstant)
• metaData.scopes — An array of OAuth scopes associated with the token
• metaData.resources — An array of resource URIs per RFC 8707 (available since v1.67.0)

The data sub-object with auth_time and authentication_type that you're observing is not part of the documented API contract. Because this is undocumented behavior, you should not rely on it in production code, as it may change or be removed in future versions without notice.

Important Distinction: auth_time on JWTs vs Refresh Tokens

Note that auth_time is a standard and documented claim on access tokens and ID tokens (the JWTs themselves), where it represents the time of initial authentication. However, it is not a documented field on the refresh token record itself when queried via the retrieval API.

Related Documentation

• Retrieve Refresh Tokens API — Official API documentation including the complete response body structure for refresh tokens
• Access Token and ID Token Claims — Where auth_time is officially documented as a JWT claim
• Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) — Guide to implementing MFA in FusionAuth
• JWT Refresh API — How to use refresh tokens to obtain new access tokens

When querying the refresh token endpoint GET /api/jwt/refresh?userId={userId}, some refresh tokens include a data sub-object under metaData containing fields like auth_time and authentication_type.

This metadata appears to be present for the following authentication types:

• PASSWORD
• PASSWORDLESS
• SAMLv2IdpInitiated
• SAMLv2

However, when users authenticate using MFA + PASSWORD, the data sub-object is missing from the refresh token metadata.

Is this data object (specifically auth_time and authentication_type) something that can be reliably used across all authentication flows in current and future versions of FusionAuth? Or is its presence inconsistent and not intended as a stable API feature?

For FusionAuth Cloud (SaaS) instances, database migrations are automatically applied as part of the upgrade process. You do not need to take any action.

The FusionAuth Cloud team handles all required database migrations when upgrading your hosted instance to a new version. This is managed on your behalf as part of the cloud service. When you initiate an upgrade through your FusionAuth Account dashboard, the migrations run automatically during the upgrade process.

For HA Cloud (multi-node) deployments, nodes are upgraded one at a time. When the first upgraded node connects to the database, it locks the database and runs the required migrations while other nodes continue serving traffic, resulting in only seconds of downtime.

For Basic/Business Cloud (single-node) deployments, the entire instance goes offline during the upgrade, with downtime ranging from 5 to 60 minutes depending on the amount of data and schema changes required.

If you are running a self-hosted FusionAuth instance, you would need to follow the upgrade guide and apply any required out-of-band migrations manually (or configure Silent Mode for automatic migrations). However, for cloud-hosted instances, this is handled automatically by FusionAuth.

Note: You cannot downgrade a FusionAuth Cloud deployment version after upgrading, so it's recommended to test upgrades in a non-production environment first if possible.

Related Documentation

• FusionAuth Cloud - Upgrading a Deployment - Details on the Cloud upgrade process and downtime expectations
• Upgrade FusionAuth - Upgrade Options - Overview of different upgrade strategies including HA deployments
• Out-of-Band Database Upgrades - Information on manual migrations for self-hosted instances
• Silent Mode - Automatic migration handling for self-hosted deployments

I noticed a new FusionAuth release (1.70.0) requires a database migration to be run out of band. For FusionAuth Cloud (SaaS) instances, how are these database migrations handled?

Do customers need to:

• Run the migrations manually through the FusionAuth UI?
• Execute them via command line or API?
• Or are they automatically applied by the FusionAuth Cloud team during upgrades?

To migrate a user from Microsoft Authenticator to 1Password (or any other TOTP authenticator app), the recommended approach is to remove the old method first, then have the user re-enroll with the new app.

Step 1: Prompt the user to enroll with 1Password

The user can add a new authenticator method via:

Self-service account management (paid plans):

• User navigates to their account page → Manage two-factor → Add two-factor → Authenticator app
• Scan the new QR code with 1Password, including providing a name
• See: Add Authenticator as a second factor

You can also build your own page using the APIs.

This approach ensures a clean transition between authenticator apps without conflicts or confusion.

Step 2: Remove the existing Microsoft Authenticator method

You have two options:

Option A: Admin UI

• Navigate to Users → [Select User] → Multi-Factor tab
• Click the red trash icon to remove the authenticator method
• An admin role can do this without requiring a one-time code from the user
• An mfa_deleter role can do this, but confirmation from the user is required.
• See: Disable MFA documentation

Option B: User API (programmatically)

• GET the user object
• Remove the authenticator entry from the twoFactor.methods array
• PUT the updated user object back
• This requires no code from the user and is useful for support scenarios (e.g., user lost their device)
• Note: Use PUT rather than PATCH due to how arrays are handled in the API

This approach ensures that the user always has MFA enabled, but requires action on their part.

If you reverse them, but use an MFA policy of Required (or one of the intelligent MFA policies), then users will be forced to re-enroll.

---

Related Documentation

• Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) Overview
• Disable MFA on a User
• Add Authenticator as a Second Factor
• Self-Service Account Management
• Update a User API
• Disable Multi-Factor API

We need to migrate a user's existing two-factor authentication method from Microsoft Authenticator to 1Password. The user wants to switch authenticator apps but already has an active TOTP method enrolled.

What is the recommended approach for switching between authenticator apps? Should we remove the existing method first, or is there a way to add a second method and then remove the old one?

The documentation mentions several approaches for managing MFA methods, but we're not sure which path is best for this use case of switching authenticator apps.

Currently, there is no sorting logic implemented for deployments in the FusionAuth Cloud account portal. The order of deployments is not sorted alphabetically or by any other consistent criteria at this time.

This has been noted as a feature request to add sorting capabilities (or the ability to manually sort) deployments in the account portal. This would help prevent accidental selection of the wrong instance when managing multiple FusionAuth Cloud deployments.

In the meantime, extra care should be taken when selecting deployments from the list to ensure you're working with the correct instance. You can use the Rename feature (available in the Action dropdown menu for each deployment) to give your deployments descriptive names that help distinguish between different products or environments.

Related Documentation

• Managing Your Deployments - Overview of managing FusionAuth Cloud deployments in the account portal
• The Account Portal - Documentation on accessing and using the account portal
• FusionAuth Account Portal Reference - Complete reference for the FusionAuth account portal features

When viewing deployments at account.fusionauth.io/account/deployment, the sort order appears inconsistent or random.

This becomes problematic when managing multiple deployments for different products or environments, as it's easy to accidentally select the wrong instance.

Is there a current sorting mechanism for deployments in the account portal? It would be helpful to have deployments sorted alphabetically by name or URL to prevent accidental misclicks when working with multiple instances.

FusionAuth Cloud deployments can provide static outbound IP addresses for email delivery and other outbound connections. The availability and process depend on when your deployment was created.

Getting Static IP Addresses

For new FusionAuth Cloud deployments: Static IP addresses are already configured automatically.

For existing deployments: You need to open a support ticket to get static IP addresses assigned.

How to Request Your Deployment's IP Addresses

To retrieve the specific outbound IP addresses for your deployment (e.g., to allowlist them with your SMTP provider):

1. Open a support ticket
2. Include the name of the deployment for which you need the outbound IP addresses

Once assigned, these IP addresses will remain static and won't change during upgrades, restarts, or normal operations.

Important Notes About the IP Addresses

• The provided IP addresses are for outbound traffic only (firewalls, allowlists, SPF records, etc.) — they will not respond to HTTP API calls
• You should add these IPs to your SPF DNS record for your sending domain to prevent password reset and other transactional emails from landing in spam
• Multiple IP addresses may be provided for high availability

Recommended Approach

If you have both production and development environments:

1. Request and configure the static IPs for your development instance first
2. Test email delivery with the allowlisted IPs
3. Once verified, request and configure the production deployment's static IPs

Related Documentation

• FusionAuth Cloud - Deployment IP Addresses - Official documentation on obtaining IP addresses for your FusionAuth Cloud deployment
• Configure SMTP - Complete guide to configuring email delivery in FusionAuth
• SMTP Best Practices - Recommendations for maintaining good sender reputation including SPF records
• GitHub Issue #1393 - Original feature request for static IP addresses in FusionAuth Cloud

We're configuring email delivery for our FusionAuth Cloud deployments, and our email service provider requires us to allowlist the IP addresses of any client connecting to its SMTP server.

Could you please provide the outbound (egress) IP address(es) used by our hosted instances?

A few related questions:

• Are these IPs static, or can they change (e.g. during upgrades, restarts, or region failover)?
• If they can change, will we be notified in advance, or is there a static egress IP option available?
• Are there any additional IPs we should allowlist (e.g. for high-availability nodes)?

The behavior you're experiencing is likely related to the SSO Session Timeout setting in your Tenant configuration.

Understanding the "Remember Me" Checkbox

The "Remember Me" checkbox (labeled "Keep me signed in" in the default theme) controls the FusionAuth SSO session. When checked, it creates a persistent cookie that allows users to remain logged in across browser sessions. However, even with this option checked, the session will still expire based on your configured Session Timeout value.

Check Your SSO Session Timeout

Navigate to:

• Tenants → (your tenant) → OAuth tab
• Look for the Session timeout setting
• The default value is 3600 seconds (1 hour)

This setting controls how long the FusionAuth SSO session remains valid. When this duration expires, users are logged out and must re-authenticate, even if they previously selected "Remember Me."

The one-hour expiration you're seeing matches the default Session Timeout setting, which explains why users are consistently logged out after that time period.

To Resolve This Issue

1. Increase the Session timeout value to a longer period (e.g., 86400 seconds for 24 hours, 2592000 seconds for 30 days, or whatever suits your security requirements)
2. Save the Tenant configuration
3. Have users log in again with "Remember Me" checked

The new timeout will apply to all new SSO sessions created after the configuration change.

Related Documentation

• Logout and Session Management - SSO Session Timeouts
• FusionAuth Cookies Reference
• Does FusionAuth support Remember Me functionality?
• Configure Session Timeout

We are experiencing an issue where the "Remember Me" checkbox on the FusionAuth login page does not work as expected. Users are consistently logged out after approximately one hour, regardless of whether they check the "Remember Me" option.

Environment:

• Using the standard OAuth redirect flow for authentication
• Tested on the latest FusionAuth version with the default login template
• Users are often logged into multiple applications simultaneously

Observed behavior:

• After about one hour, users receive the message "You have been logged out" on the FusionAuth login screen
• This happens even when the Remember Me checkbox is selected during login
• User sessions are visible in FusionAuth (though these appear to be primarily for the refresh token flow)
• No logs in FusionAuth indicate why the user was logged out

What we've tried:

• Verified the issue occurs with the unmodified default FusionAuth template
• Confirmed users have active sessions showing in their profile

Is there a configuration setting or known issue that would cause FusionAuth to expire user sessions after one hour regardless of the Remember Me selection? How can we keep users logged in for longer periods when they've opted to be remembered?