If you can decode JWT, how are they secure?

JWTs can be either signed, encrypted or both. If a token is signed, but not encrypted, everyone can read its contents, but when you don't know the private key, you can't change it. Otherwise, the receiver will notice that the signature won't match anymore.

Answer to your comment: I'm not sure if I understand your comment the right way. Just to be sure: do you know and understand digital signatures? I'll just briefly explain one variant (HMAC, which is symmetrical, but there are many others).

Let's assume Alice wants to send a JWT to Bob. They both know some shared secret. Mallory doesn't know that secret, but wants to interfere and change the JWT. To prevent that, Alice calculates Hash(payload + secret) and appends this as signature.

When receiving the message, Bob can also calculate Hash(payload + secret) to check whether the signature matches. If however, Mallory changes something in the content, she isn't able to calculate the matching signature (which would be Hash(newContent + secret)). She doesn't know the secret and has no way of finding it out. This means if she changes something, the signature won't match anymore, and Bob will simply not accept the JWT anymore.

Let's suppose, I send another person the message {"id":1} and sign it with Hash(content + secret). (+ is just concatenation here). I use the SHA256 Hash function, and the signature I get is: 330e7b0775561c6e95797d4dd306a150046e239986f0a1373230fda0235bda8c. Now it's your turn: play the role of Mallory and try to sign the message {"id":2}. You can't because you don't know which secret I used. If I suppose that the recipient knows the secret, he CAN calculate the signature of any message and check if it's correct.

You can go to jwt.io, paste your token and read the contents. This is jarring for a lot of people initially.

The short answer is that JWT doesn't concern itself with encryption. It cares about validation. That is to say, it can always get the answer for "Have the contents of this token been manipulated"? This means user manipulation of the JWT token is futile because the server will know and disregard the token. The server adds a signature based on the payload when issuing a token to the client. Later on it verifies the payload and matching signature.

The logical question is what is the motivation for not concerning itself with encrypted contents?

1. The simplest reason is because it assumes this is a solved problem for the most part. If dealing with a client like the web browser for example, you can store the JWT tokens in a cookie that is secure (is not transmitted via HTTP, only via HTTPS) and httpOnly (can't be read by Javascript) and talks to the server over an encrypted channel (HTTPS). Once you know you have a secure channel between the server and client you can securely exchange JWT or whatever else you want.

2. This keeps thing simple. A simple implementation makes adoption easier but it also lets each layer do what it does best (let HTTPS handle encryption).

3. JWT isn't meant to store sensitive data. Once the server receives the JWT token and validates it, it is free to lookup the user ID in its own database for additional information for that user (like permissions, postal address, etc). This keeps JWT small in size and avoids inadvertent information leakage because everyone knows not to keep sensitive data in JWT.

It's not too different from how cookies themselves work. Cookies often contain unencrypted payloads. If you are using HTTPS then everything is good. If you aren't then it's advisable to encrypt sensitive cookies themselves. Not doing so will mean that a man-in-the-middle attack is possible--a proxy server or ISP reads the cookies and then replays them later on pretending to be you. For similar reasons, JWT should always be exchanged over a secure layer like HTTPS.