Topic starter
08/02/2026 10:29 pm
TL;DR: OAuth access tokens provide short-lived resource access while refresh tokens extend sessions through revalidation, with Microsoft defaults cited at 30 to 90 minutes for access tokens and 90 days for most refresh tokens. Descope’s guide frames the decision around session length, storage, and rotation, but the governance question is which token assumptions your programme can actually enforce.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Descope: “Access Token vs Refresh Token: A Breakdown”.
By the numbers:
- Microsoft’s identity platform uses access token lifespans between 30 and 90 minutes by default.
- Microsoft’s identity platform gives most refresh tokens a default lifespan of 90 days.
Key questions
Q: When should organisations rely on access tokens without refresh tokens?
A: Use access tokens alone when sessions are deliberately short, user reauthentication is acceptable, and the application does not need persistent continuity.
Q: When does refresh token design become a governance problem?
A: Refresh token design becomes a governance problem when renewal outlives the access conditions that justified it.
Q: What are the signs that token policy is too permissive?
A: Common signs include very long refresh-token lifespans, broad scopes, client-side storage that exposes tokens to browsers or scripts, and a lack of rotation when new access tokens are issued.
Practitioner guidance
- Set separate lifetimes for access and refresh tokens Use the shortest access-token lifetime that the business can tolerate, then define refresh-token duration as a distinct policy decision rather than a default extension of the session.
- Constrain token scope to the minimum resource set Limit each token to the smallest set of resources and actions required, so a stolen token cannot pivot into unrelated application paths or broader user entitlements.
- Store refresh tokens on the server side wherever possible Prefer authorization-server storage for refresh tokens and avoid client-side persistence patterns that expand theft risk in browsers, scripts or shared devices.
Bottom line: Access tokens and refresh tokens solve different problems, and treating them as interchangeable weakens governance over session risk.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
06/10/2026 6:55 pm
Access-token lifetime is a session-control problem disguised as an authentication detail. The article shows that the security value of a short-lived access token is really about limiting how long a bearer credential can be misused. That makes expiry, scope and storage the three governance levers that matter most. Practitioners should stop treating access-token duration as a UI choice and start treating it as an authorization boundary.
A few things that frame the scale:
- AI-related credential leaks surged 81.5% year-over-year in 2025, with the surrounding AI infrastructure leaking 5x faster than core LLM providers, according to the State of Secrets Sprawl 2026.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How should IAM teams balance user experience and token security?
A: They should separate convenience from trust. Short access-token lifetimes and secure refresh flows can preserve a reasonable user experience without allowing unrestricted session persistence. The right balance is the one that still lets the organization revoke access quickly and prevent a stolen token from becoming a durable credential.
👉 Read our full editorial: Access tokens vs refresh tokens: what IAM teams need to weigh