rich1.0npub18gjvug29c4yg46lmplq38e75gg6wn5mn8taytckcsr4jt8p74h3s5knkzlhttps://nostr.ae/npub18gjvug29c4yg46lmplq38e75gg6wn5mn8taytckcsr4jt8p74h3s5knkzlnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2014-09-12 📝 Original message:Are there any circumstances where the payment request object might be served over a different domain than the CNAME of the object's signer? BIP72 states "Bitcoin wallets must support fetching PaymentRequests via http and https protocols;". If the request object is signed by the owner of the domain, then the worst an attacker who doesn't have the signing key can do is replace the request with another validly signed request intended for someone else, but that could be the attacker's own product order, tricking someone else into paying for it. Should BIP72 require that signed payment requests be from the same domain, and also require https? Aaron Aaron Voisine breadwallet.com On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> wrote: > Putting aside the question of necessity for a moment, a more efficient > approach to this would be; > > Add another marker param like &s to the end of the URL > Add another field to PaymentRequest that contains an ECC signature > calculated using the public key that hashes to the address in the URI > Upgraded wallets look for the additional param and if it's there, expect to > find the PaymentDetails signed with the address key. PKI signing of course > is still useful to provide an actual identity for receipts, display on > hardware wallets, dispute mediation etc. > > This adds only a few characters to a normal backwards-compatible QR code, > and is not hard to implement. > > > On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> wrote: >>> >>> That way we leave up to implementers to experiment with different >>> lengths and figure out what the optimum is >> >> >> Ah, that's a good suggestion if we do go this way. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Want excitement? > Manually upgrade your production database. > When you want reliability, choose Perforce > Perforce version control. Predictably reliable. > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >