blob: 7a88e6b1a0decbed4980aba2c89cbfdaedcd6dde (
plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <andy@coinbase.com>) id 1WjegJ-0004gO-9L
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 12 May 2014 01:05:27 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of coinbase.com
designates 209.85.213.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.213.175; envelope-from=andy@coinbase.com;
helo=mail-ig0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-ig0-f175.google.com ([209.85.213.175])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WjegI-0001WT-Ca
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 12 May 2014 01:05:27 +0000
Received: by mail-ig0-f175.google.com with SMTP id uq10so3216330igb.2
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sun, 11 May 2014 18:05:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:content-type;
bh=Hgh8CM9fOLT8g78NPLB1sEC2iU9l2HjDpJndZy2qzMM=;
b=NR+QU97IS7PHzNZtyjJWasPoDwjFy0ozUdjhKvwouRvBH3O5d6bwfkCQItZiHSoTYa
EtSltQV7uNy8NjyoUoMOesfgogcYC7+j9H2KMXU+Pa8VIyBkKF2Vn1CaLJKHpbGKi9xk
3WnDia6TIflVGnri+2iuRMpLlrpH+mSm5C8nmkdke8AeUr/DwmiM99NZZj4IuJ9WVTHU
GD6D9F/1bGtvZOyKZb8YHeOCesfb7oMIH5WAMrDKP2hYyIy8hcjLeKvIPgfDch3bHUYS
bUuQi36w8ILhQCkukStIMMbwkcYLnQ13SQk3VE8ibNv4bBQ3oTGA5uiearYAQ/q65I6p
pFvA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmF+Lz6emOeiqBsNcmfDEzJxh1/txYxZPlhoBK6+GoOqC5P2trHXKsJdvMtuPDE/P2S9XGo
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.142.104 with SMTP id rv8mr2366399igb.29.1399856720199;
Sun, 11 May 2014 18:05:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.43.162.201 with HTTP; Sun, 11 May 2014 18:05:20 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 18:05:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CALKy-wq6FZs39KX-gk2PizEEikLvHhxMkt=OT61fcUchsaLpfg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andy Alness <andy@coinbase.com>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3db008b557b04f9298a03
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
X-Headers-End: 1WjegI-0001WT-Ca
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Allow cross-site requests of payment requests
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 01:05:27 -0000
--001a11c3db008b557b04f9298a03
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Would it be a terrible idea to amend BIP 70 to suggest implementors include
a "Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *" response header for their payment
request responses? I don't think this opens up any useful attack vectors.
I ask because this would make it practical for pure HTML5 web wallets to
use the payment protocol entirely in-browser. Without this I think it would
be necessary for the server hosting the wallet's HTML to fetch payment
requests on the browser's behalf. This is somewhat inelegant and has
security/resource implications for the back-end.
-Andy
--001a11c3db008b557b04f9298a03
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">Would it be a terrible idea to amend BIP 70 to suggest imp=
lementors include a "Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *" response hea=
der for their payment request responses? I don't think this opens up an=
y useful attack vectors.<div>
<br></div><div><div>I ask because this would make it practical for pure HTM=
L5 web wallets to use the payment protocol entirely in-browser. Without thi=
s I think it would be necessary for the server hosting the wallet's HTM=
L to fetch payment requests on the browser's behalf. This is somewhat i=
nelegant and has security/resource implications for the back-end.</div>
</div><div><br></div><div>-Andy</div><div>
</div></div>
--001a11c3db008b557b04f9298a03--
|
