- From: Michaela Merz <michaela.merz@rollofone.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 18:37:25 -0500
- To: public-webappsec@w3.org
- Message-ID: <57B25235.7030502@rollofone.com>
>From a purely technological point of view - everything in the browser is pretty much fair game if the underlying server is compromised. I have long tried to convince folks that we would need some form of signed code that would even protect against a fully compromised server as the signature package itself would be signed by a release key that would not reside on the web site in question. Some time back I developed an appropriate solution via Firefox extension (see attachment). Compliance is Patrick explained, just that. A set of rules that make "some" sense but won't address the underlying problem. Michaela On 08/15/2016 06:11 PM, Craig Francis wrote: > Thanks Patrick, > > You're right about compliance, but I think there should be a little > more to it, simply because merchants can be held liable for fraud > (maybe it's via refunds, or it maybe the full cost of re-issuing cards > + fines). > > I think this other BrainTree example (Client-side Encryption) has > exactly the same problem as the iframe one... the customer receives > the payment form from the merchant website, in the address bar they > see the merchants domain name, so when the customer is entering their > credit card details, in their view, they are giving that information > to the merchant. > > Because of that, I think the merchants website should go though the > full compliance check (SAQ-A-EP), which will at least verify they are > running up to date software, not using FTP, insecure passwords, etc. > > And while I know the full compliance check isn't perfect, it at least > gets people to double check things. > > Craig > > > > > >> On 15 Aug 2016, at 18:15, Patrick Toomey <patrick.toomey@github.com >> <mailto:patrick.toomey@github.com>> wrote: >> >> I’ve been told by folks that live in “compliance land” that you must >> separate the notion of “logical” and “compliance”. Compliance is >> compliance and little else. The solutions might very well make a site >> PCI compliant, but they don’t necessarily mean much more than that. >> For example, some providers have supported a solution like >> this: https://www.braintreepayments.com/blog/client-side-encryption/. >> In this scenario, the underlying assumption is that your application >> has not been compromised and can’t be tricked into encrypting the CC >> details using some attacker controlled public key. My understanding >> is that this solution was acceptable for PCI compliance for quite a >> while (no clue on where that stands today). In short, the best these >> solutions offer is prevention against accidental mishandling of >> plaintext card numbers. In other words, assuming you are not >> compromised, these kinds of solutions (iframe, client-side encrypted, >> etc) provide reasonable assurance that plaintext card numbers don’t >> get logged inside your infrastructure, etc. But, all of these >> solutions fundamentally assume that your application hasn’t been >> compromised (i.e. hasn’t been changed to just ask/log cards directly). >> >> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 11:03 AM Daniel Veditz <dveditz@mozilla.com >> <mailto:dveditz@mozilla.com>> wrote: >> >> From a very narrow definition entering your payment details into >> a 3rd party iframe is "secure" from the parent frame--assuming >> the correct iframe has been opened! Stripe etc aren't going to >> get hacked, so I guess they're happy. You're right that this >> leaves users ripe for phishing. >> >> -Dan Veditz >> >> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 6:11 AM, Craig Francis >> <craig@craigfrancis.co.uk <mailto:craig@craigfrancis.co.uk>> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Is there a secure way to collect sensitive information (e.g. >> credit card numbers) though an iframe, if the parent page has >> been compromised? >> >> I don't think there is, and I think Stripe, BrainTree >> (PayPal), WorldPay, etc are all pretending they have a secure >> system, when they really don't. >> >> I've written up my notes at the following URL, but if you >> have any other comments/feedback, I'd really appreciate it >> (I'd like to contact the PCI Council again by the end of the >> week). >> >> Craig >> >> >> >> https://www.code-poets.co.uk/misc/security/pci-saq/ >> >> >
Attachments
- application/x-unknown-application-pdf attachment: 512164671ABX.pdf
Received on Monday, 15 August 2016 23:38:13 UTC