Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

PSS - Add a X-PSU-Auth-Level header to POST /payments #52

Open
chatelao opened this issue Jul 4, 2023 · 3 comments
Open

PSS - Add a X-PSU-Auth-Level header to POST /payments #52

chatelao opened this issue Jul 4, 2023 · 3 comments
Labels
backlog Issue to be considered in the version after the next of the interface enhancement Issue requires improvements or additions to interface functionality

Comments

@chatelao
Copy link
Contributor

chatelao commented Jul 4, 2023

IS

  • The SP (Bank) has no knowledge about the security level of the TPP-User
  • It would be helpful for fraud detection, to asses the End-2-End login risks.

SHOULD

  • It should be optionally possibly to transmit the quality of the PSU-Login
  • X-PSU-Auth-Level (Values: 1FA, 2FA) - More values may be discussed.
@chatelao chatelao changed the title PSS - Allow PSS - Add a X-PSU-Auth-Level header to POST /payments Jul 4, 2023
@rudiriegel
Copy link
Collaborator

In the bLink implementation each API is connected to a security level. PSS for example is security level high. And in each security level there are a minimum set of admission criteria to be fulfilled by the TPP in order to onboard to bLink. Those admission criteria can be found in the Annex 1 of the contract. On bLink, the SP (bank) can rely on the security level of the API. If you do so, all PSS calls should be treated in the same way in fraud detection. Please note: in PSS the user still has to login in the e-banking and release the payments submitted.

@juergen-petry
Copy link
Contributor

Feedback on behalf of UBS: We have a neutral view: not against, nor in favor of it, but at this stage wouldn’t support this proposal because we’re unsure the potential added value would justify the effort.
For us, pursuing this addition would require involving various UBS security and authentication stakeholders just to examine potential implications. It could be sensible if there’s a consensus on the need for it, which doesn’t seem to be the case.

@svenbiellmann svenbiellmann added the backlog Issue to be considered in the version after the next of the interface label Sep 20, 2023
@svenbiellmann svenbiellmann self-assigned this Sep 21, 2023
@svenbiellmann
Copy link
Contributor

Will be put on hold until the PIS issue is addressed.

@svenbiellmann svenbiellmann added the enhancement Issue requires improvements or additions to interface functionality label Nov 17, 2023
@svenbiellmann svenbiellmann removed their assignment Dec 12, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
backlog Issue to be considered in the version after the next of the interface enhancement Issue requires improvements or additions to interface functionality
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants