Open ghost opened 2 years ago
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.
This issue has been automatically closed because of inactivity. Feel free to reopen it if you think it is still relevant.
Hi a user has brought this up again.
@alvasw please can you let me know if a solution is feasible
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.
Hi @jmacxx is this something you would be able to take on?
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.
This issue has been automatically closed because of inactivity. Feel free to reopen it if you think it is still relevant.
We can store the hashes of the banned payment accounts in the filter. The clients can hash their trade partner's payment account and compare it to the list of banned payment accounts.
Would be good to do if we intend on keeping Bisq 1 for trading after the move to Bisq 2.
Depending on timescales it might be better to remove the info from Bisq 1, and add the banned payment accounts to Bisq 2 in a way they are hashed?
Description
I was using debugger and saw a lot of records in
filterManager.getFilter().getBannedPaymentAccounts()
. Most of them contains sensitive data like email, username, phone etc. I'm pretty sure I didn't set them manually, so probably they were propagated via P2P network. It seems to be a security issue.Version
1.8.6
Steps to reproduce
Not reproduceable via UI. Use debugger, stop somewhere where
filterManager
is available and checkfilterManager.getFilter().getBannedPaymentAccounts()
Expected behaviour
I'm not sure - propositions: