<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: transHashSHA2 is not documented in your API reference in Integration and Testing</title>
    <link>https://community.developer.cybersource.com/t5/Integration-and-Testing/transHashSHA2-is-not-documented-in-your-API-reference/m-p/65720#M39344</link>
    <description>Yeah that’s the exact purpose. I think others just have a different process than I do. The only transaction response I get is from webhooks and I do the sha512 verification there. I suppose this is better suited for other integration methods. On my app I have all kinds of API calls on the backend, but they are manually called, except for webhooks, and since my scripts are directed to authorize I see it as quite unlikely that the response is going to come from anyone else. And all of the calls I make would likely pose no security risks even if I did get a bad response. The other thing is my clients are all using SSL encryption, which is going to provide some of the security features that are being offered.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;The reason I was asking is I know that this sounds complicated, but it is actually quite easy. I’ve already implemented this months ago (webhooks has a feature that is pretty much identical, with a few quirks) on my webhooks endpoint. It’s literally less than 10 lines of code.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I do understand your need for due diligence. And the folks here are getting you what you need. I was offering to help in the interim period if you were using something I’m familiar with, as I may go ahead and put this feature in the rest of my app. And I will say that I have found this to be an extremely good service.</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Jan 2019 07:12:45 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Renaissance</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2019-01-14T07:12:45Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>transHashSHA2 is not documented in your API reference</title>
      <link>https://community.developer.cybersource.com/t5/Integration-and-Testing/transHashSHA2-is-not-documented-in-your-API-reference/m-p/65712#M39336</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Element "transHashSHA2" is not documented in your API reference, and the information in your Transaction Hash Upgrade Guide is inadequate, as it too fails to properly document the element.&amp;nbsp; Is it properly documented somewhere so that your customers can complete the mandatory upgrade by the end of the month?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 13 Jan 2019 09:57:37 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.developer.cybersource.com/t5/Integration-and-Testing/transHashSHA2-is-not-documented-in-your-API-reference/m-p/65712#M39336</guid>
      <dc:creator>karenb</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-01-13T09:57:37Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: transHashSHA2 is not documented in your API reference</title>
      <link>https://community.developer.cybersource.com/t5/Integration-and-Testing/transHashSHA2-is-not-documented-in-your-API-reference/m-p/65713#M39337</link>
      <description>Just curious, what type of response do you validate with this and what programming language do you use in your integration?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I’m not fully seeing a reason to validate API calls in my php app, but there’s obviously something I’m missing, else this wouldn’t exist. If you’re using php I can probably help you.</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 13 Jan 2019 21:39:05 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.developer.cybersource.com/t5/Integration-and-Testing/transHashSHA2-is-not-documented-in-your-API-reference/m-p/65713#M39337</guid>
      <dc:creator>Renaissance</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-01-13T21:39:05Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: transHashSHA2 is not documented in your API reference</title>
      <link>https://community.developer.cybersource.com/t5/Integration-and-Testing/transHashSHA2-is-not-documented-in-your-API-reference/m-p/65714#M39338</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Renaissance, we have people who will write the code.&amp;nbsp; We just need the proper API documentation (and for Authorize.Net to operate in accordance with its documentation) to reflect the change that Authorize.Net is mandating.&amp;nbsp; Many companies are prohibited from implementing changes without updated documentation, as implementing changes without updated documentation is generally considered a form of recklessness.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;It is our understanding that the hash feature "enhance[s] the security of your transaction responses" and "&lt;SPAN class="test-id__field-value slds-form-element__static slds-grow  is-read-only"&gt;allows your script to verify that the results of a transaction are actually from Authorize.Net" rather than from a criminal impersonator.&amp;nbsp; To skip this check could be like not locking the door on our warehouse.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 13 Jan 2019 23:14:49 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.developer.cybersource.com/t5/Integration-and-Testing/transHashSHA2-is-not-documented-in-your-API-reference/m-p/65714#M39338</guid>
      <dc:creator>karenb</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-01-13T23:14:49Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: transHashSHA2 is not documented in your API reference</title>
      <link>https://community.developer.cybersource.com/t5/Integration-and-Testing/transHashSHA2-is-not-documented-in-your-API-reference/m-p/65720#M39344</link>
      <description>Yeah that’s the exact purpose. I think others just have a different process than I do. The only transaction response I get is from webhooks and I do the sha512 verification there. I suppose this is better suited for other integration methods. On my app I have all kinds of API calls on the backend, but they are manually called, except for webhooks, and since my scripts are directed to authorize I see it as quite unlikely that the response is going to come from anyone else. And all of the calls I make would likely pose no security risks even if I did get a bad response. The other thing is my clients are all using SSL encryption, which is going to provide some of the security features that are being offered.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;The reason I was asking is I know that this sounds complicated, but it is actually quite easy. I’ve already implemented this months ago (webhooks has a feature that is pretty much identical, with a few quirks) on my webhooks endpoint. It’s literally less than 10 lines of code.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I do understand your need for due diligence. And the folks here are getting you what you need. I was offering to help in the interim period if you were using something I’m familiar with, as I may go ahead and put this feature in the rest of my app. And I will say that I have found this to be an extremely good service.</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Jan 2019 07:12:45 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.developer.cybersource.com/t5/Integration-and-Testing/transHashSHA2-is-not-documented-in-your-API-reference/m-p/65720#M39344</guid>
      <dc:creator>Renaissance</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-01-14T07:12:45Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

