I have successfully send ARQC to host, In response I have field 55 (ISO 8583) with different tagged data, I want to just clarify it by comparing it to sample field 55 response data. Can any one provide me sample response data of field 55 ?
In ISO8583 standard DE55 is allocated for EMV related data in request and response. In the response you can receive [ARPC][ARC] or [ARPC][CSU]. At times you can see template 71 or 72 which are issuer scripts with tag 9F18 optionally to identify the issuer script. Refer the payment scheme documentation for exact implementation details.
Related
I'm trying to understand which Http Status Code to use in the following use case
The user tries to do a GET on an endpoint with an input ID.
The requested data is not available in the database.
Should the service send back:
404 - Not Found
As the data is NOT FOUND in the database
400 - Bad Request
As the data in the input request is not valid or present in the db
200 - OK with null response
200 - OK with an error message
In this case we can use a standard error message, with a contract that spans across all the 200 OK responses (like below).
BaseResponse {
Errors [{
Message: "Data Not Found"
}],
Response: null
}
Which is the right (or standard) approach to follow?
Thanks in advance.
Which is the right (or standard) approach to follow?
If you are following the REST API Architecture, you should follow these guidelines:
400 The request could not be understood by the server due to incorrect syntax. The client SHOULD NOT repeat the request without modifications.
It means that you received a bad request data, like an ID in alphanumeric format when you want only numeric IDs. Typically it refers to bad input formats or security checks (like an input array with a maxLength)
404 The server can not find the requested resource.
The ID format is valid and you can't find the resource in the data source.
If you don't follow any standard architecture, you should define how you want to manage these cases and share your thought with the team and customers.
In many legacy applications, an HTTP status 200 with errors field is very common since very-old clients were not so good to manage errors.
I want to figure out the format of telegram bot tokens to implement some validity checks, but there seems not official format description.
from my token and what I have found on the net, I can assume the following:
(up to) 46 characters length
starts with (up to) 10 digits followed by :
the remaining 35 characters are of class [[:alnum:]] plus - and _
can anyone (dis) confirm or point to documentation?
Let me summarize what we know so far:
to verify that a telegram API token has the correct format AND is currently valid you must make a Telegram getMe API call, e.g. on command line:
curl -s https://api.telegram.org/botYOURTOKEN/getMe
Nevertheless, we have some good guesses what a correct token must look like:
it consists of 8-10 digits followed by a :
the : is followed by a 35 character Telegram internal identifier/hash
the identifier is consisting of character class [[:alnum:]] plus _-, this fit's the characters documented for the deep linking parameter
Summary:
Token format: 8-10 digits:35 alnum characters plus _- , e.g. 123456789:AaZz0...AaZz9
Regex for testing: /^[0-9]{8,10}:[a-zA-Z0-9_-]{35}$/
If you want to check validity of a bot's token you can use the getMe method.
https://core.telegram.org/bots/api#getme
A simple method for testing your bot's auth token. Requires no
parameters. Returns basic information about the bot in form of a User
object.
Any non valid token will return 401 error.
I believe this would be a more robust approach than checking for correct formats.
The BOT token consists of two parts. In BOT_ID:BOT_ALPHANUMERIC_PART the BOT_ID is 8 to 10 digit long and the BOT_ALPHANUMERIC_PART has a length of 35 characters. So the total length is 43 to 45 characters.
If you want to validate a bot token then you can use: https://api.telegram.org/bot< YOUR_BOT_TOKEN>/getMe.
It will return the JSON data for your bot. It will throw a 401 error if the bot token is not valid.
I have successfully generated a ARQC by satisfying the PDOL required by the ICC. The ARQC required the following PDOL tags.
9F66 TTQ
9F02 Amount Authorised
5F2A Transaction Currency Code
9A Transaction Date
9F37 Unpredictable Number
The AID returned from ICC
06 01 11 03 A00000 0F83000000000000000000006975A844
The Cryptogram Version Number as above 17 (11 Hex)
My question, when I submit the transaction to the acquiring bank for authorisation via a ISO8583 host to host connection, in the ICC related data element do I only populate the EMV tags required by the PDOL and response Tags, or do I submit all ICC tags including for example the 'Terminal Verification Results' which was not required as per PDOL ?
Based on the CVN 17 the required fields to validate Cryptogram is
9F02 Amount
9F37 Unpredictable Number
9F36 ATC
9F10 CVR
Agree with comment from Michal.
Acquirer require much more EMV tags to transfer them to Card Issuer side and identify correct card profile and finally validate Cryptogram. The list of EMV data can be different in small details and place of these EMV Values transferred in ISO 8583 message. Refer to your Acquirer ISO 8583 specification.
The short summary of EMV tags and other fields required by Acquirer Interface you may see in EMV specification Book 4, Article "Authorisation Request".
Keep in mind that contactless cards, like your Visa PayWave may need to transfer own specific Tags depending of Card Brand Specification.
Unfortunately this is a question you should ask to your acquirer. The usual is that you populate all the data you have, especially because some of them may be used for risk management rather than cryptogram calculation. List of mandatory data elements is usually longer than what is required purely for cryptogram generation. Second thing is that your application should not interpret proprietary data elements like Issuer Application Data unless you are required (remember there are other card application specifications and you might have trouble differentiating them on the acceptance side). Side note - AID is not IAD, 9F10 is not CVR.
In most simple terms, what your card is doing here is generating a cryptogram based on elements in CDOL (elements, its order and size, will be mentioned in payment scheme docs for each CVN). So at the issuer end it should get the same elements to validate the cryptogram( and optionally to generate the response cryptogram ).
I've a webservice which sends payload in JSON format but the value in one of the key of response json is 7.5MB.
Chrome:
It accept the full response.
IE 11:
It terminates the response.
Is there any limit in IE.
Thanks,
I try to find the documentation which shows the limit but I did not get any documentation about that.
I find one article, In which it shows different test results.
HOW BIG IS TOO BIG FOR JSON?
Test was done with IE 9 and it was able to handle 38 MB of JSON data.
So from that result, We can say that IE 11 can handle at least 38 MB or more data.
I've read conflicting and somewhat ambiguous replies to the question "How is a multipart HTTP request content length calculated?". Specifically I wonder:
What is the precise content range for which the "Content-length" header is calculated?
Are CRLF ("\r\n") octet sequences counted as one or two octets?
Can someone provide a clear example to answer these questions?
How you calculate Content-Length doesn't depend on the status code or media type of the payload; it's the number of bytes on the wire. So, compose your multipart response, count the bytes (and CRLF counts as two), and use that for Content-Length.
See: http://httpwg.org/specs/rfc7230.html#message.body.length
The following live example should hopefully answer the questions.
Perform multipart request with Google's OAuth 2.0 Playground
Google's OAuth 2.0 Playground web page is an excellent way to perform a multipart HTTP request against the Google Drive cloud. You don't have to understand anything about Google Drive to do this -- I'll do all the work for you. We're only interested in the HTTP request and response. Using the Playground, however, will allow you to experiment with multipart and answer other questions, should the need arise.
Create a test file for uploading
I created a local text file called "test-multipart.txt", saved somewhere on my file system. The file is 34 bytes large and looks like this:
We're testing multipart uploading!
Open Google's OAuth 2.0 Playground
We first open Google's OAuth 2.0 Playground in a browser, using the URL https://developers.google.com/oauthplayground/:
Fill in Step 1
Select the Drive API v2 and the "https://www.googleapis.com/auth/drive", and press "Authorize APIs":
Fill in Step 2
Click the "Exchange authorization code for tokens":
Fill in Step 3
Here we give all relevant multipart request information:
Set the HTTP Method to "POST"
There's no need to add any headers, Google's Playground will add everything needed (e.g., headers, boundary sequence, content length)
Request URI: "https://www.googleapis.com/upload/drive/v2/files?uploadType=multipart"
Enter the request body: this is some meta-data JSON required by Google Drive to perform the multipart upload. I used the following:
{"title": "test-multipart.txt", "parents": [{"id":"0B09i2ZH5SsTHTjNtSS9QYUZqdTA"}], "properties": [{"kind": "drive#property", "key": "cloudwrapper", "value": "true"}]}
At the bottom of the "Request Body" screen, choose the test-multipart.txt file for uploading.
Press the "Send the request" button
The request and response
Google's OAuth 2.0 Playground miraculously inserts all required headers, computes the content length, generates a boundary sequence, inserts the boundary string wherever required, and shows us the server's response:
Analysis
The multipart HTTP request succeeded with a 200 status code, so the request and response are good ones we can depend upon. Google's Playground inserted everything we needed to perform the multipart HTTP upload. You can see the "Content-length" is set to 352. Let's look at each line after the blank line following the headers:
--===============0688100289==\r\n
Content-type: application/json\r\n
\r\n
{"title": "test-multipart.txt", "parents": [{"id":"0B09i2ZH5SsTHTjNtSS9QYUZqdTA"}], "properties": [{"kind": "drive#property", "key": "cloudwrapper", "value": "true"}]}\r\n
--===============0688100289==\r\n
Content-type: text/plain\r\n
\r\n
We're testing multipart uploading!\r\n
--===============0688100289==--
There are nine (9) lines, and I have manually added "\r\n" at the end of each of the first eight (8) lines (for readability reasons). Here are the number of octets (characters) in each line:
29 + '\r\n'
30 + '\r\n'
'\r\n'
167 + '\r\n'
29 + '\r\n'
24 + '\r\n'
'\r\n'
34 + '\r\n' (although '\r\n' is not part of the text file, Google inserts it)
31
The sum of the octets is 344, and considering each '\r\n' as a single one-octet sequence gives us the coveted content length of 344 + 8 = 352.
Summary
To summarize the findings:
The multipart request's "Content-length" is computed from the first byte of the boundary sequence following the header section's blank line, and continues until, and includes, the last hyphen of the final boundary sequence.
The '\r\n' sequences should be counted as one (1) octet, not two, regardless of the operating system you're running on.
If an http message has Content-Length header, then this header indicates exact number of bytes that follow after the HTTP headers. If anything decided to freely count \r\n as one byte then everything would fall apart: keep-alive http connections would stop working, as HTTP stack wouldn't be able to see where the next HTTP message starts and would try to parse random data as if it was an HTTP message.
\n\r are two bytes.
Moshe Rubin's answer is wrong. That implementation is bugged there.
I sent a curl request to upload a file, and used WireShark to specifically harvest the exact actual data sent by my network. A methodology that everybody should agree is more valid than on online application somewhere gave me a number.
--------------------------de798c65c334bc76\r\n
Content-Disposition: form-data; name="file"; filename="requireoptions.txt"\r\n
Content-Type: text/plain\r\n
\r\n
Pillow
pyusb
wxPython
ezdxf
opencv-python-headless
\r\n--------------------------de798c65c334bc76--\r\n
Curl, which everybody will agree likely implemented this correctly:
Content-Length: 250
> len("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")
500
(2x250 = 500, copied the hex stream out of WireShark.)
I took the actual binary there. The '2d' is --- which starts the boundary.
Please note, giving the wrong count to the server treating 0d0a as 1 rather than 2 octets (which is insane they are octets and cannot be compound), actively rejected the request as bad.
Also, this answers the second part of the question. The actual Content Length is everything here. From the first boundary to the last with the epilogue --\r\n, it's all the octets left in the wire.