<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:creativeCommons="http://backend.userland.com/creativeCommonsRssModule"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Teaching people to get phished, old skool style!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://aralbalkan.com/1566/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://aralbalkan.com/1566</link>
	<description>Passionate geekisms.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 19:46:31 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan</title>
		<link>http://aralbalkan.com/1566/comment-page-1#comment-193251</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Nov 2008 10:06:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://aralbalkan.com/?p=1566#comment-193251</guid>
		<description>@bart - not my bank. My secure login page requires a unique key (not &quot;password&quot; fielded so everyone could read it off my screen), and then my date of birth, and THEN 3 characters from my X-digit secure password. The idea is that even if someone has a keylogger installed on the machine, they still can&#039;t snag my full password.

The point is that phones are just a bad way to do this. There&#039;s no convenient way to do security checks over the phone, so why do banks insist on using them for people like us, for whom plenty of secure channels already exist?

A great example is Egg - I&#039;ve never received a call from them, because all comms go through their website&#039;s secure messaging system. I get email, but all it says is &quot;go log in&quot;. Yes, that&#039;s open to phishing, but it&#039;s better than some random scammer phoning me up and asking me straight out for my details.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@bart &#8211; not my bank. My secure login page requires a unique key (not &#8220;password&#8221; fielded so everyone could read it off my screen), and then my date of birth, and THEN 3 characters from my X-digit secure password. The idea is that even if someone has a keylogger installed on the machine, they still can&#8217;t snag my full password.</p>
<p>The point is that phones are just a bad way to do this. There&#8217;s no convenient way to do security checks over the phone, so why do banks insist on using them for people like us, for whom plenty of secure channels already exist?</p>
<p>A great example is Egg &#8211; I&#8217;ve never received a call from them, because all comms go through their website&#8217;s secure messaging system. I get email, but all it says is &#8220;go log in&#8221;. Yes, that&#8217;s open to phishing, but it&#8217;s better than some random scammer phoning me up and asking me straight out for my details.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zarate</title>
		<link>http://aralbalkan.com/1566/comment-page-1#comment-193249</link>
		<dc:creator>Zarate</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Nov 2008 08:53:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://aralbalkan.com/?p=1566#comment-193249</guid>
		<description>Another one here from Barclays UK. Once I asked them how could I be sure they were calling from Barclays. The guy on the phone gave up after 5 minutes because I was refusing to &quot;identify&quot; myself.

On another call I asked them again if _they_ could identify and the girl asked me: &quot;What you want to know from you? I&#039;ve your date of birth, date when you opened your account, visa number or I can give you any piece of your data so you can verify this is an honest call&quot;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Another one here from Barclays UK. Once I asked them how could I be sure they were calling from Barclays. The guy on the phone gave up after 5 minutes because I was refusing to &#8220;identify&#8221; myself.</p>
<p>On another call I asked them again if _they_ could identify and the girl asked me: &#8220;What you want to know from you? I&#8217;ve your date of birth, date when you opened your account, visa number or I can give you any piece of your data so you can verify this is an honest call&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bart</title>
		<link>http://aralbalkan.com/1566/comment-page-1#comment-193245</link>
		<dc:creator>bart</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Nov 2008 07:46:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://aralbalkan.com/?p=1566#comment-193245</guid>
		<description>@ jonathan:

The banks website would require all 8 digits to log in. That&#039;s a secure connection, which you can check by the https protocol and the genuine url of the bank. On the phone, you don&#039;t have those checks, so you don&#039;t give out your full PIN code. Or put it like this: if my colleague at work would overhear me saying those 8 digits on the phone, then he could fish up my account number via my last invoice, and log into my bank account online. So basically: online you always need the full 8 digits, on the phone you can never give out the full PIN. Still seems solid to me.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ jonathan:</p>
<p>The banks website would require all 8 digits to log in. That&#8217;s a secure connection, which you can check by the https protocol and the genuine url of the bank. On the phone, you don&#8217;t have those checks, so you don&#8217;t give out your full PIN code. Or put it like this: if my colleague at work would overhear me saying those 8 digits on the phone, then he could fish up my account number via my last invoice, and log into my bank account online. So basically: online you always need the full 8 digits, on the phone you can never give out the full PIN. Still seems solid to me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aral</title>
		<link>http://aralbalkan.com/1566/comment-page-1#comment-193233</link>
		<dc:creator>Aral</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2008 19:10:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://aralbalkan.com/?p=1566#comment-193233</guid>
		<description>@Tom: which at signs? :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Tom: which at signs? :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom Morris</title>
		<link>http://aralbalkan.com/1566/comment-page-1#comment-193232</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom Morris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2008 18:18:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://aralbalkan.com/?p=1566#comment-193232</guid>
		<description>Robert: not so. There are plenty of ways to communicate securely. Public-key encrypted e-mail, or instant message.

If my bank wants to communicate with me, well, I&#039;ve got an e-mail address and a GPG public key. That they can&#039;t use that is their problem, not mine.

The security thing that irritates me is that phones are inherently insecure because they require you to be in a secure area. Most people aren&#039;t when they use their phones - they are in public areas. I&#039;ve had to explain to people over the phone that there&#039;s no way I&#039;m giving them my details over the phone because I&#039;m on a bus or standing on a railway platform. I was on the train yesterday and a man across the aisle from me gave his full address, postcode and phone number over the phone. I&#039;m betting people would absent mindedly do the same thing with credit card numbers.

To paraphrase Linus Torvalds: if your security doesn&#039;t include a web of trust, it&#039;s not security, it&#039;s masturbation. This applies very much to pre-shared keys - if you give someone access to something that you can&#039;t revoke without changing the key for everybody, I would consider that a failed security model.

(Also, what&#039;s with all the damn at signs in comments? This is not Twitter.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Robert: not so. There are plenty of ways to communicate securely. Public-key encrypted e-mail, or instant message.</p>
<p>If my bank wants to communicate with me, well, I&#8217;ve got an e-mail address and a GPG public key. That they can&#8217;t use that is their problem, not mine.</p>
<p>The security thing that irritates me is that phones are inherently insecure because they require you to be in a secure area. Most people aren&#8217;t when they use their phones &#8211; they are in public areas. I&#8217;ve had to explain to people over the phone that there&#8217;s no way I&#8217;m giving them my details over the phone because I&#8217;m on a bus or standing on a railway platform. I was on the train yesterday and a man across the aisle from me gave his full address, postcode and phone number over the phone. I&#8217;m betting people would absent mindedly do the same thing with credit card numbers.</p>
<p>To paraphrase Linus Torvalds: if your security doesn&#8217;t include a web of trust, it&#8217;s not security, it&#8217;s masturbation. This applies very much to pre-shared keys &#8211; if you give someone access to something that you can&#8217;t revoke without changing the key for everybody, I would consider that a failed security model.</p>
<p>(Also, what&#8217;s with all the damn at signs in comments? This is not Twitter.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mario Klingemann</title>
		<link>http://aralbalkan.com/1566/comment-page-1#comment-193229</link>
		<dc:creator>Mario Klingemann</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:37:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://aralbalkan.com/?p=1566#comment-193229</guid>
		<description>You could also do this 3 random digits game the other way around to make to the person on the other side is who he claims to be - they should give you the 3rd, 5th and 8th number in the pin you got mailed. How about reading each other each consecutive digit &quot;you say one, I say two, you say three, I say four...&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You could also do this 3 random digits game the other way around to make to the person on the other side is who he claims to be &#8211; they should give you the 3rd, 5th and 8th number in the pin you got mailed. How about reading each other each consecutive digit &#8220;you say one, I say two, you say three, I say four&#8230;&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert</title>
		<link>http://aralbalkan.com/1566/comment-page-1#comment-193228</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:33:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://aralbalkan.com/?p=1566#comment-193228</guid>
		<description>I definitely understand the need for security, but this comment thread has entered a realm where nobody can communicate except by being face to face.  Unfortunately, having top security and convenience are mutually exclusive.  For every security measure put in place, it&#039;s easy to think of two or three what-ifs.  It&#039;s all a balancing act, and if you don&#039;t like the way your bank or credit card provider is handling it, make suggestions or switch.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I definitely understand the need for security, but this comment thread has entered a realm where nobody can communicate except by being face to face.  Unfortunately, having top security and convenience are mutually exclusive.  For every security measure put in place, it&#8217;s easy to think of two or three what-ifs.  It&#8217;s all a balancing act, and if you don&#8217;t like the way your bank or credit card provider is handling it, make suggestions or switch.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan</title>
		<link>http://aralbalkan.com/1566/comment-page-1#comment-193224</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2008 16:13:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://aralbalkan.com/?p=1566#comment-193224</guid>
		<description>@Joey I like that, but the impression I get is that the call centres have effectively EXACTLY the same interface as the online one: they get asked for 3 characters, and only get through if they&#039;re right. That&#039;s certainly how I&#039;d want it to work. So All bart would have done there is verify that they know when the characters are wrong. Again, I can do that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Joey I like that, but the impression I get is that the call centres have effectively EXACTLY the same interface as the online one: they get asked for 3 characters, and only get through if they&#8217;re right. That&#8217;s certainly how I&#8217;d want it to work. So All bart would have done there is verify that they know when the characters are wrong. Again, I can do that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joey</title>
		<link>http://aralbalkan.com/1566/comment-page-1#comment-193221</link>
		<dc:creator>Joey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2008 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://aralbalkan.com/?p=1566#comment-193221</guid>
		<description>@jonathan I guess bart would have to lie about one of the digits to make sure the person on the other side of the phone really has his code.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@jonathan I guess bart would have to lie about one of the digits to make sure the person on the other side of the phone really has his code.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan</title>
		<link>http://aralbalkan.com/1566/comment-page-1#comment-193220</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2008 15:54:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://aralbalkan.com/?p=1566#comment-193220</guid>
		<description>@bart see above. Who&#039;s to say I&#039;m not sitting at a computer ringing you and asking you for *exactly* the same information that your bank&#039;s login page (or phone banking!) is asking me for?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@bart see above. Who&#8217;s to say I&#8217;m not sitting at a computer ringing you and asking you for *exactly* the same information that your bank&#8217;s login page (or phone banking!) is asking me for?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
