4 ms·
This is an interesting point. The article complains about checks being zero-factor authentication. Well, in practice, traditional chip-less credit cards are als
by gambler 10y ago
This is an interesting point. The article complains about checks being zero-factor authentication. Well, in practice, traditional chip-less credit cards are also zero-factor authenticated. The notion that our card numbers are supposed to be "secret" is plain stupid, since we give it to every single vendor we interact with.
PIN-based cards are authenticated, but the practical security around those PINs is laughable.
So would you rather have obviously insecure but resilient system, or unobviously insecure and fragile system?
...
Making checks secure is relatively "easy". Simply have a mechanism for the person to review and authorize every credit/withdrawal via SMS or email. The problem, however, becomes keeping that mechanism secure, especially in the age of easily stealable and hackable mobile phones.
- Matt3o12_ 10y agoI want to have a system which protects me from money loss (through my own fault, a malicious third party, or my bank's fault). I don't care how as long as I'm protected. With Chip-and-PIn cards, I'm not protected because I have to proof that it was not my fault (which can be incredible difficult to do). So, I personal prefer cards that require a signature. It doesn't matter to me if it has a chip or not (the chip has nothing to do with the pin, there are also chip-and-signature cards and cards that support both. The chip makes it hard to physically clone the card). If you are interested in the downsides of the new pin card, checkout this video: https://youtu.be/Ks0SOn8hjG8 https://youtu.be/Ks0SOn8hjG8 So, if zero authentication means that I am not liable for financial damages, I'm happy with it but I wouldn't bother to use a pin if I had the same liability. Unfortunately, the pin adds laughable authentication which makes me liable for many types of fraud (see the video).