8 ms·

Doesn't every login form on the web also protect the respective operator from the subscriber? Why can't a "software SIM" simply be a username and a password? M

Doesn't every login form on the web also protect the respective operator from the subscriber? Why can't a "software SIM" simply be a username and a password? My explanation is that it's difficult to change something that literally the entire world uses.

kalleboo 10y ago
We're moving away from usernames and passwords though, into 2-factor systems such as... smart cards (Chip and PIN). Regressing phones back into usernames and passwords is a clear step backwards in security.
- esquivalience 10y ago
  Yes, and remember too that SIMs are standardised technology from the mid-1990s, originating in GSM. It's not a trivial matter to change security in globally standardised technology. (and Even if you did, it would need to be backward-compatible and still support SIM cards) There is a good deal more to telecoms tech than just the tech side - the standardisation process brings a whole bunch of competitor companies into a room to develop a solution, incrementally over a number of years. This applies from physical aspects all the way up to higher level concerns like security. It's a fascinating development process.
jacquesm 10y ago
Who would you want to hold your 'software SIM' username and password? What's to stop someone else from logging in to your account once they have your credentials?
- mherrmann 10y ago
  I have hundreds of usernames and passwords for various web sites and don't see a problem in having one more(?)
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    Interesting. I try to keep the number of usernames and passwords I have to an absolute minimum because I don't trust any of those to keep that secret, nor do I trust my computer to not spill the secrets somehow through a browser bug or other drive by exploit. At the same time I totally trust my sim, it's never been more than 10 meters away from me in the last decade or two, hasn't failed me even once and it would be very hard to get it to cough up its secrets without my cooperation (so rubber hose cryptography would still work). Contrary to www security the phone system seems - from my perspective - at least to have done a half decent job at integrating 2FA when your average website - 20 years later - is still making up its mind about whether or not that might be a useful thing to add.
  - Strom 10y ago
    If you use actual strong passwords then you are an outlier. Most people use basic words like "password" as shown by every password dump in history. Indeed, most people would use the very same weak password they use for their e-mail for their mobile, and this would reduce protection against spoofing versus continuing to use the SIM system. What we need is a SIM-type system on the web as well, not to bring the broken web password system elsewhere.
    - another 10y ago
      Furthermore, any security system that effectively relies on the user possessing more than one computing device (e.g., using your laptop for access to a password manager or email address) fails for the significant and increasing swath of humanity for which their phone is their [first and] only such device.
    - Sanddancer 10y ago
      Client TLS certificates have been a thing since forever, but browser makers keep it a pain in the ass, and too many "modern" software stacks don't even consider leveraging the decades of infrastructure that would make their job easier. Add to the fact that identity aggregators want to be producers, but rarely allow themselves to be consumers and we get stuck in the hell that is identity online.
user5994461 10y ago
Because username and password is a disaster for security. It's sole purpose is let ANY guy ANY where on the planet connect to your account. SIM cards are cryptographic hardware tokens. They are much more secure than passwords. In fact, they do need a password as well on top of the hardware token, that's the 'PIN code' you have to enter when you (re)boot your phone.
- mherrmann 10y ago
  Most of the internet runs on usernames/passwords. I understand that a hardware token (with a PIN) is more secure. But is it worth the added complexity?
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    > But is it worth the added complexity? If you don't want your account to be hacked: yes.
  - pjc50 10y ago
    The SIM protects the carrier against "account sharing". It allows them to be sure that a subscriber is only using one phone at once - although it's portable between phones. It means that carriers don't have to maintain "sessions" centrally. The SIM can authenticate you to the base station without the base station having to check back to see if you're logged in elsewhere - vital in reducing the latency of cell changes. (It also stores various bits of technical information for SMS/MMS routing, and was intended to be a platform for "value added" applications.
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      Account sharing in a telco context is a bad thing all around. Which phone would you like to ring? How do you ensure the charges really are made by (and to) the right person? How will you protect against messages with important information landing with the wrong party? Authentication in a telco context is a good thing, the fact that the web doesn't have it enabled a large number of applications to flourish, it also made some other things devilishly hard, or even almost impossible.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

kalleboo 10y ago

We're moving away from usernames and passwords though, into 2-factor systems such as... smart cards (Chip and PIN). Regressing phones back into usernames and passwords is a clear step backwards in security.

esquivalience 10y ago
Yes, and remember too that SIMs are standardised technology from the mid-1990s, originating in GSM. It's not a trivial matter to change security in globally standardised technology. (and Even if you did, it would need to be backward-compatible and still support SIM cards) There is a good deal more to telecoms tech than just the tech side - the standardisation process brings a whole bunch of competitor companies into a room to develop a solution, incrementally over a number of years. This applies from physical aspects all the way up to higher level concerns like security. It's a fascinating development process.

jacquesm 10y ago

Who would you want to hold your 'software SIM' username and password? What's to stop someone else from logging in to your account once they have your credentials?

mherrmann 10y ago
I have hundreds of usernames and passwords for various web sites and don't see a problem in having one more(?)
- jacquesm 10y ago
  Interesting. I try to keep the number of usernames and passwords I have to an absolute minimum because I don't trust any of those to keep that secret, nor do I trust my computer to not spill the secrets somehow through a browser bug or other drive by exploit. At the same time I totally trust my sim, it's never been more than 10 meters away from me in the last decade or two, hasn't failed me even once and it would be very hard to get it to cough up its secrets without my cooperation (so rubber hose cryptography would still work). Contrary to www security the phone system seems - from my perspective - at least to have done a half decent job at integrating 2FA when your average website - 20 years later - is still making up its mind about whether or not that might be a useful thing to add.
- Strom 10y ago
  If you use actual strong passwords then you are an outlier. Most people use basic words like "password" as shown by every password dump in history. Indeed, most people would use the very same weak password they use for their e-mail for their mobile, and this would reduce protection against spoofing versus continuing to use the SIM system. What we need is a SIM-type system on the web as well, not to bring the broken web password system elsewhere.
  - another 10y ago
    Furthermore, any security system that effectively relies on the user possessing more than one computing device (e.g., using your laptop for access to a password manager or email address) fails for the significant and increasing swath of humanity for which their phone is their [first and] only such device.
  - Sanddancer 10y ago
    Client TLS certificates have been a thing since forever, but browser makers keep it a pain in the ass, and too many "modern" software stacks don't even consider leveraging the decades of infrastructure that would make their job easier. Add to the fact that identity aggregators want to be producers, but rarely allow themselves to be consumers and we get stuck in the hell that is identity online.

user5994461 10y ago

Because username and password is a disaster for security. It's sole purpose is let ANY guy ANY where on the planet connect to your account. SIM cards are cryptographic hardware tokens. They are much more secure than passwords. In fact, they do need a password as well on top of the hardware token, that's the 'PIN code' you have to enter when you (re)boot your phone.

mherrmann 10y ago
Most of the internet runs on usernames/passwords. I understand that a hardware token (with a PIN) is more secure. But is it worth the added complexity?
- jacquesm 10y ago
  > But is it worth the added complexity? If you don't want your account to be hacked: yes.
- pjc50 10y ago
  The SIM protects the carrier against "account sharing". It allows them to be sure that a subscriber is only using one phone at once - although it's portable between phones. It means that carriers don't have to maintain "sessions" centrally. The SIM can authenticate you to the base station without the base station having to check back to see if you're logged in elsewhere - vital in reducing the latency of cell changes. (It also stores various bits of technical information for SMS/MMS routing, and was intended to be a platform for "value added" applications.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    Account sharing in a telco context is a bad thing all around. Which phone would you like to ring? How do you ensure the charges really are made by (and to) the right person? How will you protect against messages with important information landing with the wrong party? Authentication in a telco context is a good thing, the fact that the web doesn't have it enabled a large number of applications to flourish, it also made some other things devilishly hard, or even almost impossible.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]