3 ms·

The solution is for the bank to just email you the actual PDF as an attachment. EDIT: Nope, I'm wrong. That would involve sending sensitive data over unencrypt

The solution is for the bank to just email you the actual PDF as an attachment. EDIT: Nope, I'm wrong. That would involve sending sensitive data over unencrypted channels, which is a no-go. Personally I wouldn't care and I'd want that, but that's irrelevant.

therealidiot 8y ago
Perhaps PDFs that have been encrypted with some pre-agreed password? I receive payslips as encrypted PDFs by email
tgragnato 8y ago
> That would involve sending sensitive data over unencrypted channels, which is a no-go. Why do you think that? My inbox is plenty of (unsigned) PDFs coming from mx<n°>.<mybank>.eu ... Headers show they're relayed from <redacted>.internal.<mybank>.eu (private IP included), that spf authentication is ok, but dkim is not even provided.
- Silhouette 8y ago
  You're talking about authentication and integrity: can you confirm that the statement really came from your bank and has not been modified? The GP was talking about encryption: can anyone else involved with any system your email passed through read your intimate financial details?
  - tgragnato 8y ago
    S/MIME no, PGP no, TLS yes. TLS means in transit interception is not easy and SPF that the address is not spoofed, but without DKIM I'm not able to verify that the content is not forged. As such, for example, my email provider is able to read those emails, and probably to modify them without me noticing. If something doesn't grant confidentiality, data integrity and authentication, it's not encryption. I don't think TLS alone is enough to qualify an email as an "encrypted channel".
    - Silhouette 8y ago
      In general, you can't control how an email will travel from the original sender's system to your own, or from your own to its final recipient. Such is the nature of SMTP. A lot of modern email systems will be encrypting their connections on various hops, but it's not something you can guarantee for mail that leaves your own organisation, and even if all of the hops were encrypting the data in motion, there are still plenty of vulnerabilities while the data is at rest anywhere along the way. In short, banks sending out PDF statements by email would be dangerous, as sillysaurus3 originally implied.
      - tgragnato 8y ago
        It's dangerous, but happened anyway in my case. And without the mitigations that are already available. I'm not trying to argue that it's ok, I'm saying that in my experience bank employees use email for confidential communications.
        Silhouette 8y ago
        In that case, you have my sympathies. Far too many organisations, particularly those in sensitive fields like finance, medical care and (surprisingly, perhaps) law are cavalier about sending things via email that really shouldn't be. I think a lot of them genuinely don't understand that it's not a secure or appropriate medium for sending confidential information, and actually what we need to improve that situation is more like a public awareness campaign than theoretical technical solutions that most people aren't going to use anyway or legal/regulatory solutions that just punish a small proportion of the culprits who didn't know they were doing anything wrong anyway.

therealidiot 8y ago

Perhaps PDFs that have been encrypted with some pre-agreed password? I receive payslips as encrypted PDFs by email

tgragnato 8y ago

> That would involve sending sensitive data over unencrypted channels, which is a no-go. Why do you think that? My inbox is plenty of (unsigned) PDFs coming from mx<n°>.<mybank>.eu ... Headers show they're relayed from <redacted>.internal.<mybank>.eu (private IP included), that spf authentication is ok, but dkim is not even provided.

Silhouette 8y ago
You're talking about authentication and integrity: can you confirm that the statement really came from your bank and has not been modified? The GP was talking about encryption: can anyone else involved with any system your email passed through read your intimate financial details?
- tgragnato 8y ago
  S/MIME no, PGP no, TLS yes. TLS means in transit interception is not easy and SPF that the address is not spoofed, but without DKIM I'm not able to verify that the content is not forged. As such, for example, my email provider is able to read those emails, and probably to modify them without me noticing. If something doesn't grant confidentiality, data integrity and authentication, it's not encryption. I don't think TLS alone is enough to qualify an email as an "encrypted channel".
  - Silhouette 8y ago
    In general, you can't control how an email will travel from the original sender's system to your own, or from your own to its final recipient. Such is the nature of SMTP. A lot of modern email systems will be encrypting their connections on various hops, but it's not something you can guarantee for mail that leaves your own organisation, and even if all of the hops were encrypting the data in motion, there are still plenty of vulnerabilities while the data is at rest anywhere along the way. In short, banks sending out PDF statements by email would be dangerous, as sillysaurus3 originally implied.
    - tgragnato 8y ago
      It's dangerous, but happened anyway in my case. And without the mitigations that are already available. I'm not trying to argue that it's ok, I'm saying that in my experience bank employees use email for confidential communications.
      - Silhouette 8y ago
        In that case, you have my sympathies. Far too many organisations, particularly those in sensitive fields like finance, medical care and (surprisingly, perhaps) law are cavalier about sending things via email that really shouldn't be. I think a lot of them genuinely don't understand that it's not a secure or appropriate medium for sending confidential information, and actually what we need to improve that situation is more like a public awareness campaign than theoretical technical solutions that most people aren't going to use anyway or legal/regulatory solutions that just punish a small proportion of the culprits who didn't know they were doing anything wrong anyway.