3 ms·

This is a very interesting way of thinking about this. I guess this would be our biggest concern if we are specifically a security product. I think I was too f

This is a very interesting way of thinking about this. I guess this would be our biggest concern if we are specifically a security product. I think I was too focused on answering your question regarding security :). Basically, yes we do offer security, and the security we offer prevents social engineering. But that is not the only point of the product. SMS OTP is used in general as a way to authenticate, on any kind of app, because it's the only seamless option to reach these types of users. And since SMS OTP is more expensive than our pricing and requires integration with several local providers for a good delivery rate, these developers can simply use Cotter because it's easier to integrate, it works across apps so it reduces friction and SMS cost, and it provides security from day one. So the value is not only about the threat/risk assessments but it's just a better alternative to SMS OTP logins. Our goal is to make our product faster, cheaper, and better than their current options to authenticate users. Let me know what you think about this! And thanks for talking about this, it really got us thinking.

motohagiography 7y ago
As something whose value is focused solely on reducing the cost of SMS OTP, without a net increase in security assurance, which shifts the compromise risk into another threat (from sim swap to malware), aimed at developers who aren't equipped to reason about security and people who are sensitive to SMS fees, it's a narrow solution that could be one of those, "it shouldn't work but it does," things (like mPesa). Your risk will come from security people in enterprises who know this stuff and will hamper and derail your sales. The opportunity will be in small app developers who get sudden traction, and relying parties will accept the risks of the authn method in exchange for access to that user channel. I can see why someone would take the chance on investing in someone building rope bridges in developing countries, where engineers would say it's wrong for every conceivable reason, but someone is going to own those routes whether the bridges are rope or steel suspension and there is first mover advantage. As you can see, security people will likely not be your allies in this, which is fine, but that's the heads up. Presuming you have a channel to those developers in 3rd world markets, I could see how YC might want exposure. If nothing else, it's a case study and a useful example of how VCs see risk vs. how engineers see risk.:) Good luck!

motohagiography 7y ago

As something whose value is focused solely on reducing the cost of SMS OTP, without a net increase in security assurance, which shifts the compromise risk into another threat (from sim swap to malware), aimed at developers who aren't equipped to reason about security and people who are sensitive to SMS fees, it's a narrow solution that could be one of those, "it shouldn't work but it does," things (like mPesa). Your risk will come from security people in enterprises who know this stuff and will hamper and derail your sales. The opportunity will be in small app developers who get sudden traction, and relying parties will accept the risks of the authn method in exchange for access to that user channel. I can see why someone would take the chance on investing in someone building rope bridges in developing countries, where engineers would say it's wrong for every conceivable reason, but someone is going to own those routes whether the bridges are rope or steel suspension and there is first mover advantage. As you can see, security people will likely not be your allies in this, which is fine, but that's the heads up. Presuming you have a channel to those developers in 3rd world markets, I could see how YC might want exposure. If nothing else, it's a case study and a useful example of how VCs see risk vs. how engineers see risk.:) Good luck!