3 ms·

Think about it more from the perspective of a jailbroken device being used as a wallet for "cloned" virtual credit cards, transit cards etc. and then using thos

Think about it more from the perspective of a jailbroken device being used as a wallet for "cloned" virtual credit cards, transit cards etc. and then using those on NFC readers. It's not possible right now AFAIK but that doesn't mean it might not be possible later. The main point I'm trying to make though is that mobile devices support NFC payments with virtual cards in wallets that are protected by Apple/Google. That's not a use case that is supported on regular PCs, so it's not unreasonable that the security requirements are different.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> Think about it more from the perspective of a jailbroken device being used as a wallet for "cloned" virtual credit cards, transit cards etc. and then using those on NFC readers. Any reasonable system (i.e. one using public key cryptography) does not allow the attacker to "clone" your virtual cards at all, because they don't have your private key, which never leaves your device. And if they've compromised your device (not their own) sufficiently to extract your private key then the game is over and you've already lost. Once they have the private key they don't need a jailbroken phone running the official app, they can just speak the NFC protocol directly to the reader and sign with the victim's private key. > The main point I'm trying to make though is that mobile devices support NFC payments with virtual cards in wallets that are protected by Apple/Google. That's not a use case that is supported on regular PCs, so it's not unreasonable that the security requirements are different. The difference is that the security requirements should be lower, since it's only used for in-person purchases. Even if the attacker somehow has your private key, to use NFC they would have to show up in person, smile for all the surveillance cameras and risk getting arrested on the spot if the card has already been reported stolen.
- petersellers 6y ago
  I'm more referring to an attacker cloning their own cards, not someone else's. Some smartcard systems assume that the state of the card is the source of truth, and not anything on the server. In that case you don't want people cloning their own cards and then using those to hop on the subway. I don't see the argument for why security requirements should be lower in that case. Security cameras are not always present and getting arrested "on the spot" for a virtual card theft seems unlikely given the nature of the crime (it seems doubtful police forces would have officers standing by for this purpose that are able to both detect and react quickly enough).

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> Think about it more from the perspective of a jailbroken device being used as a wallet for "cloned" virtual credit cards, transit cards etc. and then using those on NFC readers. Any reasonable system (i.e. one using public key cryptography) does not allow the attacker to "clone" your virtual cards at all, because they don't have your private key, which never leaves your device. And if they've compromised your device (not their own) sufficiently to extract your private key then the game is over and you've already lost. Once they have the private key they don't need a jailbroken phone running the official app, they can just speak the NFC protocol directly to the reader and sign with the victim's private key. > The main point I'm trying to make though is that mobile devices support NFC payments with virtual cards in wallets that are protected by Apple/Google. That's not a use case that is supported on regular PCs, so it's not unreasonable that the security requirements are different. The difference is that the security requirements should be lower, since it's only used for in-person purchases. Even if the attacker somehow has your private key, to use NFC they would have to show up in person, smile for all the surveillance cameras and risk getting arrested on the spot if the card has already been reported stolen.

petersellers 6y ago
I'm more referring to an attacker cloning their own cards, not someone else's. Some smartcard systems assume that the state of the card is the source of truth, and not anything on the server. In that case you don't want people cloning their own cards and then using those to hop on the subway. I don't see the argument for why security requirements should be lower in that case. Security cameras are not always present and getting arrested "on the spot" for a virtual card theft seems unlikely given the nature of the crime (it seems doubtful police forces would have officers standing by for this purpose that are able to both detect and react quickly enough).