4 ms·

This seems like a really big argument for never allowing your data to be stored by a 3rd party. Does anyone see any reason why these companies should do anythi

This seems like a really big argument for never allowing your data to be stored by a 3rd party. Does anyone see any reason why these companies should do anything other than store the data locally on your system, encrypted/obfuscated, and then only ever send once, via encrypted connection, and then immediately delete the info remotely? I mean, if someone breaks in to my house and steals my PS3, they already have access to all of that information.

brudgers 16y ago
>"This seems like a really big argument for never allowing your data to be stored by a 3rd party." iTunes comes to mind: http://isc.sans.edu/diary.html?storyid=9136 http://isc.sans.edu/diary.html?storyid=9136 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1488956 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1488956 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=948757 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=948757
falcolas 16y ago
Much of ecommerce would go down the drain, if they got rid of remote storage of your details. No recurring billing, no "One-Click", no address books, etc...
- _delirium 16y ago
  It should at least be an option for me not to store it, if I prefer not to use "one-click" and similar features. I understand why stores prefer to save the information without giving me a choice (reduces friction for future purchases), but I'm not sure that's a good enough reason given the prevailing security track records. Either that, or perhaps there could be statutory penalties for data breaches. For example, if there was mandatory compensation of, say, $100/person for a data breach, companies might be incentivized to better think about whether they really need to store this data, and whether they're storing it safely.
  - dedward 16y ago
    Online retailers who handle their own CC processing tend to keep credit card information around if only for fraud/chargeback tracking in the future - being online opens you up to massive abuse if you don't keep it in check. A big player like sony should have been complying with PCI standards - but from what I've seen, that's not so difficult to pass and then forget about - people take shortcuts - and how many companies out there have ever had their processing revoked for NOT complying with PCI? That would be an interesting statistic.
    - falcolas 15y ago
      From my experience, PCI compliance does not require that you have everything perfect, as long as you have a plan to fix your deficiencies. And as an employee at a couple of PCI compliant shops, I can attest that even full PCI compliance still leaves a lot of holes (enough that some organizations have formed their own compliance exams above and beyond PCI).
- jcromartie 16y ago
  I can imagine a couple of good one-click solutions involving public keys.
  - sukuriant 16y ago
    Expound upon this, remembering the common audience that want things fast and easy and from anywhere (iPhone, Android, mac, windows, some computer at the library), I'd be curious to know it.
- TheSOB88 16y ago
  So your PS3 couldn't just deliver the data it has, and the server couldn't delete it after it's done?
romland 16y ago
While I think I agree with you, but rule #1 when doing client-server development is: Never, ever, trust the client. And, ironically, something which I think Sony forgot here. :)
- wccrawford 15y ago
  The entire security model for consoles has always relied on trusting the client. It has never worked, and yet they keep doing it time and time again. It doesn't surprise me a bit that they did their network the same exact way.
- mrcharles 15y ago
  I understand, but this isn't the same case. I mean, a PS3 owner can already enter false data in to all these fields. So what is there to trust that's any more or less trustworthy than that? Really we're talking about the equivalent of automatic field filling, and the entire internet functions on that (at least in my browser).

brudgers 16y ago

>"This seems like a really big argument for never allowing your data to be stored by a 3rd party." iTunes comes to mind: http://isc.sans.edu/diary.html?storyid=9136 http://isc.sans.edu/diary.html?storyid=9136 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1488956 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1488956 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=948757 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=948757

falcolas 16y ago

Much of ecommerce would go down the drain, if they got rid of remote storage of your details. No recurring billing, no "One-Click", no address books, etc...

_delirium 16y ago
It should at least be an option for me not to store it, if I prefer not to use "one-click" and similar features. I understand why stores prefer to save the information without giving me a choice (reduces friction for future purchases), but I'm not sure that's a good enough reason given the prevailing security track records. Either that, or perhaps there could be statutory penalties for data breaches. For example, if there was mandatory compensation of, say, $100/person for a data breach, companies might be incentivized to better think about whether they really need to store this data, and whether they're storing it safely.
- dedward 16y ago
  Online retailers who handle their own CC processing tend to keep credit card information around if only for fraud/chargeback tracking in the future - being online opens you up to massive abuse if you don't keep it in check. A big player like sony should have been complying with PCI standards - but from what I've seen, that's not so difficult to pass and then forget about - people take shortcuts - and how many companies out there have ever had their processing revoked for NOT complying with PCI? That would be an interesting statistic.
  - falcolas 15y ago
    From my experience, PCI compliance does not require that you have everything perfect, as long as you have a plan to fix your deficiencies. And as an employee at a couple of PCI compliant shops, I can attest that even full PCI compliance still leaves a lot of holes (enough that some organizations have formed their own compliance exams above and beyond PCI).
jcromartie 16y ago
I can imagine a couple of good one-click solutions involving public keys.
- sukuriant 16y ago
  Expound upon this, remembering the common audience that want things fast and easy and from anywhere (iPhone, Android, mac, windows, some computer at the library), I'd be curious to know it.
TheSOB88 16y ago
So your PS3 couldn't just deliver the data it has, and the server couldn't delete it after it's done?

romland 16y ago

While I think I agree with you, but rule #1 when doing client-server development is: Never, ever, trust the client. And, ironically, something which I think Sony forgot here. :)

wccrawford 15y ago
The entire security model for consoles has always relied on trusting the client. It has never worked, and yet they keep doing it time and time again. It doesn't surprise me a bit that they did their network the same exact way.
mrcharles 15y ago
I understand, but this isn't the same case. I mean, a PS3 owner can already enter false data in to all these fields. So what is there to trust that's any more or less trustworthy than that? Really we're talking about the equivalent of automatic field filling, and the entire internet functions on that (at least in my browser).