4 ms·
Damn lies. Damn lies. The attack vector only works for VOIP or Toll Free Numbers. The upstream agreements already block Mobile numbers. This is paid marketing f
by wealthyyy 6y ago
Damn lies. Damn lies. The attack vector only works for VOIP or Toll Free Numbers. The upstream agreements already block Mobile numbers. This is paid marketing for his company.
- fatnoah 6y agoJust adding that landline numbers, not just toll-free numbers, are probably vulnerable to this.
- wealthyyy 6y agoYes, I forget to include it.
- fatnoah 6y agoI also place the blame on Sakari. I headed Engineering for a company that allowed you to bring your own landline number for business, and our automated flow for non-toll-free landline required receiving a code via telephone call (to avoid the situation of compromised SMS routing) and entering that as part of the signup process. For toll-free numbers, it was a manual process where we received written LOAs and verified ownership via the SMS/800 database (ironically, SMS here has nothing to do with messaging and is purely coincidental).
- meowface 6y agoNot sure why this isn't higher up. This is crucial information showing this is FUD. There are still grave vulnerabilities in mobile provider SMS (2FA or otherwise) due to how easy it is for a dedicated attacker to SIM swap, but this particular claim is completely misleading.
- dataflow 6y ago> Not sure why this isn't higher up. This is crucial information showing this is FUD. It's already too high up given it's a blatantly baseless accusation. I'm confused why you think it's more credible than the article when it provides zero evidence.