4 ms·

I've been thinking about this a bit more and I think the right path forward is to impose the same fiduciary liabilities and regulations on cellular providers th

I've been thinking about this a bit more and I think the right path forward is to impose the same fiduciary liabilities and regulations on cellular providers that banks enjoy. Phones are used as authentication devices for bank transactions. If cellular providers have to go through all the same audits of controls as banks and share the same fiduciary liabilities that may raise the bar for phishing attempts. This may also change the employment requirements for people at T-Mobile and there would be more scrutiny to weed out some of the bad apples or at least increase monitoring and auditing of transactions to provide more visibility to forensic teams.

jameshart 4y ago
> phones are used as authentication devices for banking transactions That’s the banks’ choice though. Are cellular providers selling them a secure authentication service? Or just an insecure best effort message delivery channel? But then of course the banks can ping that liability further upstream: as a customer, when you choose to opt in to SMS authentication, you’re the one vouching for the security of your cellphone provider, telling your bank ‘I trust their account security enough that if you send a message to this number you can assume the recipient is me’ So now you’re left going to your cell company and saying ‘since the bank said I could use you for auth, you’re properly secure right?’ And their answer is ‘lol no. check our t’s and c’s.’ And then you wind up saying ‘but I want to be able to assume that and I think my cell company should be liable if they aren’t’, and asking for the cellphone company to be regulated like a bank. Because banks are that good at deflecting liability.
- LinuxBender 4y ago
  I think the legislation should be worded so that if a cellular provider does not want the fiduciary and regulatory requirements imposed on them, they must disable all SS7-to-MAPI SMS/text message gateways or any other form of non-E2EE unencrypted and unauthenticated communication. SIM swapping becomes less useful as encrypted applications take over MFA/2FA authentication meaning the attacker must acquire and unlock the phone itself rather than being able to impersonate it. Even voice communication must be encrypted when cell-to-cell so that Joe-Blow-Nobody and the President of the United States have exactly the same protection on their personal cell phones. If a company key use used for lawful intercept there must be a massive audit trail that makes it crystal clear who monitored what and for how long. No more pressuring people like me to give authorities unfettered and un-monitored lawful monitoring access.
ridgered4 4y ago
I actually think we should just divest all security tasks from cellular providers. They are clearly bad at it and I don't think they ever really pretended it was a core competency. Reforming them would take far longer than just switching to the available alternatives, and probably would not work as they would just lobby any regulations down to be toothless.
ashwagary 4y ago
>Phones are used as authentication devices for bank transactions. If cellular providers have to go through all the same audits of controls as banks and share the same fiduciary liabilities that may raise the bar for phishing attempts. That may also raise prices massively. I prefer that mobile carriers get dumber (collect less info) and less regulated, not smarter and more regulated. If your business relies on SMS for authentication, you are liable for all the fallout of using an insecure channel. It's the bank's job to secure your funds, not a mobile carrier's. Let's keep it that way and make it more clear to consumers and businesses.

jameshart 4y ago

> phones are used as authentication devices for banking transactions That’s the banks’ choice though. Are cellular providers selling them a secure authentication service? Or just an insecure best effort message delivery channel? But then of course the banks can ping that liability further upstream: as a customer, when you choose to opt in to SMS authentication, you’re the one vouching for the security of your cellphone provider, telling your bank ‘I trust their account security enough that if you send a message to this number you can assume the recipient is me’ So now you’re left going to your cell company and saying ‘since the bank said I could use you for auth, you’re properly secure right?’ And their answer is ‘lol no. check our t’s and c’s.’ And then you wind up saying ‘but I want to be able to assume that and I think my cell company should be liable if they aren’t’, and asking for the cellphone company to be regulated like a bank. Because banks are that good at deflecting liability.

LinuxBender 4y ago
I think the legislation should be worded so that if a cellular provider does not want the fiduciary and regulatory requirements imposed on them, they must disable all SS7-to-MAPI SMS/text message gateways or any other form of non-E2EE unencrypted and unauthenticated communication. SIM swapping becomes less useful as encrypted applications take over MFA/2FA authentication meaning the attacker must acquire and unlock the phone itself rather than being able to impersonate it. Even voice communication must be encrypted when cell-to-cell so that Joe-Blow-Nobody and the President of the United States have exactly the same protection on their personal cell phones. If a company key use used for lawful intercept there must be a massive audit trail that makes it crystal clear who monitored what and for how long. No more pressuring people like me to give authorities unfettered and un-monitored lawful monitoring access.

ridgered4 4y ago

I actually think we should just divest all security tasks from cellular providers. They are clearly bad at it and I don't think they ever really pretended it was a core competency. Reforming them would take far longer than just switching to the available alternatives, and probably would not work as they would just lobby any regulations down to be toothless.

ashwagary 4y ago

>Phones are used as authentication devices for bank transactions. If cellular providers have to go through all the same audits of controls as banks and share the same fiduciary liabilities that may raise the bar for phishing attempts. That may also raise prices massively. I prefer that mobile carriers get dumber (collect less info) and less regulated, not smarter and more regulated. If your business relies on SMS for authentication, you are liable for all the fallout of using an insecure channel. It's the bank's job to secure your funds, not a mobile carrier's. Let's keep it that way and make it more clear to consumers and businesses.