4 ms·

Using phones as all-powerful fallbacks is great when you're at home or the office, and wondering if your computer or online accounts are being compromised. Not

Using phones as all-powerful fallbacks is great when you're at home or the office, and wondering if your computer or online accounts are being compromised. Not when the phone itself could be compromised (physically). This sounds stupid to say because it is - stupid-ly obvious. Major phone OS makers (all, what, 2 of them?) need to allow you to have at least 2 authentication paths - one when you are in a physically secure location, and one when your phone could be snooped or stolen. It's a fundamental need for phones. To mitigate the problem of muggers demanding both codes, they should also allow location-based locking, where you could tell the phone to only allow the trusted functions to be accessed at certain GPS coordinates.

CatWChainsaw 3y ago
>This sounds stupid to say because it is - stupid-ly obvious. But since it is also stupidly profitable, it's a problem without any solution. In the US, phone numbers are now as important as social security numbers, in that you need one to access a bunch of online services. That so much else is attached to that phone number and that the phone is its own weakness is unforgivable. I worry, however, that the mitigation will come in the form of tying identity into the phone to an even greater degree.
- jrootabega 3y ago
  We've had a misunderstanding here. I think there is a clear improvement: a set of phone credentials that you use in public situations where you might be snooped or robbed. Those credentials can only let you do limited things, and most certainly would not be allowed to modify device or account security.
  - CatWChainsaw 3y ago
    Your original comment was unclear on what the differing credentials would be used for, and it's not a bad idea. It does depend on people being conscientious in public and using the passcodes appropriately, but programming can't mitigate that much. I'm more concerned about how much a phone is expected in the first place, for more and more things. Last year I went on a trip with some friends, and half of the places we went required apps for tickets or even parking, and even a hotel we stayed at was strongly pushing an app. If I'm flying somewhere, I still get a printed boarding pass because I don't want my phone to be the single point of failure that prevents me from flying if a freak accident happens between check-in and the gate.
    - bookofjoe 3y ago
      Sort of related: about once a week when I'm watching TV using Apple TV, when I try to use ESPN or Live TV apps, instead of just coming on they display a QR code for me to scan with the option of going to some website to log in. Since I do not keep my phone with me when I settle in to watch TV, this requires me to get up and go get the phone or use my computer to proceed. Very, very annoying. Why should I have to have a second device at hand to watch TV?
WorldMaker 3y ago
> Major phone OS makers (all, what, 2 of them?) need to allow you to have at least 2 authentication paths - one when you are in a physically secure location, and one when your phone could be snooped or stolen. It's a fundamental need for phones. I feel like this is being done with the hierarchy of how biometric unlocks work on the phones. Your most common logins can be biometric and are generally considered things that cannot be snooped or stolen though they may be coerced. At least on iOS, it is generally easily possible to make sure that you only ever use biometric unlocks in public spaces and spaces you are worried about being snooped (spaces outside of your home). It's also possible to be afraid of coercion and temporarily disable biometrics with a quick button press. Presuming of course that you trust the biometric unlocks in the first place. But if you trust them, then that definitely gives you two authentication paths, one of which is harder to snoop/steal than the other.

CatWChainsaw 3y ago

>This sounds stupid to say because it is - stupid-ly obvious. But since it is also stupidly profitable, it's a problem without any solution. In the US, phone numbers are now as important as social security numbers, in that you need one to access a bunch of online services. That so much else is attached to that phone number and that the phone is its own weakness is unforgivable. I worry, however, that the mitigation will come in the form of tying identity into the phone to an even greater degree.

jrootabega 3y ago
We've had a misunderstanding here. I think there is a clear improvement: a set of phone credentials that you use in public situations where you might be snooped or robbed. Those credentials can only let you do limited things, and most certainly would not be allowed to modify device or account security.
- CatWChainsaw 3y ago
  Your original comment was unclear on what the differing credentials would be used for, and it's not a bad idea. It does depend on people being conscientious in public and using the passcodes appropriately, but programming can't mitigate that much. I'm more concerned about how much a phone is expected in the first place, for more and more things. Last year I went on a trip with some friends, and half of the places we went required apps for tickets or even parking, and even a hotel we stayed at was strongly pushing an app. If I'm flying somewhere, I still get a printed boarding pass because I don't want my phone to be the single point of failure that prevents me from flying if a freak accident happens between check-in and the gate.
  - bookofjoe 3y ago
    Sort of related: about once a week when I'm watching TV using Apple TV, when I try to use ESPN or Live TV apps, instead of just coming on they display a QR code for me to scan with the option of going to some website to log in. Since I do not keep my phone with me when I settle in to watch TV, this requires me to get up and go get the phone or use my computer to proceed. Very, very annoying. Why should I have to have a second device at hand to watch TV?

WorldMaker 3y ago

> Major phone OS makers (all, what, 2 of them?) need to allow you to have at least 2 authentication paths - one when you are in a physically secure location, and one when your phone could be snooped or stolen. It's a fundamental need for phones. I feel like this is being done with the hierarchy of how biometric unlocks work on the phones. Your most common logins can be biometric and are generally considered things that cannot be snooped or stolen though they may be coerced. At least on iOS, it is generally easily possible to make sure that you only ever use biometric unlocks in public spaces and spaces you are worried about being snooped (spaces outside of your home). It's also possible to be afraid of coercion and temporarily disable biometrics with a quick button press. Presuming of course that you trust the biometric unlocks in the first place. But if you trust them, then that definitely gives you two authentication paths, one of which is harder to snoop/steal than the other.