3 ms·
>I’m also a little worried about public computers, shared devices, borrowing etc. Not everyone has a personal $1000 phone. This whole “my own device” assumption
by Roark66 3y ago
>I’m also a little worried about public computers, shared devices, borrowing etc. Not everyone has a personal $1000 phone. This whole “my own device” assumption is a first world bias, and the experts should know better.
Exactly. That's why I'm in favour of SMS based auth for really important services like banking and government services. Your phone got broken/lost? Most providers offer replacement sims immediately or in 24h at worst around here. Your phone is broken, but you have an old 20 year old flip phone? Pop your card in there (with a plastic frame) and you can still authenticate (another reason against non physical sim cards).
I saw mentions that SMS is insecure, but I never heard about a credible remote attack that didn't include provider cooperation or taking over your phone. (someone driving to your house and setting up a fake cell tower in your yard doesn't count for most people). Yes, the user experience is annoying to say the least. Consider the current system we have in Poland for government services (taxes, health care, driving agency, benefits). Most people use their bank as the auth provider a typical session would look like this:
- go to a gov website, click login, be present with various login options that include personal certs etc, choose your bank from the list
- login to your bank's system the normal way (with physical 2fa if you have it, printed keys, or SMS).
- then the bank asks you "do you want to provide auth request that contains these personal detail to _gov_agency_A, if yes tick these 4 boxes that absolve us from anything you do down the line
- then they send you another SMS to confirm finally authenticating you to the site
- you can browse the site etc, but let's say you want to send in a document that requires signing, you fill that document online and they ask you "select your signing provider" (despite already being logged in
- you select your bank, you go through two rounds of SMS again to sign the doc
- phew... Done
It's rather elaborate and hinges on SMS being secure. Most older people get lost at around "tick these 4 boxes" part, so most likely the whole process is being done for them by a local gov/library/internet cafe employee or a relative.
Is it secure? It's pretty annoying to use, but personally I consider the security adequate. I
- tiberious726 3y agoSMS is monumentally insecure and any suggestion to use it as an auth factor (much less a recovery mechanism) is wildly irresponsible. Not only is SIM swapping as easy as convincing the teenager at your local phone store that you lost your phone and want to pay his commission when buying a new one, but the SMS protocol itself is unencrypted and you can MITM, or just straight up spoof it with a few grand worth of equipment (see "stingrays" for the professional version of this). This _abolutely_ happens all the time in the EU too.
- GTP 3y ago> I saw mentions that SMS is insecure, but I never heard about a credible remote attack that didn't include provider cooperation or taking over your phone. Technically correct, but how likely those attacks are seems to depend on the country. While I'm not aware of this being an issue in any EU country, sim swapping is a common thereat at least in the USA. Yes, American providers really need to improve the security of their procedures, but this means that in the current situation the security of any authentication flow based on SMS heavily depends on which country the user is located.