3 ms·
I think that since the issue at hand is that SMS can be intercepted, the protection afforded by this information is minimal. Anecdotally, in the case of my ban
by vladvasiliu 3y ago
I think that since the issue at hand is that SMS can be intercepted, the protection afforded by this information is minimal.
Anecdotally, in the case of my bank, if I try to make a transfer, the SMS is something along the lines of "Are you trying to transfer 1234 €? If yes, enter the code 12345, or else call your representative asap".
One terrible point being that once you've entered the confirmation code, they consider the transaction as "strongly verified", so it's not that easy to roll it back. Fortunately, I've never had this happen to me so I don't know what that entails, but contesting a random unverified charge is as easy as clicking on the transaction list and then "dispute".
- lxgr 3y agoYes, all in all I'm not happy with SMS-OTP still being considered just as secure as e.g. WebAuthN, and much more secure than Email-OTP (which is explicitly prohibited for PSD2/SCA purposes). The problem isn't really interception in my view (even though SIM-jacking and porting attacks are scary enough!), but rather the high likelihood of phishing/UI confusion: With modern mobile OSes auto-filling transaction details, I'm not too sure if everybody is still reading the text accompanying the confirmation code. It's quite possible for a fraud victim to be directed to amaz0n.com and tricked into entering an SMS-OTP confirmation code to confirm a purchase of €5.00, without noticing that the accompanying text actually says "only enter this code on BuyCryptoNoKycOrBacksies.com to confirm your purchase of €500".