As far as I've heard, the only known hack for the TouchID system is a faked fingerprint. Which is very difficult to do, and a remote wipe of the phone would be able to stop it.
And even if you couldn't stop from doing they'd still not get into the secure enclave with that or know how to reverse the hash with the fingerprint. You could easily cancel all your cards.
As far as I've heard, the only known hack for the TouchID system is a faked fingerprint. Which is very difficult to do, and a remote wipe of the phone would be able to stop it.
Exactly.
And that was almost a year ago. I guess no one else has bothered to publish another TouchID hack. It must be more trouble than it's worth.
And that was almost a year ago. I guess no one else has bothered to publish another TouchID hack. It must be more trouble than it's worth.
And didn't the guy that did it used his own fingerprint which he specifically made from a mold. He needs to grab a phone from someone else (or a phone and some other object), then try to find a full print from it to create his mold.
And even if you couldn't stop from doing they'd still not get into the secure enclave with that or know how to reverse the hash with the fingerprint. You could easily cancel all your cards.
Yes. They'd essentially only be able to try and purchase things with a stolen phone, but they wouldn't have the credit card numbers. So just cancelling the cards would work the same as before.
When you think about it, it'd be more hassle than it's worth for a thief: steal the phone, hope there's a perfect fingerprint to extract on it, have the right equipment and expertise to extract it, keep the phone off any networks to prevent it from being wiped/tracked, risk trying to use it in person to purchase items (since you wouldn't be able to use it online without the CC info), hope no one notices you using the fake fingerprint, only a limited window before the cards are cancelled.
That seems like a horrible system because you don't need NFC available for payments all but a few ten-thousandths of a percent of your usage time. You certainly don't want NFC active for power usage or security reasons when you're not intending to make a purchase. This should be a deliberate action.
You are making the typical apple phone user mistake of thinking that NFC is only useful for payments... On windows phone and android devices, it can be used for much more - quick device paring, phone-to-phone file transfers (bump to share), there are apps that use nfc like nokia treasure tags to keep track of personal items, etc...
You are making the typical apple phone user mistake of thinking that NFC is only useful for payments... On windows phone and android devices, it can be used for much more - quick device paring, phone-to-phone file transfers (bump to share), there are apps that use nfc like nokia treasure tags to keep track of personal items, etc...
That doesn't seem like a good case to open yourself to a security risk but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.
The way you describe this it sounds like hackers just need to get the encryption key and the candy store's open. Also, if the person slides their card and the real. Umber is sent to the bank, then what's to preserve the security of the number?
Either I'm understanding wrong, or you're explaining wrong, or else it doesn't seem that great.
Based on what the article said, the merchant would not STORE the card number with the transaction, just the returned token, so if the merchant's systems are hacked, the numbers cannot be exposed. The original swipe is still sent encrypted, and would be a weak link, but much stronger as nothing about the card number is stored; just the token.
Apple's system on the other hand, could generate a one time token on the device and send that to the backend "iTunes-based" server, since the card numbers are already stored by Apple in iTunes backend.
CC companies couldn't give a rat's ass about security because the losses still are not greater than the costs of implementing something better. They don't care about anyone's personal credit or balance. All they care about is money.
CC companies do give a lot more than a rat's ass about security now. You see a lot more movement by the US CC companies to implement more secure methods to operate (from stripe to chip, for example) because with every large publicized hack, the size (and maybe even magnitude) of the losses goes up, and peoples' confidence in the system goes down, which means fewer people will trust the system in the long run.
Based on what the article said, the merchant would not STORE the card number with the transaction, just the returned token, so if the merchant's systems are hacked, the numbers cannot be exposed. The original swipe is still sent encrypted, and would be a weak link, but much stronger as nothing about the card number is stored; just the token.
Apple's system on the other hand, could generate a one time token on the device and send that to the backend "iTunes-based" server, since the card numbers are already stored by Apple in iTunes backend.
And if this is true (it's how i understand it as well) then prepare for the entire payments industry to be turned on it's head. This would be huge.
And didn't the guy that did it used his own fingerprint which he specifically made from a mold. He needs to grab a phone from someone else (or a phone and some other object), then try to find a full print from it to create his mold.
Hmmmm... I thought he got the fingerprint off a clean beer bottle... and then did the superglue, digital camera, laser printer, rubber cement tricks. But in any event... it was done in a controlled environment.
You're right... let's see someone attempt this with a stolen phone out in the wild.
This is probably why we haven't seen anyone else succeed with this "hack"
Apple did get something right with TouchID... it's a pretty good solution.
Apple did get something right with TouchID... it's a pretty good solution.
Most important, people that never used a PIN now have Touch ID enabled. I wonder what the percentage of users not using nay security is on the iPhone 5S.
Most important, people that never used a PIN now have Touch ID enabled. I wonder what the percentage of users not using nay security is on the iPhone 5S.
Yep!
I never used a PIN with my old iPhone 4S... too much hassle.
But with TouchID... my phone is easy to unlock... and waaay more protected than before.
The way you describe this it sounds like hackers just need to get the encryption key and the candy store's open. Also, if the person slides their card and the real. Umber is sent to the bank, then what's to preserve the security of the number?
Either I'm understanding wrong, or you're explaining wrong, or else it doesn't seem that great.
With a token system there's no real card numbers stored at the retail location so the retailer can't be hacked for credit card numbers usable to clone credit cards. What has been getting broken into are those retailers static archive of consumers real credit card numbers collected when a sale was made: these wouldn't be stored any longer and so wouldn't be waiting for some thief to grab. Intercepting an (encrypted of course) realtime communication is much more difficult than attacking a server sitting somewhere.
That doesn't seem like a good case to open yourself to a security risk but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.
What security risk? You have to trust the apps/devices that you want to pair with - at least on windows phone. It's not like anything can make a connection....
I'm hoping Apple rolls out a payment system with the secure enclave and touch id support. If it takes off it'll push back the copy cats for at least 2 years. It'll take a year just to get silicon with a secure enclave rip off and another 6 months to a year to get out a phone with an OS that uses it correctly. The hardware will be incompatible with each other, etc etc.. it'll be funny to watch.
Apple should really push their advantage given how much trouble the "competition" is going through getting a good finger reader in place.
If the account number is just encrypted then transmitted that is not tokenzation. Tokenization should not be able to be reversed in any way. Most account numbers are currently transmitted via an encrypted channel. Tokenization replaces the account number with a non-derivative representation that can be matched only on the back end by a secure, trusted party.
Yes. They'd essentially only be able to try and purchase things with a stolen phone, but they wouldn't have the credit card numbers. So just cancelling the cards would work the same as before.
When you think about it, it'd be more hassle than it's worth for a thief: steal the phone, hope there's a perfect fingerprint to extract on it, have the right equipment and expertise to extract it, keep the phone off any networks to prevent it from being wiped/tracked, risk trying to use it in person to purchase items (since you wouldn't be able to use it online without the CC info), hope no one notices you using the fake fingerprint, only a limited window before the cards are cancelled.
But in order for the NFC transaction to be completed, don't the iPhone have to connect online to your Apple account in order to retrieve your CC data, since that data is not on the iPhone itself? In which case the iPhone would be wiped (if the owner knows his iPhone is missing.) once it tries to accesses the Apple account during the transaction.
But in order for the NFC transaction to be completed, don't the iPhone have to connect online to your Apple account in order to retrieve your CC data, since that data is not on the iPhone itself?
I'm assuming the CC data would be stored locally on the phone in the secure enclave (same as your fingerprint). That way it could work even if there's no network connection available.
Comments
And even if you couldn't stop from doing they'd still not get into the secure enclave with that or know how to reverse the hash with the fingerprint. You could easily cancel all your cards.
Exactly.
And that was almost a year ago. I guess no one else has bothered to publish another TouchID hack. It must be more trouble than it's worth.
And didn't the guy that did it used his own fingerprint which he specifically made from a mold. He needs to grab a phone from someone else (or a phone and some other object), then try to find a full print from it to create his mold.
And even if you couldn't stop from doing they'd still not get into the secure enclave with that or know how to reverse the hash with the fingerprint. You could easily cancel all your cards.
Yes. They'd essentially only be able to try and purchase things with a stolen phone, but they wouldn't have the credit card numbers. So just cancelling the cards would work the same as before.
When you think about it, it'd be more hassle than it's worth for a thief: steal the phone, hope there's a perfect fingerprint to extract on it, have the right equipment and expertise to extract it, keep the phone off any networks to prevent it from being wiped/tracked, risk trying to use it in person to purchase items (since you wouldn't be able to use it online without the CC info), hope no one notices you using the fake fingerprint, only a limited window before the cards are cancelled.
That seems like a horrible system because you don't need NFC available for payments all but a few ten-thousandths of a percent of your usage time. You certainly don't want NFC active for power usage or security reasons when you're not intending to make a purchase. This should be a deliberate action.
You are making the typical apple phone user mistake of thinking that NFC is only useful for payments... On windows phone and android devices, it can be used for much more - quick device paring, phone-to-phone file transfers (bump to share), there are apps that use nfc like nokia treasure tags to keep track of personal items, etc...
That doesn't seem like a good case to open yourself to a security risk but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.
The way you describe this it sounds like hackers just need to get the encryption key and the candy store's open. Also, if the person slides their card and the real. Umber is sent to the bank, then what's to preserve the security of the number?
Either I'm understanding wrong, or you're explaining wrong, or else it doesn't seem that great.
Based on what the article said, the merchant would not STORE the card number with the transaction, just the returned token, so if the merchant's systems are hacked, the numbers cannot be exposed. The original swipe is still sent encrypted, and would be a weak link, but much stronger as nothing about the card number is stored; just the token.
Apple's system on the other hand, could generate a one time token on the device and send that to the backend "iTunes-based" server, since the card numbers are already stored by Apple in iTunes backend.
CC companies couldn't give a rat's ass about security because the losses still are not greater than the costs of implementing something better. They don't care about anyone's personal credit or balance. All they care about is money.
CC companies do give a lot more than a rat's ass about security now. You see a lot more movement by the US CC companies to implement more secure methods to operate (from stripe to chip, for example) because with every large publicized hack, the size (and maybe even magnitude) of the losses goes up, and peoples' confidence in the system goes down, which means fewer people will trust the system in the long run.
Based on what the article said, the merchant would not STORE the card number with the transaction, just the returned token, so if the merchant's systems are hacked, the numbers cannot be exposed. The original swipe is still sent encrypted, and would be a weak link, but much stronger as nothing about the card number is stored; just the token.
Apple's system on the other hand, could generate a one time token on the device and send that to the backend "iTunes-based" server, since the card numbers are already stored by Apple in iTunes backend.
And if this is true (it's how i understand it as well) then prepare for the entire payments industry to be turned on it's head. This would be huge.
Hmmmm... I thought he got the fingerprint off a clean beer bottle... and then did the superglue, digital camera, laser printer, rubber cement tricks. But in any event... it was done in a controlled environment.
You're right... let's see someone attempt this with a stolen phone out in the wild.
This is probably why we haven't seen anyone else succeed with this "hack"
Apple did get something right with TouchID... it's a pretty good solution.
Most important, people that never used a PIN now have Touch ID enabled. I wonder what the percentage of users not using nay security is on the iPhone 5S.
Yep!
I never used a PIN with my old iPhone 4S... too much hassle.
But with TouchID... my phone is easy to unlock... and waaay more protected than before.
The way you describe this it sounds like hackers just need to get the encryption key and the candy store's open. Also, if the person slides their card and the real. Umber is sent to the bank, then what's to preserve the security of the number?
Either I'm understanding wrong, or you're explaining wrong, or else it doesn't seem that great.
With a token system there's no real card numbers stored at the retail location so the retailer can't be hacked for credit card numbers usable to clone credit cards. What has been getting broken into are those retailers static archive of consumers real credit card numbers collected when a sale was made: these wouldn't be stored any longer and so wouldn't be waiting for some thief to grab. Intercepting an (encrypted of course) realtime communication is much more difficult than attacking a server sitting somewhere.
That doesn't seem like a good case to open yourself to a security risk but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.
What security risk? You have to trust the apps/devices that you want to pair with - at least on windows phone. It's not like anything can make a connection....
Apple should really push their advantage given how much trouble the "competition" is going through getting a good finger reader in place.
This should theoretically enable people to integrate Bitcoin (and other crypto-currency), stocks... and anything else that can be bought or sold!
Yes. They'd essentially only be able to try and purchase things with a stolen phone, but they wouldn't have the credit card numbers. So just cancelling the cards would work the same as before.
When you think about it, it'd be more hassle than it's worth for a thief: steal the phone, hope there's a perfect fingerprint to extract on it, have the right equipment and expertise to extract it, keep the phone off any networks to prevent it from being wiped/tracked, risk trying to use it in person to purchase items (since you wouldn't be able to use it online without the CC info), hope no one notices you using the fake fingerprint, only a limited window before the cards are cancelled.
But in order for the NFC transaction to be completed, don't the iPhone have to connect online to your Apple account in order to retrieve your CC data, since that data is not on the iPhone itself? In which case the iPhone would be wiped (if the owner knows his iPhone is missing.) once it tries to accesses the Apple account during the transaction.
But in order for the NFC transaction to be completed, don't the iPhone have to connect online to your Apple account in order to retrieve your CC data, since that data is not on the iPhone itself?
I'm assuming the CC data would be stored locally on the phone in the secure enclave (same as your fingerprint). That way it could work even if there's no network connection available.
Sigh.
Basically everything this article says is wrong. It's clearly written by someone who does not understand security or cryptography.
It's such a mess that there isn't much point in attempting to rebut it specifically.
Kinda like explaining evolution to a creationist, or physics to a global warmist.
If you don't have anything to add, then don't start.