Microsoft and MasterCard working on universal online identification standard

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 34
    danvmdanvm Posts: 692member
    macxpress said:
    Could be worse...could be Google and MasterCard. 
    Considering your post, I suppose you think Apple did wrong on accepting $9B from Google to make Google Search the default search engine in iOS and macOS, right?
    williamlondon
  • Reply 22 of 34
    danvmdanvm Posts: 692member
    danvm said:
    If its online it can be hacked & stolen -- and identity theft is a growth industry.

    Why would I trust Microsoft with my ID?
    Actually, that's one of the big reasons why I stick to Apple products -- security and privacy.  They're not invulnerable, but they're better than the rest.   Far better.
    There is a large list of enterprises and business that trust MS authentication platform (Azure AD / AD) for their users and customers ID's.  And now they are moving to password less on their services and products, as a method to improve security. 

    https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/cloud-platform/passwordless

    Like you said, if it's online, it can be hacked and stolen.  But MS have been prove very solid from a security POV, specially with their cloud services.  I think that's the reason MC team with MS for this project.  
    Part of the trouble is that when a business is hacked, it's their customer's information that is stolen and it's customers that suffer the consequences.   The business itself gets a bit of bad publicity, spends few dollars on a token effort to placate the affected customers, and then moves on with business as usual.

    Having their customer's information stolen is now just a normal cost of doing business -- for the enterprise.  So, their incentive is to put as little time, effort and money into secure systems as they can reasonably get away with and still be able to claim that they keep their customer's private information secure.
    I agree with you.  Making the Internet a safer place to make transaction evolve every day.  And this agreement between MS + MC maybe is the next step to make transaction in the internet safer.  I don't see how this could be a bad thing, considering the billions of transactions made every years in the Internet.  I just hope it works.  If this reduce the incidents of stolen information, it will reduce costs for customer and business.  Everybody wins.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 23 of 34
    Why isn’t Apple working on something like this?
  • Reply 24 of 34
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 2,718moderator
    danvm said:
    macxpress said:
    Could be worse...could be Google and MasterCard. 
    Considering your post, I suppose you think Apple did wrong on accepting $9B from Google to make Google Search the default search engine in iOS and macOS, right?
    Try to keep up.  Tim Cook was asked why his company takes those billions and he answered that on Apple devices there are protections in place e to limit the ability of Google searchto track you all over the web.  Not so much, apparently, on Android, or else he wouldn’t have been able to make the distinction. 
    williamlondon
  • Reply 25 of 34
    danvmdanvm Posts: 692member
    danvm said:
    macxpress said:
    Could be worse...could be Google and MasterCard. 
    Considering your post, I suppose you think Apple did wrong on accepting $9B from Google to make Google Search the default search engine in iOS and macOS, right?
    Try to keep up.  Tim Cook was asked why his company takes those billions and he answered that on Apple devices there are protections in place e to limit the ability of Google searchto track you all over the web.  Not so much, apparently, on Android, or else he wouldn’t have been able to make the distinction. 
    I suppose you refer to this line from the Cook interview,

    “We have an intelligent tracker prevention. What we’ve tried to do is come up with ways to help our users through their course of the day. It’s not a perfect thing. I’d be the very first person to say that. But it goes a long way to helping.”

    Did you noticed he mentions that "it's not a perfect thing"?  It looks like that lack of perfection from Apple is good enough for Google to pay $9B.  Don't you think that Google is gaining something in this, considering the amount of money involved?

    williamlondon
  • Reply 26 of 34
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 3,249member
    danvm said:
    danvm said:
    If its online it can be hacked & stolen -- and identity theft is a growth industry.

    Why would I trust Microsoft with my ID?
    Actually, that's one of the big reasons why I stick to Apple products -- security and privacy.  They're not invulnerable, but they're better than the rest.   Far better.
    There is a large list of enterprises and business that trust MS authentication platform (Azure AD / AD) for their users and customers ID's.  And now they are moving to password less on their services and products, as a method to improve security. 

    https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/cloud-platform/passwordless

    Like you said, if it's online, it can be hacked and stolen.  But MS have been prove very solid from a security POV, specially with their cloud services.  I think that's the reason MC team with MS for this project.  
    Part of the trouble is that when a business is hacked, it's their customer's information that is stolen and it's customers that suffer the consequences.   The business itself gets a bit of bad publicity, spends few dollars on a token effort to placate the affected customers, and then moves on with business as usual.

    Having their customer's information stolen is now just a normal cost of doing business -- for the enterprise.  So, their incentive is to put as little time, effort and money into secure systems as they can reasonably get away with and still be able to claim that they keep their customer's private information secure.
    I agree with you.  Making the Internet a safer place to make transaction evolve every day.  And this agreement between MS + MC maybe is the next step to make transaction in the internet safer.  I don't see how this could be a bad thing, considering the billions of transactions made every years in the Internet.  I just hope it works.  If this reduce the incidents of stolen information, it will reduce costs for customer and business.  Everybody wins.
    That's all true.   But Microsoft's reputation for security is far from stellar.
  • Reply 27 of 34
    danvmdanvm Posts: 692member
    danvm said:
    danvm said:
    If its online it can be hacked & stolen -- and identity theft is a growth industry.

    Why would I trust Microsoft with my ID?
    Actually, that's one of the big reasons why I stick to Apple products -- security and privacy.  They're not invulnerable, but they're better than the rest.   Far better.
    There is a large list of enterprises and business that trust MS authentication platform (Azure AD / AD) for their users and customers ID's.  And now they are moving to password less on their services and products, as a method to improve security. 

    https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/cloud-platform/passwordless

    Like you said, if it's online, it can be hacked and stolen.  But MS have been prove very solid from a security POV, specially with their cloud services.  I think that's the reason MC team with MS for this project.  
    Part of the trouble is that when a business is hacked, it's their customer's information that is stolen and it's customers that suffer the consequences.   The business itself gets a bit of bad publicity, spends few dollars on a token effort to placate the affected customers, and then moves on with business as usual.

    Having their customer's information stolen is now just a normal cost of doing business -- for the enterprise.  So, their incentive is to put as little time, effort and money into secure systems as they can reasonably get away with and still be able to claim that they keep their customer's private information secure.
    I agree with you.  Making the Internet a safer place to make transaction evolve every day.  And this agreement between MS + MC maybe is the next step to make transaction in the internet safer.  I don't see how this could be a bad thing, considering the billions of transactions made every years in the Internet.  I just hope it works.  If this reduce the incidents of stolen information, it will reduce costs for customer and business.  Everybody wins.
    That's all true.   But Microsoft's reputation for security is far from stellar.
    If you are talking about the 80's and 90's, maybe I would agree.  But MS have improved a lot.  They have one of the large cloud infrastructures in the world, and you cannot build something as big without being good at security.  Even Windows 10 have been a big improvement in security.  Recently the DoD upgrade 4M devices to Windows 10, why?  To improve security.


    Maybe the reputation you think MS have related to security is poor, but in realty they are doing very good. 
    williamlondon
  • Reply 28 of 34
    danvm said:
    danvm said:
    danvm said:
    If its online it can be hacked & stolen -- and identity theft is a growth industry.

    Why would I trust Microsoft with my ID?
    Actually, that's one of the big reasons why I stick to Apple products -- security and privacy.  They're not invulnerable, but they're better than the rest.   Far better.
    There is a large list of enterprises and business that trust MS authentication platform (Azure AD / AD) for their users and customers ID's.  And now they are moving to password less on their services and products, as a method to improve security. 

    https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/cloud-platform/passwordless

    Like you said, if it's online, it can be hacked and stolen.  But MS have been prove very solid from a security POV, specially with their cloud services.  I think that's the reason MC team with MS for this project.  
    Part of the trouble is that when a business is hacked, it's their customer's information that is stolen and it's customers that suffer the consequences.   The business itself gets a bit of bad publicity, spends few dollars on a token effort to placate the affected customers, and then moves on with business as usual.

    Having their customer's information stolen is now just a normal cost of doing business -- for the enterprise.  So, their incentive is to put as little time, effort and money into secure systems as they can reasonably get away with and still be able to claim that they keep their customer's private information secure.
    I agree with you.  Making the Internet a safer place to make transaction evolve every day.  And this agreement between MS + MC maybe is the next step to make transaction in the internet safer.  I don't see how this could be a bad thing, considering the billions of transactions made every years in the Internet.  I just hope it works.  If this reduce the incidents of stolen information, it will reduce costs for customer and business.  Everybody wins.
    That's all true.   But Microsoft's reputation for security is far from stellar.
    If you are talking about the 80's and 90's, maybe I would agree.  But MS have improved a lot.  They have one of the large cloud infrastructures in the world, and you cannot build something as big without being good at security.  Even Windows 10 have been a big improvement in security.  Recently the DoD upgrade 4M devices to Windows 10, why?  To improve security.


    Maybe the reputation you think MS have related to security is poor, but in realty they are doing very good. 
    Improved security does not mean good security.
    Microsoft has single handedly created an entirly new industry:  Virus protection.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 29 of 34
    danvmdanvm Posts: 692member
    danvm said:
    danvm said:
    danvm said:
    If its online it can be hacked & stolen -- and identity theft is a growth industry.

    Why would I trust Microsoft with my ID?
    Actually, that's one of the big reasons why I stick to Apple products -- security and privacy.  They're not invulnerable, but they're better than the rest.   Far better.
    There is a large list of enterprises and business that trust MS authentication platform (Azure AD / AD) for their users and customers ID's.  And now they are moving to password less on their services and products, as a method to improve security. 

    https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/cloud-platform/passwordless

    Like you said, if it's online, it can be hacked and stolen.  But MS have been prove very solid from a security POV, specially with their cloud services.  I think that's the reason MC team with MS for this project.  
    Part of the trouble is that when a business is hacked, it's their customer's information that is stolen and it's customers that suffer the consequences.   The business itself gets a bit of bad publicity, spends few dollars on a token effort to placate the affected customers, and then moves on with business as usual.

    Having their customer's information stolen is now just a normal cost of doing business -- for the enterprise.  So, their incentive is to put as little time, effort and money into secure systems as they can reasonably get away with and still be able to claim that they keep their customer's private information secure.
    I agree with you.  Making the Internet a safer place to make transaction evolve every day.  And this agreement between MS + MC maybe is the next step to make transaction in the internet safer.  I don't see how this could be a bad thing, considering the billions of transactions made every years in the Internet.  I just hope it works.  If this reduce the incidents of stolen information, it will reduce costs for customer and business.  Everybody wins.
    That's all true.   But Microsoft's reputation for security is far from stellar.
    If you are talking about the 80's and 90's, maybe I would agree.  But MS have improved a lot.  They have one of the large cloud infrastructures in the world, and you cannot build something as big without being good at security.  Even Windows 10 have been a big improvement in security.  Recently the DoD upgrade 4M devices to Windows 10, why?  To improve security.


    Maybe the reputation you think MS have related to security is poor, but in realty they are doing very good. 
    Improved security does not mean good security.
    Microsoft has single handedly created an entirly new industry:  Virus protection.
    From what I know MS applications and cloud services are one of the most popular in enterprises and business.  Do you really think that they would as popular if they were bad at security?  Are they perfect?  No, neither Apple, Google, IBM or other company.  But I don't think MS is bad as security as you think.

    And yes, antivirus started as applications to protect Windows.  But now they expanded to included macOS, which by the way, includes an AV, XProtect.  Does it means that macOS is not good at security as you think of Windows?
    williamlondon
  • Reply 30 of 34
    danvm said:
    danvm said:
    danvm said:
    danvm said:
    If its online it can be hacked & stolen -- and identity theft is a growth industry.

    Why would I trust Microsoft with my ID?
    Actually, that's one of the big reasons why I stick to Apple products -- security and privacy.  They're not invulnerable, but they're better than the rest.   Far better.
    There is a large list of enterprises and business that trust MS authentication platform (Azure AD / AD) for their users and customers ID's.  And now they are moving to password less on their services and products, as a method to improve security. 

    https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/cloud-platform/passwordless

    Like you said, if it's online, it can be hacked and stolen.  But MS have been prove very solid from a security POV, specially with their cloud services.  I think that's the reason MC team with MS for this project.  
    Part of the trouble is that when a business is hacked, it's their customer's information that is stolen and it's customers that suffer the consequences.   The business itself gets a bit of bad publicity, spends few dollars on a token effort to placate the affected customers, and then moves on with business as usual.

    Having their customer's information stolen is now just a normal cost of doing business -- for the enterprise.  So, their incentive is to put as little time, effort and money into secure systems as they can reasonably get away with and still be able to claim that they keep their customer's private information secure.
    I agree with you.  Making the Internet a safer place to make transaction evolve every day.  And this agreement between MS + MC maybe is the next step to make transaction in the internet safer.  I don't see how this could be a bad thing, considering the billions of transactions made every years in the Internet.  I just hope it works.  If this reduce the incidents of stolen information, it will reduce costs for customer and business.  Everybody wins.
    That's all true.   But Microsoft's reputation for security is far from stellar.
    If you are talking about the 80's and 90's, maybe I would agree.  But MS have improved a lot.  They have one of the large cloud infrastructures in the world, and you cannot build something as big without being good at security.  Even Windows 10 have been a big improvement in security.  Recently the DoD upgrade 4M devices to Windows 10, why?  To improve security.


    Maybe the reputation you think MS have related to security is poor, but in realty they are doing very good. 
    Improved security does not mean good security.
    Microsoft has single handedly created an entirly new industry:  Virus protection.
    From what I know MS applications and cloud services are one of the most popular in enterprises and business.  Do you really think that they would as popular if they were bad at security?  Are they perfect?  No, neither Apple, Google, IBM or other company.  But I don't think MS is bad as security as you think.

    And yes, antivirus started as applications to protect Windows.  But now they expanded to included macOS, which by the way, includes an AV, XProtect.  Does it means that macOS is not good at security as you think of Windows?
    The're popular because they're cheap -- which brings us back to my original point:
    "Part of the trouble is that when a business is hacked, it's their customer's information that is stolen and it's customers that suffer the consequences.   The business itself gets a bit of bad publicity, spends few dollars on a token effort to placate the affected customers, and then moves on with business as usual."

    Every business makes the determination on whether the cost of security is more than the cost of being hacked.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 31 of 34
    danvmdanvm Posts: 692member
    danvm said:
    danvm said:
    danvm said:
    danvm said:
    If its online it can be hacked & stolen -- and identity theft is a growth industry.

    Why would I trust Microsoft with my ID?
    Actually, that's one of the big reasons why I stick to Apple products -- security and privacy.  They're not invulnerable, but they're better than the rest.   Far better.
    There is a large list of enterprises and business that trust MS authentication platform (Azure AD / AD) for their users and customers ID's.  And now they are moving to password less on their services and products, as a method to improve security. 

    https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/cloud-platform/passwordless

    Like you said, if it's online, it can be hacked and stolen.  But MS have been prove very solid from a security POV, specially with their cloud services.  I think that's the reason MC team with MS for this project.  
    Part of the trouble is that when a business is hacked, it's their customer's information that is stolen and it's customers that suffer the consequences.   The business itself gets a bit of bad publicity, spends few dollars on a token effort to placate the affected customers, and then moves on with business as usual.

    Having their customer's information stolen is now just a normal cost of doing business -- for the enterprise.  So, their incentive is to put as little time, effort and money into secure systems as they can reasonably get away with and still be able to claim that they keep their customer's private information secure.
    I agree with you.  Making the Internet a safer place to make transaction evolve every day.  And this agreement between MS + MC maybe is the next step to make transaction in the internet safer.  I don't see how this could be a bad thing, considering the billions of transactions made every years in the Internet.  I just hope it works.  If this reduce the incidents of stolen information, it will reduce costs for customer and business.  Everybody wins.
    That's all true.   But Microsoft's reputation for security is far from stellar.
    If you are talking about the 80's and 90's, maybe I would agree.  But MS have improved a lot.  They have one of the large cloud infrastructures in the world, and you cannot build something as big without being good at security.  Even Windows 10 have been a big improvement in security.  Recently the DoD upgrade 4M devices to Windows 10, why?  To improve security.


    Maybe the reputation you think MS have related to security is poor, but in realty they are doing very good. 
    Improved security does not mean good security.
    Microsoft has single handedly created an entirly new industry:  Virus protection.
    From what I know MS applications and cloud services are one of the most popular in enterprises and business.  Do you really think that they would as popular if they were bad at security?  Are they perfect?  No, neither Apple, Google, IBM or other company.  But I don't think MS is bad as security as you think.

    And yes, antivirus started as applications to protect Windows.  But now they expanded to included macOS, which by the way, includes an AV, XProtect.  Does it means that macOS is not good at security as you think of Windows?
    The're popular because they're cheap -- which brings us back to my original point:
    "Part of the trouble is that when a business is hacked, it's their customer's information that is stolen and it's customers that suffer the consequences.   The business itself gets a bit of bad publicity, spends few dollars on a token effort to placate the affected customers, and then moves on with business as usual."

    Every business makes the determination on whether the cost of security is more than the cost of being hacked.
    First of all, it's the first time I heard someone saying that MS enterprise / business software and services are cheap.  And, no they aren't cheap.

    Second, have you consider that when a business security is breached, they have to "spend a few dollars" to fix what they broke?  Then they have to spend more to make changes, so it doesn't happen again.  That's how everything works, learn from your mistakes.  I don't think a business will survive if it's breached frequently, since they will lose customer trust.  That's the reason cloud services providers take security very seriously.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 32 of 34
    volcan dit:
    Autant de méfiance à l'égard de la sclérose en plaques, ils ont au moins identifié un problème avec les solutions à deux facteurs actuelles. Si vous voyagez à l'étranger, vous ne pouvez généralement pas recevoir de SMS d'une entreprise / d'un fournisseur américain, ce qui rend la connexion à votre banque presque impossible lorsque vous voyagez dans un autre pays.
    Les deux entreprises ne partagent pas encore beaucoup de détails, mais Microsoft et MasterCard ont souligné les avantages qu'une solution d’identification numérique apporterait, tels que le travail instantané et sécurisé. La solution proposée conjointement permet aux utilisateurs de contrôler plus facilement leurs propres données d’identité, quel que soit le périphérique utilisé.  https://downloader.vip/itunes/  https://inro.in/mobdro/https://inro.in/tutuapp/
    edited December 6
  • Reply 33 of 34
    DyraSanDyraSan Posts: 2unconfirmed, member
    Yeah, I think it is true. I have checked twitter and other media platforms.


  • Reply 34 of 34
    danvm said:
    danvm said:
    danvm said:
    danvm said:
    danvm said:
    If its online it can be hacked & stolen -- and identity theft is a growth industry.

    Why would I trust Microsoft with my ID?
    Actually, that's one of the big reasons why I stick to Apple products -- security and privacy.  They're not invulnerable, but they're better than the rest.   Far better.
    There is a large list of enterprises and business that trust MS authentication platform (Azure AD / AD) for their users and customers ID's.  And now they are moving to password less on their services and products, as a method to improve security. 

    https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/cloud-platform/passwordless

    Like you said, if it's online, it can be hacked and stolen.  But MS have been prove very solid from a security POV, specially with their cloud services.  I think that's the reason MC team with MS for this project.  
    Part of the trouble is that when a business is hacked, it's their customer's information that is stolen and it's customers that suffer the consequences.   The business itself gets a bit of bad publicity, spends few dollars on a token effort to placate the affected customers, and then moves on with business as usual.

    Having their customer's information stolen is now just a normal cost of doing business -- for the enterprise.  So, their incentive is to put as little time, effort and money into secure systems as they can reasonably get away with and still be able to claim that they keep their customer's private information secure.
    I agree with you.  Making the Internet a safer place to make transaction evolve every day.  And this agreement between MS + MC maybe is the next step to make transaction in the internet safer.  I don't see how this could be a bad thing, considering the billions of transactions made every years in the Internet.  I just hope it works.  If this reduce the incidents of stolen information, it will reduce costs for customer and business.  Everybody wins.
    That's all true.   But Microsoft's reputation for security is far from stellar.
    If you are talking about the 80's and 90's, maybe I would agree.  But MS have improved a lot.  They have one of the large cloud infrastructures in the world, and you cannot build something as big without being good at security.  Even Windows 10 have been a big improvement in security.  Recently the DoD upgrade 4M devices to Windows 10, why?  To improve security.


    Maybe the reputation you think MS have related to security is poor, but in realty they are doing very good. 
    Improved security does not mean good security.
    Microsoft has single handedly created an entirly new industry:  Virus protection.
    From what I know MS applications and cloud services are one of the most popular in enterprises and business.  Do you really think that they would as popular if they were bad at security?  Are they perfect?  No, neither Apple, Google, IBM or other company.  But I don't think MS is bad as security as you think.

    And yes, antivirus started as applications to protect Windows.  But now they expanded to included macOS, which by the way, includes an AV, XProtect.  Does it means that macOS is not good at security as you think of Windows?
    The're popular because they're cheap -- which brings us back to my original point:
    "Part of the trouble is that when a business is hacked, it's their customer's information that is stolen and it's customers that suffer the consequences.   The business itself gets a bit of bad publicity, spends few dollars on a token effort to placate the affected customers, and then moves on with business as usual."

    Every business makes the determination on whether the cost of security is more than the cost of being hacked.
    First of all, it's the first time I heard someone saying that MS enterprise / business software and services are cheap.  And, no they aren't cheap.

    Second, have you consider that when a business security is breached, they have to "spend a few dollars" to fix what they broke?  Then they have to spend more to make changes, so it doesn't happen again.  That's how everything works, learn from your mistakes.  I don't think a business will survive if it's breached frequently, since they will lose customer trust.  That's the reason cloud services providers take security very seriously.
    Nah!  Like the banks being fined for violations -- expenses associated with having customer's data stolen is just a part of doing business.  It's cheaper to pay the fine or the cost than to stop the improper activity.

    We used to put the executives of those operations in jail for while and take away their Mercedes.  But now we let their companies pay the bill and move on.
Sign In or Register to comment.