News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:White House Looks at Replacing Social Security Numbers by random023987 on Tuesday October 03, 2017 @03:14PM (#15395176)
> Because private keys are a far greater tool of proving identity than a SSN, I would argue one should have much greater culpability in an "unauthorized" action.

If you have the technical know-how to protect your private key, and you're immune from rubber hose attacks, and there's no mechanism for key recovery outside your control, I'd agree.

However, people.

Re:White House Looks at Replacing Social Security Numbers by sliverstorm on Tuesday October 03, 2017 @03:17PM (#15395202)
You wouldn't depend on technical know-how, you'd roll it into a card or something like that. Chip & pin cards already do all of this.

And I'm not aware of any system suitable to replace SSN that can withstand rubber hose attacks. That's where law enforcement & the justice department will have to step in, as always.

Re:White House Looks at Replacing Social Security Numbers by random023987 on Tuesday October 03, 2017 @03:24PM (#15395277)
> You wouldn't depend on technical know-how, you'd roll it into a card or something like that. Chip & pin cards already do all of this.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/10/how-a-criminal-r...

Re:White House Looks at Replacing Social Security Numbers by snuxoll on Tuesday October 03, 2017 @07:37PM (#15397140)
This attack doesn’t work with smart cards that basically do nothing but act as a HSM. The MITM attack works with a loophole in some EMV cards because the card isn’t signing a transaction request but just saying “PIN is good!”

If your card holds a private key and won’t sign anything without also being fed a correct PIN you’d need a proper exploit of the application on the card to defeat it.

Re:White House Looks at Replacing Social Security Numbers by vpalanc1 on Wednesday October 04, 2017 @02:44AM (#15398698)
I think what many Americans fail to appreciate is that all the safety guarantees that come with deniability + lax security have a (pretty big) cost, one that YOU are paying in the end.

Like - US for a very long while didn't use chip & PIN - but it was simple to deny the transactions and as a consumer you were somewhat well protected, despite lax security. But this generates large costs, and perversely, the cost/uncertainty affects the small businesses the most.

Yes, when I use 3DSecure for an online transaction, the bank shifts the burden of proof to me (a correctly-authorized 2-factor transaction cannot be simply challenged with a complaint at the bank, I have to prove that it wasn't me). Still, it's hard to argue that 2-factor for online transactions is consumer-unfriendly, even if the consumer loses the deniability

Re:White House Looks at Replacing Social Security Numbers by nwellinghoff on Tuesday October 03, 2017 @06:01PM (#15396595)
Why does the initial attempt of a solution have to work for everyone overnight? Stop the bleeding with those with tech know how first. The the others will come as the solution matures. What is with people wanting to flip the bit all time jezzz. Run two bits!