“We found PayPal vulnerabilities and PayPal punished us for it”

Re:“We found PayPal vulnerabilities and PayPal punished us f... by ijpsud on Monday February 24, 2020 @09:43AM (#22404317)

It's very obviously a distinction without a difference though. Like the authors say, this is a amazing opportunity for black-market paypal account buyers. It's the only line of defense that thousands of people have between black hats and their bank account. In any case, I'd definitely call this 2-factor authentication - the only difference is the trigger (every login vs suspicious logins). It just so happens that they have different code for each of those two cases, and these bounty hunters have discovered a bug in one of them.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“We found PayPal vulnerabilities and PayPal punished us f... by nebulous1 on Monday February 24, 2020 @10:28AM (#22404786)

I don't think I can agree that there's no difference, because if you say to me that you've bypassed PayPal's 2FA I'm going to think that you've bypassed the opt-in one, not the extra security check one. PayPal does not consider these accounts to "have" 2FA.

Overall that may be being too pedantic, and shouldn't give PayPal a pass on the issue. Perhaps even entertaining it is just muddying the waters allowing PayPal to slip away. The extra check is a security check. If cybernews have by bypassed it then they have bypassed a security check. Logically this is therefore a security issue, and if PayPal are saying that it's not a security concern then they're saying that they were just wasting everybody's time with the unnecessary check to begin with. That would clearly be a lie, as the fact that they developed and continued to use the system indicate that they think it provides security.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“We found PayPal vulnerabilities and PayPal punished us f... by smsm42 on Monday February 24, 2020 @12:25PM (#22406077)

There's a huge difference between an informational email "somebody just logged into your account, was it you?" and 2FA workflow which does not let you log in without entering proper code. The latter is a security feature, the former is at most auxiliary informational feature.

> I'd definitely call this 2-factor authentication -

You'd be misunderstanding what "authentication" means then. Notification and authentication are different things. Email is notification, not authentication. Confusing it means either not knowing what authentication is, or purposely confusing matters to present issue as something it isn't.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“We found PayPal vulnerabilities and PayPal punished us f... by nebulous1 on Monday February 24, 2020 @12:45PM (#22406302)

To be clear, the extra check that is bypassed is not merely an informational message, the system sends you a message and you are supposed to have to enter something contained in that message in order to continue from that IP address/computer.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“We found PayPal vulnerabilities and PayPal punished us f... by smsm42 on Monday February 24, 2020 @02:35PM (#22407556)

OK if it blocks login then it's at least partial 2FA for those logins. I thought it's only informational judging from the Forbes article but if it's not then it's part of the auth workflow and thus can be regarded as 2FA.

[ Parent | on HN ]