 |
|
| UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#41
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT
tim... wrote
Rod Speed wrote Brian Gaff (Sofa" wrote One of the main issues about any on line financial services is proving who you are. Increasingly complicated and often inaccessible ways to prove you are a human and indeed the account holder Bull**** with the best fingerprint and facial recognition on your phone. and how do you prove to the financial institute that it was you who first registered their face/fingerprint on the phone? anyone could buy a phone and pretend that it belongs to me, for this purpose Someone doing that wouldnt have access to the account. |
|
#42
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT
"Chris Green" wrote in message ... tim... wrote: "Michael Chare" wrote in message ... On 27/02/2021 11:03, John Towill wrote: Sad to say the scammers have won, they have made it incredibly difficult to operate a savings account on line, blast and damn them all. The government are remarkably releuctant to issue Covid vaccine passports but have done nothing about the fact that for all practical purpose you have to own a mobile phone as banks like to use them to verify who you are. doesn't need to be a smart phone though my candy bar works perfectly well for such verification It can receive SMS messages, yes. But how will it verify your vaccination status? it wont therefore it is wrong of HMG to assume everyone has suitable phone for that, because they already have one to do online banking -- Chris Green · |
|
#43
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT
tim... wrote
Rod Speed wrote Fredxx wrote Rod Speed wrote Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote One of the main issues about any on line financial services is proving who you are. Increasingly complicated and often inaccessible ways to prove you are a human and indeed the account holder Bull**** with the best fingerprint and facial recognition on your phone. Some of us use desktops. I do too but net banking is much better done on the phone oh no it isn't Corse it is with the proof of who is doing the transaction. for people with poor eyesight and fat fingers absolutely nothing is best done on a phone (other than making calls, of course) Thats bull****. You can do it with your voice if you have fat fingers and the best smartphones work much better for those with poor eyesight than desktop systems do. You can even use devices like the echo dot to buy stuff even if you are completely blind and have no hands at all. Same with the best smartphones which can do voiceprints. |
|
#44
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT
"charles" wrote in message ... In article , tim... wrote: "Rod Speed" wrote in message ... Fredxx wrote Rod Speed wrote Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote One of the main issues about any on line financial services is proving who you are. Increasingly complicated and often inaccessible ways to prove you are a human and indeed the account holder Bull**** with the best fingerprint and facial recognition on your phone. Some of us use desktops. I do too but net banking is much better done on the phone oh no it isn't for people with poor eyesight and fat fingers absolutely nothing is best done on a phone (other than making calls, of course) SWMBO can't use a fingerprint phone - she suffers from Raynauds Disease which is poor blood circulation in the fingers/toes. But is free to use facial recognition which is actually more secure with the best smartphones. |
|
#45
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT
"Jimmy Stewart ..." wrote in message ... On 28/02/2021 10:40, tim... wrote: "Rod Speed" wrote in message ... Fredxx wrote Rod Speed wrote Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote One of the main issues about any on line financial services is proving who you are. Increasingly complicated and often inaccessible ways to prove you are a human and indeed the account holder Bull**** with the best fingerprint and facial recognition on your phone. Some of us use desktops. I do too but net banking is much better done on the phone oh no it isn't for people with poor eyesight and fat fingers absolutely nothing is best done on a phone (other than making calls, of course) agreed...I would never bank on the phone... More fool you, its vastly more secure than using the desktop or even doing your banking in person unless you only ever do it in the village shop which only ever has the proprietor doing the banking for you. |
|
#46
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT
"Tim Streater" wrote in message ... On 28 Feb 2021 at 10:11:45 GMT, Fredxx wrote: On 28/02/2021 10:03, Rod Speed wrote: Fredxx wrote Rod Speed wrote Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote One of the main issues about any on line financial services is proving who you are. Increasingly complicated and often inaccessible ways to prove you are a human and indeed the account holder Bull**** with the best fingerprint and facial recognition on your phone. Some of us use desktops. I do too but net banking is much better done on the phone for that reason and brian has a very decent iphone which has the best fingerprint id around. Both of those techniques have weaknesses. Not with the best implementations they dont. Try changing your fingerprint after this: Don't need to, no fingerprint or facial data ever leaves the phone, the phone just tells the app that your fingerprint or face does match the data that never ever leaves the phone and isnt even available to someone who steals the phone or finds it either. All the phone ever does is say that the current fingerprint or face matches the very securely stored internal data. No one, not even the phone manufacturer ever gets to see it. https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...-defence-firms You've missed the point that when you biometric data is compromised facial and fingerprints are no longer secure, and tricky to get new credentials. make the use so onerous that its easier over the telephone quite often. Bull****. I have to use my phone to get a number to log into my account on a desktop. You should be doing your banking on a very secure phone. While it will be quicker than making a call if I'm wearing a headset I could still get on with things around me. You can get on much easier with the best phones. And dont try running some line about the cost of them, there are plenty of very secure decently priced phones that arent anything like the latest models. I like big multi-monitors that have all the information at my fingertips in view at the same time. A 5"x3" screen doesn't quite hack it. I also record my calls, so I need a rooted phone after Google closed the recording facility on new phones. So another potential security weakness kindly created by Google. I gave up on the fingerprint stuff when I found that to get into the phone took 1, 2, 3 or more attempts. Never does on mine. **** that. A little bit longer to type in the code but it takes the same amount of time, every time, and it works, every time. So does the fingerprint on mine. You just need a well designed phone. |
|
#47
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT
On 28/02/2021 19:07, Fred wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message ... On 28 Feb 2021 at 10:11:45 GMT, Fredxx wrote: On 28/02/2021 10:03, Rod Speed wrote: *Fredxx wrote *Rod Speed wrote *Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote *One of the main issues about any on line financial services is proving who you are. Increasingly complicated and often inaccessible ways to prove you are a human and indeed the account holder *Bull**** with the best fingerprint and *facial recognition on your phone. *Some of us use desktops. *I do too but net banking is much better done* on the *phone for that reason and brian* has a very decent *iphone which has the best fingerprint id around. *Both of those techniques have weaknesses. *Not with the best implementations they dont. *Try changing your fingerprint after this: *Don't need to, no fingerprint or facial data ever *leaves the phone, the phone just tells the app *that your fingerprint or face does match the *data that never ever leaves the phone and *isnt even available to someone who steals *the phone or finds it either. All the phone *ever does is say that the current fingerprint *or face matches the very securely stored *internal data. No one, not even the phone *manufacturer ever gets to see it. https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...-defence-firms You've missed the point that when you biometric data is compromised facial and fingerprints are no longer secure, and tricky to get new credentials. *make the use so onerous that its easier over the telephone quite often. *Bull****. *I have to use my phone to get a number to log into my account on a desktop. *You should be doing your banking on a very secure phone. *While it will be quicker than making a call if I'm wearing a headset I could still get on with things around me. *You can get on much easier with the best phones. *And dont try running some line about the cost of them, *there are plenty of very secure decently priced phones *that arent anything like the latest models. I like big multi-monitors that have all the information at my fingertips in view at the same time. A 5"x3" screen doesn't quite hack it. I also record my calls, so I need a rooted phone after Google closed the recording facility on new phones. So another potential security weakness kindly created by Google. I gave up on the fingerprint stuff when I found that to get into the phone took 1, 2, 3 or more attempts. Never does on mine. **** that. A little bit longer to type in the code but it takes the same amount of time, every time, and it works, every time. So does the fingerprint on mine. You just need a well designed phone. Mine works fine most of the time, but when I have been doing DIY and have had glue, plaster, mortar, concrete or things like that on my fingers, the fingerprint reader won't work for days. |
|
#48
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lonely Obnoxious Cantankerous Auto-contradicting Senile Ozzie Troll Alert!
On Mon, 1 Mar 2021 05:45:05 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again: FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread -- Richard addressing senile Rodent Speed: "**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll." MID: |
|
#49
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT
"Steve Walker" wrote in message ... On 28/02/2021 19:07, Fred wrote: "Tim Streater" wrote in message ... On 28 Feb 2021 at 10:11:45 GMT, Fredxx wrote: On 28/02/2021 10:03, Rod Speed wrote: Fredxx wrote Rod Speed wrote Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote One of the main issues about any on line financial services is proving who you are. Increasingly complicated and often inaccessible ways to prove you are a human and indeed the account holder Bull**** with the best fingerprint and facial recognition on your phone. Some of us use desktops. I do too but net banking is much better done on the phone for that reason and brian has a very decent iphone which has the best fingerprint id around. Both of those techniques have weaknesses. Not with the best implementations they dont. Try changing your fingerprint after this: Don't need to, no fingerprint or facial data ever leaves the phone, the phone just tells the app that your fingerprint or face does match the data that never ever leaves the phone and isnt even available to someone who steals the phone or finds it either. All the phone ever does is say that the current fingerprint or face matches the very securely stored internal data. No one, not even the phone manufacturer ever gets to see it. https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...-defence-firms You've missed the point that when you biometric data is compromised facial and fingerprints are no longer secure, and tricky to get new credentials. make the use so onerous that its easier over the telephone quite often. Bull****. I have to use my phone to get a number to log into my account on a desktop. You should be doing your banking on a very secure phone. While it will be quicker than making a call if I'm wearing a headset I could still get on with things around me. You can get on much easier with the best phones. And dont try running some line about the cost of them, there are plenty of very secure decently priced phones that arent anything like the latest models. I like big multi-monitors that have all the information at my fingertips in view at the same time. A 5"x3" screen doesn't quite hack it. I also record my calls, so I need a rooted phone after Google closed the recording facility on new phones. So another potential security weakness kindly created by Google. I gave up on the fingerprint stuff when I found that to get into the phone took 1, 2, 3 or more attempts. Never does on mine. **** that. A little bit longer to type in the code but it takes the same amount of time, every time, and it works, every time. So does the fingerprint on mine. You just need a well designed phone. Mine works fine most of the time, but when I have been doing DIY and have had glue, plaster, mortar, concrete or things like that on my fingers, the fingerprint reader won't work for days. Never get anything like that with mine. What is the model of the phone ? |
|
#50
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT
In message , tim...
writes "Tim Lamb" wrote in message .. . In message , tim... writes "Michael Chare" wrote in message ... On 27/02/2021 11:03, John Towill wrote: Sad to say the scammers have won, they have made it incredibly difficult to operate a savings account on line, blast and damn them The government are remarkably releuctant to issue Covid vaccine passports but have done nothing about the fact that for all practical purpose you have to own a mobile phone as banks like to use them to verify who you are. doesn't need to be a smart phone though my candy bar works perfectly well for such verification Huh! Amazon 2 factor requires me to click a link:-( last time I looked Amazon wasn't a bank Indeed. Same assumption that all customers have a smart phone though. -- Tim Lamb |
|
#51
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
More Heavy Trolling by Senile Nym-Shifting Rodent Speed!
On Mon, 1 Mar 2021 06:35:02 +1100, Fred, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote: FLUSH the trolling senile pest's latest troll**** unread -- Kerr-Mudd,John addressing the auto-contradicting senile cretin: "Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)" MID: |
|
#52
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT
On 28/02/2021 19:27, Steve Walker wrote:
On 28/02/2021 19:07, Fred wrote: "Tim Streater" wrote in message ... On 28 Feb 2021 at 10:11:45 GMT, Fredxx wrote: On 28/02/2021 10:03, Rod Speed wrote: *Fredxx wrote *Rod Speed wrote *Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote *One of the main issues about any on line financial services is proving who you are. Increasingly complicated and often inaccessible ways to prove you are a human and indeed the account holder *Bull**** with the best fingerprint and *facial recognition on your phone. *Some of us use desktops. *I do too but net banking is much better done* on the *phone for that reason and brian* has a very decent *iphone which has the best fingerprint id around. *Both of those techniques have weaknesses. *Not with the best implementations they dont. *Try changing your fingerprint after this: *Don't need to, no fingerprint or facial data ever *leaves the phone, the phone just tells the app *that your fingerprint or face does match the *data that never ever leaves the phone and *isnt even available to someone who steals *the phone or finds it either. All the phone *ever does is say that the current fingerprint *or face matches the very securely stored *internal data. No one, not even the phone *manufacturer ever gets to see it. https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...-defence-firms You've missed the point that when you biometric data is compromised facial and fingerprints are no longer secure, and tricky to get new credentials. *make the use so onerous that its easier over the telephone quite often. *Bull****. *I have to use my phone to get a number to log into my account on a desktop. *You should be doing your banking on a very secure phone. *While it will be quicker than making a call if I'm wearing a headset I could still get on with things around me. *You can get on much easier with the best phones. *And dont try running some line about the cost of them, *there are plenty of very secure decently priced phones *that arent anything like the latest models. I like big multi-monitors that have all the information at my fingertips in view at the same time. A 5"x3" screen doesn't quite hack it. I also record my calls, so I need a rooted phone after Google closed the recording facility on new phones. So another potential security weakness kindly created by Google. I gave up on the fingerprint stuff when I found that to get into the phone took 1, 2, 3 or more attempts. Never does on mine. **** that. A little bit longer to type in the code but it takes the same amount of time, every time, and it works, every time. So does the fingerprint on mine. You just need a well designed phone. Mine works fine most of the time, but when I have been doing DIY and have had glue, plaster, mortar, concrete or things like that on my fingers, the fingerprint reader won't work for days. I simply don't bother with passwords at all. I wouldn't use an inherently insecure device like a mobile phone for anything important. it's there to receive texts from couriers, banks the NHS and so on. Likewise the gmail account it insists on is never used for anything private and whatever zoom/whatsapp/skype goes on is so boringly uninteresting even to me, let alone GCHQ, that I really don't care who reads it. Mobile phones are toys. Ultimate consumerCrap. Mine doesnt respond to its touchscreen half the time except when I would rather it didnt. Ergonomically it is a total disaster., Whoever thought of putting input where you cannot actually avoid getting fingers while holding the device? Anyone doing anything important with a phone is a ****ing idiot -- There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isnt true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true. Soren Kierkegaard |
|
#53
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT
On 28/02/2021 20:01, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , tim... writes "Tim Lamb" wrote in message ... In message , tim... * writes "Michael Chare" wrote in message ... On 27/02/2021 11:03, John Towill wrote: Sad to say the scammers have won, they have made it incredibly difficult* to operate a savings account on line, blast and damn them The government are remarkably releuctant to issue Covid vaccine passports* but have done nothing about the fact that for all practical* purpose you* have to own a mobile phone as banks like to use them to* verify who you* are. doesn't need to be a smart phone though my candy bar works perfectly well for such verification Huh! Amazon 2 factor requires me to click a link:-( last time I looked Amazon wasn't a bank Indeed. Same assumption that all customers have a smart phone though. While it's /possible/ that Amazon have it in for you I still have 2FA by SMS and Amazon still state that's an option: "You can receive this security code in a variety of ways depending on the option you select during sign up, including text message, voice call, or authenticator app." https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/help/cus...deId=202013290 Allegedly you can turn off 2FA without contacting them - though that requires you to authenticate by... https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/help/cus...deId=202040210 -- Robin reply-to address is (intended to be) valid |
|
#54
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT
On 01/03/2021 09:30, Robin wrote:
On 28/02/2021 20:01, Tim Lamb wrote: In message , tim... writes "Tim Lamb" wrote in message ... In message , tim... * writes "Michael Chare" wrote in message ... On 27/02/2021 11:03, John Towill wrote: Sad to say the scammers have won, they have made it incredibly difficult* to operate a savings account on line, blast and damn them The government are remarkably releuctant to issue Covid vaccine passports* but have done nothing about the fact that for all practical* purpose you* have to own a mobile phone as banks like to use them to* verify who you* are. doesn't need to be a smart phone though my candy bar works perfectly well for such verification Huh! Amazon 2 factor requires me to click a link:-( last time I looked Amazon wasn't a bank Indeed. Same assumption that all customers have a smart phone though. While it's /possible/ that Amazon have it in for you I still have 2FA by SMS and Amazon still state that's an option: "You can receive this security code in a variety of ways depending on the option you select during sign up, including text message, voice call, or authenticator app." Does the SMS provide a number you can type in, or just a link you have to click on (as Tim Lamb implied above). Or is it yet another "configuration option" you have to know about? If you have to (or choose to) click on a link on a smart phone, does that mean you have to continue your work on the smart phone, rather than the laptop or tablet you were using? -- Max Demian |
|
#55
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT
In message , Robin
writes On 28/02/2021 20:01, Tim Lamb wrote: In message , tim... writes "Tim Lamb" wrote in message .. . In message , tim... * writes "Michael Chare" wrote in message ... On 27/02/2021 11:03, John Towill wrote: Sad to say the scammers have won, they have made it incredibly difficult* to operate a savings account on line, blast and damn them The government are remarkably releuctant to issue Covid vaccine passports* but have done nothing about the fact that for all practical* purpose you* have to own a mobile phone as banks like to use them to* verify who you* are. doesn't need to be a smart phone though my candy bar works perfectly well for such verification Huh! Amazon 2 factor requires me to click a link:-( last time I looked Amazon wasn't a bank Indeed. Same assumption that all customers have a smart phone though. While it's /possible/ that Amazon have it in for you I still have 2FA by SMS and Amazon still state that's an option: :-) I'm a cancel before prime locks in customer so I may be on a list of some sort. Anyway, I didn't agree 2FA. They already had my mobile number as part of my contact details. "You can receive this security code in a variety of ways depending on the option you select during sign up, including text message, voice call, or authenticator app." Text is fine. https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/help/cus...deId=202013290 Allegedly you can turn off 2FA without contacting them - though that requires you to authenticate by... There are lots of alternative sources for Amazon stuff and I am not hugely supportive of their business model WRT taxation in the profit earning country. https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/help/cus...deId=202040210 Phone call to support sounds easier:-) -- Tim Lamb |
|
#56
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT
In message , Robin
writes On 28/02/2021 20:01, Tim Lamb wrote: In message , tim... writes "Tim Lamb" wrote in message .. . In message , tim... * writes "Michael Chare" wrote in message ... On 27/02/2021 11:03, John Towill wrote: Sad to say the scammers have won, they have made it incredibly difficult* to operate a savings account on line, blast and damn them The government are remarkably releuctant to issue Covid vaccine passports* but have done nothing about the fact that for all practical* purpose you* have to own a mobile phone as banks like to use them to* verify who you* are. doesn't need to be a smart phone though my candy bar works perfectly well for such verification Huh! Amazon 2 factor requires me to click a link:-( last time I looked Amazon wasn't a bank Indeed. Same assumption that all customers have a smart phone though. While it's /possible/ that Amazon have it in for you I still have 2FA by SMS and Amazon still state that's an option: "You can receive this security code in a variety of ways depending on the option you select during sign up, including text message, voice call, or authenticator app." https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/help/cus...deId=202013290 Allegedly you can turn off 2FA without contacting them - though that requires you to authenticate by... https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/help/cus...deId=202040210 OK so I phoned Amazon. They can't turn it off! The only way this can be done is to put my sim card in a smart phone. Once logged in, all things are possible. -- Tim Lamb |
|
#57
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT
On 01/03/2021 12:41, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Robin writes On 28/02/2021 20:01, Tim Lamb wrote: In message , tim... * writes "Tim Lamb" wrote in message ... In message , tim... * writes "Michael Chare" wrote in message ... On 27/02/2021 11:03, John Towill wrote: Sad to say the scammers have won, they have made it incredibly difficult* to operate a savings account on line, blast and damn them The government are remarkably releuctant to issue Covid vaccine passports* but have done nothing about the fact that for all practical* purpose you* have to own a mobile phone as banks like to* use them to* verify who you* are. doesn't need to be a smart phone though my candy bar works perfectly well for such verification Huh! Amazon 2 factor requires me to click a link:-( last time I looked Amazon wasn't a bank *Indeed. Same assumption that all customers have a smart phone though. While it's /possible/ that Amazon have it in for you I still have 2FA by SMS and Amazon still state that's an option: "You can receive this security code in a variety of ways depending on the option you select during sign up, including text message, voice call, or authenticator app." https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/help/cus...deId=202013290 Allegedly you can turn off 2FA without contacting them - though that requires you to authenticate by... https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/help/cus...deId=202040210 OK so I phoned Amazon. They can't turn it off! The only way this can be done is to put my sim card in a smart phone. Once logged in, all things are possible. I do not believe they have no means to cater for people who lose a phone and cannot replace the SIM. I do believe first tier support don't want to know it exists. The GDPR etc is all too difficult for me so this is not guaranteed to work (especially with Amazon - who wants to take on their lawyers?) but you could try (a) telling Amazon you are exercising your GDPR "right to be forgotten"[1] and then some time later (b) start again. [1] https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/individual-rights/right-to-erasure/ -- Robin reply-to address is (intended to be) valid |
|
#58
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT
In message , Robin
writes On 01/03/2021 12:41, Tim Lamb wrote: In message , Robin writes On 28/02/2021 20:01, Tim Lamb wrote: In message , tim... * writes "Tim Lamb" wrote in message ... In message , tim... * writes "Michael Chare" wrote in message ... On 27/02/2021 11:03, John Towill wrote: Sad to say the scammers have won, they have made it incredibly difficult* to operate a savings account on line, blast and damn them The government are remarkably releuctant to issue Covid vaccine passports* but have done nothing about the fact that for all practical* purpose you* have to own a mobile phone as banks like to* use them to* verify who you* are. doesn't need to be a smart phone though my candy bar works perfectly well for such verification Huh! Amazon 2 factor requires me to click a link:-( last time I looked Amazon wasn't a bank *Indeed. Same assumption that all customers have a smart phone though. While it's /possible/ that Amazon have it in for you I still have 2FA by SMS and Amazon still state that's an option: "You can receive this security code in a variety of ways depending on the option you select during sign up, including text message, voice call, or authenticator app." https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/help/cus...deId=202013290 Allegedly you can turn off 2FA without contacting them - though that requires you to authenticate by... https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/help/cus...deId=202040210 OK so I phoned Amazon. They can't turn it off! The only way this can be done is to put my sim card in a smart phone. Once logged in, all things are possible. I do not believe they have no means to cater for people who lose a phone and cannot replace the SIM. I do believe first tier support don't want to know it exists. The GDPR etc is all too difficult for me so this is not guaranteed to work (especially with Amazon - who wants to take on their lawyers?) but you could try (a) telling Amazon you are exercising your GDPR "right to be forgotten"[1] and then some time later (b) start again. [1] https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations...tion/guide-to- the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/individual-rights/right-to-e rasure/ Re-register an account? Anyway I can put my sim into a smart phone. I was just trying to avoid having to break it down to the smaller size needed. -- Tim Lamb |
|
#59
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT
"Tim Lamb" wrote in message ... In message , tim... writes "Tim Lamb" wrote in message . .. In message , tim... writes "Michael Chare" wrote in message ... On 27/02/2021 11:03, John Towill wrote: Sad to say the scammers have won, they have made it incredibly difficult to operate a savings account on line, blast and damn them The government are remarkably releuctant to issue Covid vaccine passports but have done nothing about the fact that for all practical purpose you have to own a mobile phone as banks like to use them to verify who you are. doesn't need to be a smart phone though my candy bar works perfectly well for such verification Huh! Amazon 2 factor requires me to click a link:-( last time I looked Amazon wasn't a bank Indeed. Same assumption that all customers have a smart phone though. I'm not sure what you did that required a Smartphone my last order was made entirely on my laptop and the delivery indication came as an SMS to my dumb phone |
|
#60
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT
In message , tim...
writes "Tim Lamb" wrote in message .. . In message , tim... writes "Tim Lamb" wrote in message .. . In message , tim... writes "Michael Chare" wrote in message ... On 27/02/2021 11:03, John Towill wrote: Sad to say the scammers have won, they have made it incredibly difficult to operate a savings account on line, blast and damn them The government are remarkably releuctant to issue Covid vaccine passports but have done nothing about the fact that for all practical purpose you have to own a mobile phone as banks like to use them to verify who you are. doesn't need to be a smart phone though my candy bar works perfectly well for such verification Huh! Amazon 2 factor requires me to click a link:-( last time I looked Amazon wasn't a bank Indeed. Same assumption that all customers have a smart phone though. I'm not sure what you did that required a Smartphone my last order was made entirely on my laptop and the delivery indication came as an SMS to my dumb phone They already had my mobile number. The general tone from the guy on their help line was invoking 2FA is an inertia action. A bit like prime. He didn't say but the inference was you have to actively reject it or chose SMS / *click link*. -- Tim Lamb |
|
#61
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT
On 01/03/2021 08:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 28/02/2021 19:27, Steve Walker wrote: On 28/02/2021 19:07, Fred wrote: "Tim Streater" wrote in message ... On 28 Feb 2021 at 10:11:45 GMT, Fredxx wrote: On 28/02/2021 10:03, Rod Speed wrote: *Fredxx wrote *Rod Speed wrote *Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote *One of the main issues about any on line financial services is proving who you are. Increasingly complicated and often inaccessible ways to prove you are a human and indeed the account holder *Bull**** with the best fingerprint and *facial recognition on your phone. *Some of us use desktops. *I do too but net banking is much better done* on the *phone for that reason and brian* has a very decent *iphone which has the best fingerprint id around. *Both of those techniques have weaknesses. *Not with the best implementations they dont. *Try changing your fingerprint after this: *Don't need to, no fingerprint or facial data ever *leaves the phone, the phone just tells the app *that your fingerprint or face does match the *data that never ever leaves the phone and *isnt even available to someone who steals *the phone or finds it either. All the phone *ever does is say that the current fingerprint *or face matches the very securely stored *internal data. No one, not even the phone *manufacturer ever gets to see it. https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...-defence-firms You've missed the point that when you biometric data is compromised facial and fingerprints are no longer secure, and tricky to get new credentials. *make the use so onerous that its easier over the telephone quite often. *Bull****. *I have to use my phone to get a number to log into my account on a desktop. *You should be doing your banking on a very secure phone. *While it will be quicker than making a call if I'm wearing a headset I could still get on with things around me. *You can get on much easier with the best phones. *And dont try running some line about the cost of them, *there are plenty of very secure decently priced phones *that arent anything like the latest models. I like big multi-monitors that have all the information at my fingertips in view at the same time. A 5"x3" screen doesn't quite hack it. I also record my calls, so I need a rooted phone after Google closed the recording facility on new phones. So another potential security weakness kindly created by Google. I gave up on the fingerprint stuff when I found that to get into the phone took 1, 2, 3 or more attempts. Never does on mine. **** that. A little bit longer to type in the code but it takes the same amount of time, every time, and it works, every time. So does the fingerprint on mine. You just need a well designed phone. Mine works fine most of the time, but when I have been doing DIY and have had glue, plaster, mortar, concrete or things like that on my fingers, the fingerprint reader won't work for days. I simply don't bother with passwords at all. I wouldn't use an inherently insecure device like a mobile phone for anything important. What make you think it is inherently insecure? Just the fact that it's small, portable and easily stolen? Communications with it are secured to the same standard as those to a desktop or server class machine. It's running a Linux kernel, and has the option of biometric as well as conventional password restricted access. Mobile phones are toys. Ultimate consumerCrap. Mine doesnt respond to its touchscreen half the time except when I would rather it didnt. I do know some folks have problems getting it to respond - particularly if they have very dry skin. "phone compatible" gloves usually solve the problem though. Ergonomically it is a total disaster., Whoever thought of putting input where you cannot actually avoid getting fingers while holding the device? Or alternatively you could argue it's a miracle of packaging, getting that sophistication of UI into such a small form factor. Anyone doing anything important with a phone is a ****ing idiot Well confronted with such a thoughtfully reasoned augment, how could we doubt you :-) -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
|
#62
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT
On 01/03/2021 16:35, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , tim... writes "Tim Lamb" wrote in message ... In message , tim... * writes "Tim Lamb" wrote in message ... In message , tim... * writes "Michael Chare" wrote in message ... On 27/02/2021 11:03, John Towill wrote: Sad to say the scammers have won, they have made it incredibly difficult* to operate a savings account on line, blast and damn them The government are remarkably releuctant to issue Covid vaccine passports* but have done nothing about the fact that for all practical* purpose you* have to own a mobile phone as banks like to use them to* verify who you* are. doesn't need to be a smart phone though my candy bar works perfectly well for such verification Huh! Amazon 2 factor requires me to click a link:-( last time I looked Amazon wasn't a bank Indeed. Same assumption that all customers have a smart phone though. I'm not sure what you did that required a Smartphone my last order was made entirely on my laptop and the delivery indication came as an SMS to my dumb phone They already had my mobile number. The general tone from the guy on their help line was invoking 2FA is an inertia action. A bit like prime. He didn't say but the inference was you have to actively reject it or chose SMS / *click link*. Is it a case that you can't log into the Amazon site from a PC without using the 2FA? If you receive the 2FA request via SMS (which I presume is the case with a feature phone), is it not just a web link that you could could type (possibly with great tedium!) manually into your browser on the desktop? (you would presumably only need do it once, to get signed in and then change the preference) If it is rendered in such a way that the content is not "visible", what happens if you use the phone's companion software to copy your text messages to the desktop, and look at it there? (I note on the "communications preferences" under Email alerts, messages, ads, and cookies section I can change SMS options). -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
|
#63
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT
In message , John
Rumm writes On 01/03/2021 16:35, Tim Lamb wrote: In message , tim... writes "Tim Lamb" wrote in message .. . In message , tim... * writes "Tim Lamb" wrote in message ... In message , tim... * writes "Michael Chare" wrote in message ... On 27/02/2021 11:03, John Towill wrote: Sad to say the scammers have won, they have made it incredibly difficult* to operate a savings account on line, blast and damn them The government are remarkably releuctant to issue Covid vaccine passports* but have done nothing about the fact that for all practical* purpose you* have to own a mobile phone as banks like to use them to* verify who you* are. doesn't need to be a smart phone though my candy bar works perfectly well for such verification Huh! Amazon 2 factor requires me to click a link:-( last time I looked Amazon wasn't a bank Indeed. Same assumption that all customers have a smart phone though. I'm not sure what you did that required a Smartphone my last order was made entirely on my laptop and the delivery indication came as an SMS to my dumb phone They already had my mobile number. The general tone from the guy on their help line was invoking 2FA is an inertia action. A bit like prime. He didn't say but the inference was you have to actively reject it or chose SMS / *click link*. Is it a case that you can't log into the Amazon site from a PC without using the 2FA? Just so. If you receive the 2FA request via SMS (which I presume is the case with a feature phone), is it not just a web link that you could could type (possibly with great tedium!) manually into your browser on the desktop? (you would presumably only need do it once, to get signed in and then change the preference) Indeed. Laziness comes with age:-( Also my phone has the attention span of a Gnat so reading and typing a relatively long link requires two hands. Not shopping with Amazon has not yet ended my world:-) If it is rendered in such a way that the content is not "visible", what happens if you use the phone's companion software to copy your text messages to the desktop, and look at it there? Visible. I don't think Alkatel considered *companion software* for the *one touch*. (I note on the "communications preferences" under Email alerts, messages, ads, and cookies section I can change SMS options). Yes. My plan: when I get back the-) -- Tim Lamb |
|
#64
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT
On 01/03/2021 19:20, Tim Streater wrote:
On 01 Mar 2021 at 18:48:46 GMT, John Rumm wrote: On 01/03/2021 08:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote: I simply don't bother with passwords at all. I wouldn't use an inherently insecure device like a mobile phone for anything important. What make you think it is inherently insecure? Just the fact that it's small, portable and easily stolen? Apple's email client, for one thing. It will allow mails to phone home (y'know, the 1x1 pixels jpegs to be downloaded when you read the mail). OK, you can tell it not to download *any* images, but there should be a subtler method than that. Its inherently stealable, and it is pwned by google or apple depending And Ive worked enough as a system admin to know how easy it is to access private data held on your employing companies servers, if you really want to Communications with it are secured to the same standard as those to a desktop or server class machine. It's running a Linux kernel, and has the option of biometric as well as conventional password restricted access. On a smartphone, you have to take what you are given. No possibility to examine its innards in any way at all. No ability to organise anything to your own taste. Can't organise your documents, images, etc etc to suit yourself. All of which might be OK for simplistic usage but not for doing anything real. In order to access email at all, it has to store passwords. If it is stolen then bang goes that. I don't believe that a screen lock will encrypt that data: you can probably pull the memory card and read it or root the phone if you nicked it:? My response = assume it will be stolen/lost and all data on it will be accessible to a third party and don't use it for anything critical -- "It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere" |
|
#65
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT
"John Rumm" wrote in message ... On 01/03/2021 08:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 28/02/2021 19:27, Steve Walker wrote: On 28/02/2021 19:07, Fred wrote: "Tim Streater" wrote in message ... On 28 Feb 2021 at 10:11:45 GMT, Fredxx wrote: On 28/02/2021 10:03, Rod Speed wrote: Fredxx wrote Rod Speed wrote Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote One of the main issues about any on line financial services is proving who you are. Increasingly complicated and often inaccessible ways to prove you are a human and indeed the account holder Bull**** with the best fingerprint and facial recognition on your phone. Some of us use desktops. I do too but net banking is much better done on the phone for that reason and brian has a very decent iphone which has the best fingerprint id around. Both of those techniques have weaknesses. Not with the best implementations they dont. Try changing your fingerprint after this: Don't need to, no fingerprint or facial data ever leaves the phone, the phone just tells the app that your fingerprint or face does match the data that never ever leaves the phone and isnt even available to someone who steals the phone or finds it either. All the phone ever does is say that the current fingerprint or face matches the very securely stored internal data. No one, not even the phone manufacturer ever gets to see it. https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...-defence-firms You've missed the point that when you biometric data is compromised facial and fingerprints are no longer secure, and tricky to get new credentials. make the use so onerous that its easier over the telephone quite often. Bull****. I have to use my phone to get a number to log into my account on a desktop. You should be doing your banking on a very secure phone. While it will be quicker than making a call if I'm wearing a headset I could still get on with things around me. You can get on much easier with the best phones. And dont try running some line about the cost of them, there are plenty of very secure decently priced phones that arent anything like the latest models. I like big multi-monitors that have all the information at my fingertips in view at the same time. A 5"x3" screen doesn't quite hack it. I also record my calls, so I need a rooted phone after Google closed the recording facility on new phones. So another potential security weakness kindly created by Google. I gave up on the fingerprint stuff when I found that to get into the phone took 1, 2, 3 or more attempts. Never does on mine. **** that. A little bit longer to type in the code but it takes the same amount of time, every time, and it works, every time. So does the fingerprint on mine. You just need a well designed phone. Mine works fine most of the time, but when I have been doing DIY and have had glue, plaster, mortar, concrete or things like that on my fingers, the fingerprint reader won't work for days. I simply don't bother with passwords at all. I wouldn't use an inherently insecure device like a mobile phone for anything important. What make you think it is inherently insecure? Just the fact that it's small, portable and easily stolen? And even if thats what he meant, he has got that completely wrong. With a mobile phone with the best fingerprint or facial recognition, the phone is in fact vastly more secure than anything else, even if it does get lost or stolen, just because no one else can use it. Communications with it are secured to the same standard as those to a desktop or server class machine. It's running a Linux kernel, and has the option of biometric as well as conventional password restricted access. Mobile phones are toys. Ultimate consumerCrap. Mine doesnt respond to its touchscreen half the time except when I would rather it didnt. I do know some folks have problems getting it to respond - particularly if they have very dry skin. "phone compatible" gloves usually solve the problem though. Ergonomically it is a total disaster., Whoever thought of putting input where you cannot actually avoid getting fingers while holding the device? Or alternatively you could argue it's a miracle of packaging, getting that sophistication of UI into such a small form factor. Yep and the voice input works surprisingly well too. Anyone doing anything important with a phone is a ****ing idiot Anyone who cant work out how to answer an incoming call has dementia. Well confronted with such a thoughtfully reasoned augment, how could we doubt you :-) |
|
#66
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT
"Tim Streater" wrote in message ... On 01 Mar 2021 at 18:48:46 GMT, John Rumm wrote: On 01/03/2021 08:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote: I simply don't bother with passwords at all. I wouldn't use an inherently insecure device like a mobile phone for anything important. What make you think it is inherently insecure? Just the fact that it's small, portable and easily stolen? Apple's email client, for one thing. It will allow mails to phone home (y'know, the 1x1 pixels jpegs to be downloaded when you read the mail). OK, you can tell it not to download *any* images, but there should be a subtler method than that. You dont have to use that email client, you are free to use any email client you like. Communications with it are secured to the same standard as those to a desktop or server class machine. It's running a Linux kernel, and has the option of biometric as well as conventional password restricted access. On a smartphone, you have to take what you are given. Bull****. No possibility to examine its innards in any way at all. More bull****. No ability to organise anything to your own taste. More bull****. n't organise your documents, images, etc etc to suit yourself. More bull****. All of which might be OK for simplistic usage but not for doing anything real. More bull****, and you dont have to do any of that when you use it to do your net banking more securely. |
|
#67
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
More Heavy Trolling by Senile Nym-Shifting Rodent Speed!
On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 07:01:24 +1100, Fred, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote: FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread -- Kerr-Mudd,John addressing the auto-contradicting senile cretin: "Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)" MID: |
|
#68
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
More Heavy Trolling by Senile Nym-Shifting Rodent Speed!
On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 06:54:39 +1100, Fred, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote: FLUSH the trolling senile cretin's latest troll**** unread -- Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 86-year-old senile Australian cretin's pathological trolling: https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/ |
|
#69
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... On 01/03/2021 19:20, Tim Streater wrote: On 01 Mar 2021 at 18:48:46 GMT, John Rumm wrote: On 01/03/2021 08:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote: I simply don't bother with passwords at all. I wouldn't use an inherently insecure device like a mobile phone for anything important. What make you think it is inherently insecure? Just the fact that it's small, portable and easily stolen? Apple's email client, for one thing. It will allow mails to phone home (y'know, the 1x1 pixels jpegs to be downloaded when you read the mail). OK, you can tell it not to download *any* images, but there should be a subtler method than that. Its inherently stealable, But trivial to ensure that is no use to the thief and impossible for the thief to do anything with your data or banking and the reality is that **** all of us have had their phone stolen. and it is pwned by google or apple depending Thats bull**** with apple. And Ive worked enough as a system admin to know how easy it is to access private data held on your employing companies servers, if you really want to But isnt with your phone. Communications with it are secured to the same standard as those to a desktop or server class machine. It's running a Linux kernel, and has the option of biometric as well as conventional password restricted access. On a smartphone, you have to take what you are given. No possibility to examine its innards in any way at all. No ability to organise anything to your own taste. Can't organise your documents, images, etc etc to suit yourself. All of which might be OK for simplistic usage but not for doing anything real. In order to access email at all, it has to store passwords. If it is stolen then bang goes that. More mindless bull**** with the best smartphone. I don't believe that a screen lock will encrypt that data: It does anyway with the best smartphones. you can probably pull the memory card and read it Nope, not with the best smartphones. or root the phone if you nicked it:? Nope, not with the best smartphones. My response = assume it will be stolen/lost and all data on it will be accessible to a third party More fool you. You are 'living' in the past, as always. and don't use it for anything critical More fool you. You are 'living' in the past, as always. |
|
#70
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
More Heavy Trolling by Senile Nym-Shifting Rodent Speed!
On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 08:10:56 +1100, Fred, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote: FLUSH troll**** -- "Who or What is Rod Speed? Rod Speed is an entirely modern phenomenon. Essentially, Rod Speed is an insecure and worthless individual who has discovered he can enhance his own self-esteem in his own eyes by playing "the big, hard man" on the InterNet." https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/ |
|
#71
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT
On 01/03/2021 19:03, John Rumm wrote:
On 01/03/2021 16:35, Tim Lamb wrote: The general tone from the guy on their help line was invoking 2FA is an inertia action. A bit like prime. He didn't say but the inference was you have to actively reject it or chose SMS / *click link*. Is it a case that you can't log into the Amazon site from a PC without using the 2FA? If you receive the 2FA request via SMS (which I presume is the case with a feature phone), is it not just a web link that you could could type (possibly with great tedium!) manually into your browser on the desktop? (you would presumably only need do it once, to get signed in and then change the preference) Change what preference? I suspect that once you activate 2FA you can't undo it. So far I've avoided it by clicking "not now" when they ask for my mobile number. -- Max Demian |
|
#72
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT
In message , Max
Demian writes On 01/03/2021 19:03, John Rumm wrote: On 01/03/2021 16:35, Tim Lamb wrote: The general tone from the guy on their help line was invoking 2FA is an inertia action. A bit like prime. He didn't say but the inference was you have to actively reject it or chose SMS / *click link*. Is it a case that you can't log into the Amazon site from a PC without using the 2FA? If you receive the 2FA request via SMS (which I presume is the case with a feature phone), is it not just a web link that you could could type (possibly with great tedium!) manually into your browser on the desktop? (you would presumably only need do it once, to get signed in and then change the preference) Change what preference? I suspect that once you activate 2FA you can't undo it. So far I've avoided it by clicking "not now" when they ask for my mobile number. I think word has got round! When I went to log in this evening, I got a *capcha* test followed by clicking a link in an e mail. However, there seemed no understandable way of avoiding 2FA. or of choosing SMS ( you can select a no 2FA desk top but I suspect clearing cookies will wreck this) I suppose deleting the mobile number would work but it is helpful when the delivery driver needs to use it. -- Tim Lamb |
|
#73
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT
On 01/03/2021 19:20, Tim Streater wrote:
On 01 Mar 2021 at 18:48:46 GMT, John Rumm wrote: On 01/03/2021 08:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote: I simply don't bother with passwords at all. I wouldn't use an inherently insecure device like a mobile phone for anything important. What make you think it is inherently insecure? Just the fact that it's small, portable and easily stolen? Apple's email client, for one thing. It will allow mails to phone home (y'know, the 1x1 pixels jpegs to be downloaded when you read the mail). OK, you can tell it not to download *any* images, but there should be a subtler method than that. That may be a limitation, but it's a limitation of one manufacturer's application, not the whole phone. Other mail applications are available. Communications with it are secured to the same standard as those to a desktop or server class machine. It's running a Linux kernel, and has the option of biometric as well as conventional password restricted access. On a smartphone, you have to take what you are given. No possibility to examine its innards in any way at all. Depends on who you are... you can even get source code licenses for Windows if you are sufficiently reputable and have deep pockets! No ability to organise anything to your own taste. Can't organise your documents, images, etc etc to suit yourself. Again, an Apple thing - think different and all that. All of which might be OK for simplistic usage but not for doing anything real. Bluetooth a keyboard and mouse to one, and cast its display to a TV, and you have a fully functional word processor or spreadsheet etc. It may not be your go to device for heavyweight applications, but there are plenty of jobs it can do successfully if you want. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
|
#74
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT
On 01/03/2021 19:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/03/2021 19:20, Tim Streater wrote: On 01 Mar 2021 at 18:48:46 GMT, John Rumm wrote: On 01/03/2021 08:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote: * I simply don't bother with passwords at all. I wouldn't use an * inherently insecure device like a mobile phone for anything important. What make you think it is inherently insecure? Just the fact that it's small, portable and easily stolen? Apple's email client, for one thing. It will allow mails to phone home (y'know, the 1x1 pixels jpegs to be downloaded when* you read the mail). OK, you can tell it not to download *any* images, but there should be a subtler method than that. Its inherently stealable, like a laptop then... and it is pwned by google or apple depending True, although you get to choose what you sync with the cloud. Having said that the internet is "owned" by google, aws, azure etc, and their subsiduary data brokers, so don't kid yourself what you do on your PC is any less visible. And Ive worked enough as a system admin to know how easy it is to access private data held on your employing companies servers, if you really want to Well there is some truth to that. But again its still holds for most desktop users as well. (and at least ISTR Apple have been quite good at resisting attempts by the various US 3 letter agencies to get backdoor access to their data) Communications with it are secured to the same standard as those to a desktop or server class machine. It's running a Linux kernel, and has the option of biometric as well as conventional password restricted access. On a smartphone, you have to take what you are given. No possibility to examine its innards in any way at all. No ability to organise anything to your own taste. Can't organise your documents, images, etc etc to suit yourself. All of which might be OK for simplistic usage but not for doing anything real. In order to access email at all, it has to store passwords. If it is stolen then bang goes that. Only if you don't have access controls turned on. Phones are somewhat better than most PCs in this respect[1] since they usually have encryption enabled either by default (apple) or as a user selectable option set during first boot and elsewhere. The tight system integration makes it significantly more difficult to extract data from flash without a valid way to login. [1] full disk encryption is not enabled by default and not available out of the box without hardware support from a TPM, and an OS that supports it (i.e. Win Pro / Enterprise, but not Home). I don't believe that a screen lock will encrypt that data: you can It will be encrypted all the time typically. probably* pull the memory card and read it or root the phone if you Most phones don't even have memory cards, and for those that do, encryption is a standard question when you insert and format the card. nicked it:? My response = assume it will be stolen/lost and all data on it will be accessible to a third party and don't use it for anything critical As long as it was not setup by a complete incompetent, there are no easy options for someone without legitimate access to get into the device. You also have the option to do a remote wipe of the phone. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
|
#75
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT
On 01/03/2021 19:19, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , John Rumm writes On 01/03/2021 16:35, Tim Lamb wrote: In message , tim... * writes "Tim Lamb" wrote in message ... In message , tim... * writes "Tim Lamb" wrote in message ... In message , tim... * writes "Michael Chare" wrote in message* ... On 27/02/2021 11:03, John Towill wrote: Sad to say the scammers have won, they have made it incredibly difficult* to operate a savings account on line, blast and damn* them The government are remarkably releuctant to issue Covid vaccine passports* but have done nothing about the fact that for all practical* purpose you* have to own a mobile phone as banks like to use them to* verify who you* are. doesn't need to be a smart phone though my candy bar works perfectly well for such verification Huh! Amazon 2 factor requires me to click a link:-( last time I looked Amazon wasn't a bank Indeed. Same assumption that all customers have a smart phone though. I'm not sure what you did that required a Smartphone my last order was made entirely on my laptop and the delivery indication came as an SMS to my dumb phone *They already had my mobile number. *The general tone from the guy on their help line was invoking 2FA is an* inertia action. A bit like prime. *He didn't say but the inference was you have to actively reject it or* chose SMS / *click link*. Is it a case that you can't log into the Amazon site from a PC without using the 2FA? Just so. If you receive the 2FA request via SMS (which I presume is the case with a feature phone), is it not just a web link that you could could type (possibly with great tedium!) manually into your browser on the desktop? (you would presumably only need do it once, to get signed in and then change the preference) Indeed. Laziness comes with age:-( Also my phone has the attention span of a Gnat so reading and typing a relatively long link requires two hands. Not shopping with Amazon has not yet ended my world:-) Dictating the URL to a helper may be the more expedient way. Then once logged in on the desktop, you can change the 2FA settings once and for all. If it is rendered in such a way that the content is not "visible", what happens if you use the phone's companion software to copy your text messages to the desktop, and look at it there? Visible. I don't think Alkatel considered *companion software* for the *one touch*. They used to host it on the main web site, however there are various third party links to it: https://alcatel-one-touch-pc-suite.s....com/download/ -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
|
#76
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT
"John Rumm" wrote in message o.uk... On 01/03/2021 16:35, Tim Lamb wrote: In message , tim... writes "Tim Lamb" wrote in message ... In message , tim... writes "Tim Lamb" wrote in message ... In message , tim... writes "Michael Chare" wrote in message ... On 27/02/2021 11:03, John Towill wrote: Sad to say the scammers have won, they have made it incredibly difficult to operate a savings account on line, blast and damn them The government are remarkably releuctant to issue Covid vaccine passports but have done nothing about the fact that for all practical purpose you have to own a mobile phone as banks like to use them to verify who you are. doesn't need to be a smart phone though my candy bar works perfectly well for such verification Huh! Amazon 2 factor requires me to click a link:-( last time I looked Amazon wasn't a bank Indeed. Same assumption that all customers have a smart phone though. I'm not sure what you did that required a Smartphone my last order was made entirely on my laptop and the delivery indication came as an SMS to my dumb phone They already had my mobile number. The general tone from the guy on their help line was invoking 2FA is an inertia action. A bit like prime. He didn't say but the inference was you have to actively reject it or chose SMS / *click link*. Is it a case that you can't log into the Amazon site from a PC without using the 2FA? you can certainly log on just done it you can add things to a basket can't verify whether you need it to complete such a purchase I have nothing I want to buy ATM |
|
#77
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT
In message , tim...
writes "John Rumm" wrote in message news:gZSdnYJ5yrj5p6D9nZ2dnUU78KHNnZ2d@brightview. co.uk... On 01/03/2021 16:35, Tim Lamb wrote: In message , tim... writes "Tim Lamb" wrote in message . .. In message , tim... writes "Tim Lamb" wrote in message k... In message , tim... writes "Michael Chare" wrote in message ... On 27/02/2021 11:03, John Towill wrote: Sad to say the scammers have won, they have made it incredibly difficult to operate a savings account on line, blast and damn them The government are remarkably releuctant to issue Covid vaccine passports but have done nothing about the fact that for all practical purpose you have to own a mobile phone as banks like to use them to verify who you are. doesn't need to be a smart phone though my candy bar works perfectly well for such verification Huh! Amazon 2 factor requires me to click a link:-( last time I looked Amazon wasn't a bank Indeed. Same assumption that all customers have a smart phone though. I'm not sure what you did that required a Smartphone my last order was made entirely on my laptop and the delivery indication came as an SMS to my dumb phone They already had my mobile number. The general tone from the guy on their help line was invoking 2FA is an inertia action. A bit like prime. He didn't say but the inference was you have to actively reject it or chose SMS / *click link*. Is it a case that you can't log into the Amazon site from a PC without using the 2FA? you can certainly log on just done it you can add things to a basket can't verify whether you need it to complete such a purchase I have nothing I want to buy ATM Have you given them a mobile phone number? They let me in yesterday using a capcha followed by a mail response. Once in, I tried hard to find a way of setting up SMS 2FA without success:-( -- Tim Lamb |
|
#78
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT
Rod Speed wrote:
Bull**** with the best fingerprint and facial recognition on your phone. Why is it you think your phone is trustworthy? Especially if it's an android, given the almost universally poor update provision for them. For that matter, why is it you trust the fingerprint & facial recognition algorithms? Or, and merely as a parting shot, you understand, why is it you assume the guy who might have just nicked your phone doesn't know anyone who can help out? #Paul |
|
#79
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT
#Paul wrote
Rod Speed wrote: Bull**** with the best fingerprint and facial recognition on your phone. Why is it you think your phone is trustworthy? Because I realise that apple goes out of its way to ensure that there is no way to get your biometric data out of the phone. Especially if it's an android, It isnt. given the almost universally poor update provision for them. Which is one of the reasons it isnt an android. For that matter, why is it you trust the fingerprint & facial recognition algorithms? Because they have been very thoroughly tested and no one has been able to fool them. Or, and merely as a parting shot, you understand, why is it you assume the guy who might have just nicked your phone doesn't know anyone who can help out? I know that there is no one who can help out given that even the FBI couldnt find anyone to do that when they needed the data with current iphones. And that was just the data on the phone, not the biometric data that is vastly more securely held. The biometric data that is kept on the phone very securely ONLY allows the phone to see if the fingerprint or face matches, it can't be reversed to produce a fingerprint or face so even the best forensics cant take a phone that a crim has managed to leave at the scene and turn into a fingerprint or face so they can work out who the criminal actually is. |
|
#80
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT
On 02/03/2021 21:19, Rod Speed wrote:
#Paul wrote Rod Speed wrote: The biometric data that is kept on the phone very securely ONLY allows the phone to see if the fingerprint or face matches, it can't be reversed to produce a fingerprint or face so even the best forensics cant take a phone that a crim has managed to leave at the scene and turn into a fingerprint or face so they can work out who the criminal actually is. One of the security issues with fingerprint readers is that they still work when you are asleep. (Not a problem if you lose your phone but can be a problem for those in abusive relationships). If a phone was lost at the scene of a crime are law enforcement allowed to ask suspects to just put your thumb here for a moment? Surely the same applies to face rec - hold the phone up to a suspects face and job done. Bet they wished they used a PIN now. -- Chris B (News) |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
