Slashdot Mirror
PayPal Plans To Ban Unsafe Browsers
Alternative Details brings news that PayPal is developing a plan to stop users from accessing its financial services if they aren't using browsers with anti-phishing protection. PayPal is recommending the use of blacklists, anti-fraud warning pages, and EV SSL certificates. Browsers without anti-phishing features will be considered "unsafe." It seems likely Safari will be included in this category given PayPal's warning about the Apple browser last month.
"'At PayPal, we are in the process of reimplementing controls which will first warn our customers when logging in to PayPal of those browsers that we consider unsafe. Later, we plan on blocking customers from accessing the site from the most unsafe--usually the oldest--browsers,' he declared. Barrett only mentioned old, out-of-support versions of Microsoft's Internet Explorer among this group of 'unsafe browsers,' but it's clear his warning extends to Apple's Safari browser, which offers no anti-phishing protection and does not support the use of EV SSL certificates."
Instead of having to force PayPal users to use only specific browsers, they educate the consumers on safe browsing habits and not blindly clicking on "OMG SEND ME UR CC NUMBER AND BANK DETAILS LOLOL".
Dear PayPal User:
After much consideration, we've determined that your browser is safe again! Please log in at http://127.0.0.1/some/unsafe/address/.
PayPal apologizes deeply for the inconvenience.
I don't like to blame the victim but who clicks a link in an email? Really. Any site that makes it hard for me to get things done from their front page does not deserve my business, so I'll never follow the phish. The reason people still fall for this stuff is because copyright warriors and other IPtards make browsers and sites more complex than they need to be.
If Iceweasel and Konqueror are not on their "safe" list, I won't be able to use them even if I want to. Either the EWeek author or PayPal is clearly clueless because they used the words "safe" and "IE" in the same sentence, so their elimination of safe OS would not be a surprise. The world won't really be safe until insecure OS and the spam they generate are eliminated. Even then there will be a stuff that trickles through.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
While probably rather nasty and nanny-statish of them to do so, I can't help but think that this will force at least some people using certain archaic standards-non-complaint browsers to use better ones, or at least heavily-patched copies of IE 6 (although, since Microsoft is big on IE 7, they might skip that entirely.) Who knows, it might improve standards compliance a little bit—at least as far as transparent PNGs are concerned. (Obviously, this does not count Safari.)
Are you nuts?
"We're sorry. You're not using IE. And if you are using IE, your IE configuration isn't permitting us to run the MegabanX proprietary ActiveX control that our conslutants [sic] told us would eliminate all our liability. Please enable ActiveX support in order to continue banking with us, or turn off that Netscape thingy and upgrade to IE4.0 and resize your window to 800x600 while you're at it."
Forgive me for the sarcasm, but I had to switch banks twice because of that sort of crap. Think back a few years. The last thing any of us would have wanted "since they introduced internet banking" was our banks doing User-Agent and Javashit-based snooping on our configuration.
I guess I'm missing what's supposed to be so scandalous about this. I've seen plenty of government and financial institution websites do the same thing with blocking old versions of browsers or certain browsers they deem unsafe. Why is it that when Paypal does it that it's some big todo?
Why don't you trust me not to be an idiot instead of requiring that I use a different browser due to the fact that other users of my browser are idiots?
Philip Sandifer's academic website
Paypal is hyping Extended Validation certificates after Netcraft posts articles like this:
Extended Validation certificates and XSS considered harmful
Curious if nothing else.
Work bio at MMWD
Windows is not to blame for the phishing problem, PEOPLE are. Phishing has been around a lot longer than Windows and Internet Explorer, it was just a lot lower-tech and could not be perpetrated quite as fast.
anti-competitive??? what's wrong with forcing user to use safer browser to access their private data. If nothing else, this move will force Safari to include the feature that can protect their users. What you are saying is cop enforcing safe belt is anti-competitive to car maker that doesn't include a safety belt and safety belt have saved more lives than without it. what kind of logic is that?
Who are they to decide what is and isn't safe? They're not a bank, so I don't think they necessarily have any liability if one of their customers loses money, correct? Please correct me if I am mistaken.
Is this even legal? Seriously. If someone has money in PayPal, and if that same someone happens to be using a browser that is deemed "unsafe" and is sequentially banned, isn't that like PayPal holding the money hostage? What happens to those who refuse to "upgrade" in order to access their account?
Maybe instead of doing stupid stuff like this, which breeds a false sense of security among some less-smart users of PayPal, they should think of new and innovative ways to prevent unauthorized access to accounts. (I don't care to list my ideas right now.)
How about the other way around? Have safe browsers ban PayPal!
And yet, Ebay still sends email to users regarding important matters despite the security risks that poses - ie. how can a user know the email is real, it's not encrypted, etc.
Instead of banning browsers, Ebay should address the bigger security issue of Ebay sending email to users - instead Ebay should only send notices simply saying one has new messages in their Ebay message center, and require the user to actually visit Ebay to view the message contents - not fool-proof, but would substantially reduce the effectiveness of email spoofs.
Ron
Can we ban Paypal for unsafe money exchange?
This is stupid and pointless.
The problem isn't "unsafe browsers". Phishing is social engineering, not hacking. The problem is unsafe users.
Give a stupid user a safe browser and a semi-sophisticated phish and they'll cough up that login.
Give a smart user a IE 5.0 and they'll never get busted.
If paypal really wanted to increase user safety they'd do it with user education.
Tell users to very carefully navigate to the correct site, make a bookmark, and then never go to the site any other way again.
Question everything
What next, users have to pass an IQ test to get on the Internet? That way all of the stupid people who click on email links from phishing scams before looking at the message to see if it is fake or not, will forever see "Error ID10T: User is not smart enough to use the Internet. Request denied!"
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
And the reason people purchase products from large companies is so that they could offload some of the "hassle" or responsibility to the company that is hiring qualified professionals to analyze and develop the product they wish to sell.
If me as a regular user (Pretend at the moment I'm not writing this from my linux laptop) wanted to trade my personal time to assume the responsibility of learning cutting edge counter phishing procedures, then I fail to see the purpose of paying for the service.
From the above statement, we could look at the underling problem here.
We as geeks know how to avoid these problems on the internet and whatnot, because it is our every day life. However don't expect a singer, entertainer, pilot, lawyer or mechanic.
If we could afford to, we will not change our own automobile's engine oil, even if we knew how to. So why should we expect mechanics, lawyers and any non geek to stay on top of CERT/Slashdot and all other form of security concerns when all they want to do is use it for basic communications and features?
Its the whole idea of specialization. People specialize in various trades, and sell services to each other.
In conclusion: When a regular user choose to pay $xxx.00 for a Windows license instead of learning how to install and use Linux for free. Its a time and hassle investment that they're making, and not really a religious preference.
-Alex. http://bit.ly/1iVPtfA
No more than we walked away from the telephone, fax machine, and postal mail. I simply found folly in your statement that the whole phishing thing was Microsoft's fault. Put blame where responsibility falls, on people who manage important data.
Obviously IQ tests are not required to use the Internet, nor have children, nor drive, etc.
I am a PayPal customer. I have a paypal secure ID, a hardware token that generates 6 digits numbers (synchronized with paypal's servers) that are part my password authentication process. That means that even if someone gets my password (i.e. fisher), they won't be able to login that easily (they would need the hardware token to generate the current 6 digits number set, which changes periodically every 30 seconds). With all of that, I see no reason for paypal to block me if I am using Safari, even if Safari is a bit unsafer than other browsers. That would just mean adding an extra item to the list of things my iPhone can't do: access PayPal's webpage. That would really piss me off.
And thusly, we purchase a service from PayPal MegaCorp and expect them to take measures it deems necessary to protect the service it provides. The bottom line is simple: this is PayPal's business, it is PayPal's right to choose how to operate it, and we can take our ball and go home. And considering how many people think PayPal is evil, anyway, this should come as a neither surprise nor disappointment.
But I still stand firm that people are to blame for the lack of security on the Internet. The telephone, the radio, the television, the tabloids, the newspapers, books, and so on were all considered at one time a method of mass disinformation, and some still are to a lesser extent. Why else would we have phrases in our lexicon like "you can't believe everything you read/see on TV/hear on the radio"? Because people are willing to throw caution to the wind. We are more apt to scrutinize and discriminate against information people may throw at us in person, face-to-face, but as soon as the information is put into some form of communication medium, we lose our senses.
We know the guy on the street corner in New York is not selling real Rolex watches; we know the fella that chats you up on the bus is not legitimately selling prescription medications. Even so, we are more apt to believe that these things are available on web sites, because we have it drilled into us that the world is at our finger tips, every thing can be found on the Internet.
If you want to get down to brass tacks and point fingers, WE are to blame for the folly of those who surround us. Yes, WE are to blame. Because WE chose to learn and understand and ignore the plight of those who have not. WE are the shop class instructors letting the uninformed use the table saw without proper instruction and then blaming them when they lose fingers. It is our responsibility to educate and inform others why what they are doing is wrong -- and in many cases we even get paid for doing so.
And I do not mean that using Windows is wrong, but that clicking on email links without thorough scrutiny -- or even at all -- is wrong; that blast-forwarding unconfirmed rumors is wrong; that not understanding that the bank will never send an email and tell you to go to a site and enter all of your vital statistics (and if it does, then you should run like hell, anyway.); that the use of semicolons is ill-advised.
I find it amusing that some of us will take the "duty" to throw out Mom and Dad's Windows PC and replace it with a Linux or Mac box, then walk away pleased with ourselves over the "service" we have just done. When, in fact, the "service" we should be providing is education. It does not matter in front of what box Mom and Dad sit, without the proper knowledge, they are still vulnerable to phishing schemes and exploits.
Really, these so-called idiots out there are mostly just uninformed. Some non-BOFH-type PFY handed them a computer at the WorstBuy, CompUSELESS, or Radio Shanty, without taking the short amount of time it takes to instill a small bit of cynicism over unsolicited or unexpected information and requests. There were no pamphlets at the store explaining how email can be as dangerous as a phone call from "your phone company" or "your bank." Most of these people CAN be taught and guided.
And the ones that cannot will be eliminated one way or another, but of course not before making complete and utter asses of themselves.
... of where the Terrorists won.
Ironically, phishing sites won't block users using "unsafe" browsers, which just makes them more user-friendly than paypal.
"... so their little green bandaid is not going to fix anything."
I always thought this was a plot cooked up by VeriSign and Microsoft anyway. IE gets a cute little green bar that looks like it means something, and VeriSign charges four times as much money for the same certificate.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
There are four scenarios, assuming we agree to what "safe" is.
The immediate result is only affecting scenario 2, so there will be some loss of business.
In the long run, paypal expects users who hit the scenario 2 to switch to a safe browser. And paypal is big and important enough (whether we like it or not) for a reasonable number of users to do the switch.
We regret to inform you that we will not be able to process your Paypal Buyer Protection claim for the money because we have determined that you are not using a "safe" browser - a violation of our terms.
This, despite the fact that your victimization had nothing to do with phishing and your account was not actually compromised.
Due to this violation and to protect Paypal internal security, we have locked your account (and will be keeping the other $20,000 you had in it.)
This space available.
I love how you need a license to drive, but not to CREATE LIFE!
And people wonder why society is fucked.
And yeah, a written test to be allowed to use the internet would be nice.
If they were really being consistent, they would ban Internet Explorer first.
No matter what soi-disant "security features" Microsoft implements, the fundamental design of IE is inherently insecure, and it can not be made secure without making deep changes in the API that will cause Microsoft to lose too much face to go through with it.