Slashdot Mirror
Most Bank Websites Are Insecure
Anonymous writes "More than three-quarters of bank Web sites have design flaws that could expose bank customers to financial loss or identity theft, according to a University of Michigan study that will be presented this week at the Symposium on Usable Security and Privacy.
The study, 'Analyzing Web Sites For User-Visible Security Design Flaws,' examined 214 bank Web sites in 2006. It was conducted by University of Michigan computer science professor Atul Prakash and doctoral students Laura Falk and Kevin Borders."
It is actually a surprise, earlier the banks would just cover the damages caused. But with the current global economy it is actually a bit surprising that the banks are letting this happen.
But then again they might not - the study is from 06 and those were diffent times for banks.
Banks are protected from their mistakes by the US Federal Reserve.
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
If this report makes it any harder to login to my account I am going to have to find the publishers, and beat them.
My current bank forced me to select 6 questions, many of which there were no choices I knew the answer to, but that someone stealing my identity could find.
When one of these comes up that I can't answer I call the customer service, and am verified by my mothers maiden name. Defeating the purpose of all the questions anyway.
Also, my user-name is not a password, don't make me change it to one.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Having worked in the banking industry for nearly a decade, I was a bit skeptical. Many times we will have some security firm come in and look at our public facing web site, and come back with a list of 25-30 items that are 'security issues'. Most of them are complete crap, and maybe 1 or 2 are legitimate concerns. Management gets in a tizzy and insists that all items must be addressed, even when many items make no sense or are even counterproductive to implement.
I skimmed the underlying study (the article itself was worthless except for the link), and some of the concerns are very valid. For example, I have NO idea why a bank wouldn't insist on using SSL for any banking transaction.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
and was filed from a Caribbean island.
simon
The physical bank location isn't 100% secure either.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Since if I enter my username (composed from my real name) and an incorrect password three times, it locks me out.
I say "my" username, but if I enter any username - easily deductible by composing any two first and last names - and an incorrect password three times... that account gets locked out.
I'm sure that nobody with malice aforethought, a dictionary of names, and a frisky Perl script will ever feel the urge to increase every customers' security by having them locked out.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I had to call my ISP the other day (Virgin Media, because they're thieving, lying cheats), and had to go through the usual name, address and phone number. Then they asked me for my security password. I gave the wrong answer and the lady on the other end of the phone said the following:
"It's usually your mother's maiden name"
What the fuck?! Are you kidding me?! That's secure isn't it, giving me hints!
"What's your house number?"
"Erm, 11"
"Ooh, 1 out, try again"
"Er... 10?"
"Other way, dear"
"12?"
"OK, great. What can I do for you today Mr. Smith?"
Summation 2
Banks are protected from their mistakes by the US Federal Reserve.
Profits always get privatized, banker's mistakes often get nationalized. The private citizen always gets stuck with bailing the banks out but gets little or no benefit from profits since these shipped of to tax havens like Lichtenstein. Which makes it all the more gratifying when something like this happens.
That's assuming that the online account isn't accessing a database with all the information in it. You might say "preposterous!!?!?!", but this whole report is about banks doing stupid things as far as security goes.
Afterall, it's not like when you sign up for online banking they go to the back, pull your stuff from a manila folder and say "Another one of these fellas wants to look at his stuff on the interwebs. Lets put it in the computer.".
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
The big problem here is that while our funds are secured by Federal Insurance, our identities are not. And the potential for damage from ID theft are greater than the potential for loss of the little electronic digits that represent our money.
It can take years and lots of money to recover from ID theft. I am currently dealing with my sister-in-law's ID theft. She is a world traveler and spends 10 months out of the year in Africa, India, and the UK. We have signature authority on most of her stateside accounts. The problem is, she loves Internet Cafes and does her banking online.
She opened a new account in NYC before her last trip. She was in Nigeria for less than a week and we started to get alarming indications that something was wrong. Sure enough, some got her on what was her first visit to an cafe, her new account and her old WAMU account had to be shut down before it was raided. We are now getting credit warning letters in her name and we are hoping she doesn't get stopped in some country because someone used her name for a crime. Imagine the passport issues.
The problem might not be the bank's entirely, but there are measures they can take.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
...bill collectors with wrong phone numbers.
I had one call my phone asking for someone I had never heard of. I was bored and I played along. They asked for my SSN, I told them I forgot and asked them if they could tell me what it was...they did!
So I had this random lady's name and SSN. I also told them I had a new address and gave them the white house address.
One last thing: Sometimes I wonder; "Is that someone's signature? Or do they type that at the end of each post?"
Your viewpoint isn't so much as a generation thing as a naivety thing.
Who cares if the transaction between yourself and your bank is "100% secure" and the encryption can't be broken without 1 million years of brute force attacking - if someone has installed a keylogger on your computer and now has your username, password and whatever other stuff the bank requires you to have to log in?
Then there's the fact that these systems likely aren't 100% secure - the algorithms may work perfectly, but if the design of the system (which was created by one or more flawed humans) is faulty, then you have problems. You shouldn't be so worried about your teller making a mistake counting out your money so much as you should be worried that the teller has just slipped out $150 when you asked for $100, and pocketed the $50.
which is totally what she said
You're not thinking outside your (rather small) box. The answer is to make the account harder to guess. Let users choose their own account name, and you won't be able to guess that "SamJones" is a valid account. You could try "SammyTheMan", but at least the range of possible logins has just increased by an order of magnitude. Maybe, for those users who really have no creativity and try to insist on using FirstnameLastname, the bank could require that your login be FirstnameLastnameBirthmonthBirthday. "SamJones0413" is two-and-a-half orders of magnitude harder to guess than "SamJones".
If you did want to solve the problem of account lockout, you could try this: the first time an incorrect password happens, lock the account for 0.1 seconds. For every subsequent attempt, increase the lockout time by 10. After 3 bad guesses, you'd have to wait almost 2 minutes. After four guesses: 16 minutes. Five guesses: 2+3/4 hours. Six guesses: a day and 3 hours. Seven guesses: a week and a half. Eight guesses: 3+1/2 months. So, on the one hand, if the account does get DOS'd, it's merely "relatively" DOS'd to some extent; on the other hand, if Evil Hacker really wanted to DOS the account to a great extent, then it would be inconvenient for Evil Hacker, who might actually wait 2 minutes for the fourth guess but probably won't wait 16 minutes to enter the fifth guess. The Innocent End User, checking her account at the end of the day, might not even know that it had been semi-DOS'd.
Lots of creative ways you can solve these problems. I came up with this in the time it took me to type this post. I'm sure others have more ideas.
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]