Slashdot Mirror


Blizzard Sued Over Battle.net Authentication

An anonymous reader writes "A man has initiated a class-action suit against Blizzard over a product used to shore up Battle.net security. Benjamin Bell alleges that Blizzard's sale of Authenticators — devices that enable basic two-tier authentication — represents deceptive and unfair additional costs to their basic games. (Blizzard sells the key fob versions for $6.50, and provides a free mobile app as an alternative. Neither are mandatory.) The complaint accuses Blizzard of making $26 million in Authenticator sales. In response, Blizzard made a statement refuting some of the complaint's claims and voicing their intention to 'vigorously defend' themselves."

143 of 217 comments (clear)

  1. This is ridiculous by synthparadox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not only does the $6.50 help cover postage and pay for the dongle, its completely optional and Blizzard makes the app available to as many platforms as they can. You can even install the authenticator on a Android simulator on a computer.

    I'm in shock as to how entitled this person is. I honestly just can't fathom how he can claim that Blizzard "makes money" off these authenticators.

    1. Re:This is ridiculous by synthparadox · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Right, because the keyfobs and shipping are free to Blizzard.
      How does this guy know that Blizz made $26 mil from them? Does he have access to the sales reports? Remember, "the complaint accuses Blizzard of making $26 million in Authenticator sales." Accusing someone of making money and them -actually- making that much money is two completely different things.

    2. Re:This is ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Shouldn't the $60 purchase price and (possible) $15 monthly fee "help cover postage and pay for the dongle"?

      It's not "completely" optional, use of Diablo 3 RMAH requires it and/or the mobile app, and if you don't have a phone that can run the mobile app, then the authenticator is the only way to use an advertised feature of the game.

      Blizzard does profit, however little, from the authenticators. Do you really think that they take a loss on them? Or that $6.50 is the magical round number that represents exactly their cost? No, of course not, Blizzard is rounding up to cover their cost (assuming there is no intentional profit margin built in) and they make money from it, period. The real issue though is the fact that they are forcing users to pay for the game's security, profit or no profit. It's a hidden cost of being able to enjoy the product you already paid for.

    3. Re:This is ridiculous by LordLimecat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Theyre optional, and completely unnecessary if you use a good password. That they offer an ADDITIONAL paid service that competitors do not does not in any way obligate gamers to use the authenticators.

      If they want to sell guides for creating strong passwords at $10 a pop, and they end up making $500 mil on it, who cares? Its a service that apparently people want. The man doesnt even seem to allege that the device was ineffective-- simply that it was unnecessary and he for some inexplicable reason bought it anyways.

    4. Re:This is ridiculous by synthparadox · · Score: 2

      Hacked accounts are a loss for Blizzard. Not only do they have to staff GMs to handles these requests, they have to restore items and more often than not they can't remove the stolen items. I firmly believe the $6.50 pays for the keyfob and the postage, and that's it. If they can break even, its a net gain for them since they can reduce the GM ticket queue and free up these expenses and time for other things. Remember how they laid off 600 employees in April? (http://wow.joystiq.com/2012/04/27/the-lawbringer-autonomous-systems-deal-with-customer-service-pr/) That was a reduction in operating costs for supporting these types of requests.

    5. Re:This is ridiculous by synthparadox · · Score: 2

      You don't need a phone to run the mobile app. The fact that you can run android apps on a SDK on the computer has been known for a while now. See: http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/713865-How-to-get-Battle-net-Mobile-Authenticator-COMPLETELY-free

    6. Re:This is ridiculous by jklovanc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Income is not the same as profit. They sold for $6.50 but it cost Blizzard much more to purchase and ship them. From a financial statement point of view making no profit from a sale is bad for the company yet Blizzard is still doing it to support their customers.

    7. Re:This is ridiculous by meerling · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Blizzard already claims to do this at cost. That would mean no profit. Wonder where he's getting his $26 million profit statement from. It might be a cost instead of profit, but either way, his lawsuit is b.s. as the security fob is an optional and non required item, and the software version is free, that guy is an idiot trying to get a payday from Blizzard settling rather than paying to take it to court. I hope Blizzard takes the high road and fights him all the way.

    8. Re:This is ridiculous by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      There are three way to run authenticator;
      $6.50 hardware device
      App on a smart phone
      App on an android simulator on your computer.
      There are three ways to run it; two of which are free. The only reason to buy the dongle is for convenience.

    9. Re:This is ridiculous by rgbrenner · · Score: 1

      Income is exactly the same as profit. I think you are confusing income with revenue in your post.

    10. Re:This is ridiculous by synthparadox · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you really want to be correct, income can be either net or gross. Gross income is revenue. Net income is profit. Because he didn't state what kind of income, he's technically still correct. </pedantic>

    11. Re:This is ridiculous by arbiter1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      there is a 4th way, its Called WinAuth. A problem you can run on your computer to generate the code. Its FREE as well. http://code.google.com/p/winauth/

    12. Re:This is ridiculous by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 3, Funny

      Zomg, a company makes money off of sales of something that you don't need to play the game? Travesty! That has to be illegal!

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    13. Re:This is ridiculous by mat.power · · Score: 5, Funny

      He's technically correct, the best kind of correct!

    14. Re:This is ridiculous by yndrd1984 · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's the principle of making the customer pay for this after the fact. If the game requires authenticators to use its features, it should come in the box.

      I'm billing Ford for my gas, oil changes, and regular maintainance. I'm also suing because the advertisements showed an attractive woman in the car, and mine didn't come with one - I had to buy one separately from some "RussianBride" company. What a rip-off!

    15. Re:This is ridiculous by synthparadox · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the car analogy. I had this long-winded post written up about the "entitlement" of receiving the authenticator with the game, but I think your post responds in a much better manner. :)

    16. Re:This is ridiculous by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Ever heard of an Income and expense report the balance of which is either profit or loss? In a number of dictionary entries income and revenue are synonymous.

    17. Re:This is ridiculous by X0563511 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Technically correct is best correct.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    18. Re:This is ridiculous by stephanruby · · Score: 2

      Not only does the $6.50 help cover postage and pay for the dongle, its completely optional and Blizzard makes the app available to as many platforms as they can.

      Their authentication software is available for the two dominant phone os platforms, Android and iOS. That's it.

      Just to put things in perspective, the Google authenticator, which is open source (Apache license), uses open authentication standards, and which could be used for free by Blizzard, can also be run from the command-line on Linux, Mac OS, and Windows, in addition to iOS, Android, and Blackberry.

      You can even install the authenticator on a Android simulator on a computer.

      How convenient.

      First of all, Android doesn't really have a simulator, it has an emulator. It's slow. It's heavy-weight. It's not much of a solution for the average joe. Speaking as someone who works with it daily, I don't think the Android emulator is something that should be required for a consumer who wants to play a game he supposedly just purchased.

      The only point of contention is whether, or not, this authentication system is really required to play the game. Right now, according to the companys' response, this new authentication is completely optional, but for some reason that consumer believes it was required, or that it will be required even for users that are not on the system right now.

      Either the consumer doing the suing is an idiot, or perhaps Blizzard implied that it would indeed become a requirement, and recently backpedaled as the lawsuit emerged. Either way, this issue seems to be moot right now.

      The only (non-legal) questions remaining are: Why aren't they using open standards for authentication? And why are their passwords not case-sensitive? Are they converting them to all lower-case before doing the hashing? Or are they storing their passwords all in plain text?

    19. Re:This is ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When I got my authenticator years back when they first came out, the package it came in had the postage price of $6.50 stamped on it. I would say that yes, Blizzard actually is selling them at a loss.

    20. Re:This is ridiculous by rgbrenner · · Score: 1

      wow... really? you wrote all that and you couldn't be bothered to look up the definition of gross income?

      gross income = revenue - cost of goods sold

    21. Re:This is ridiculous by rgbrenner · · Score: 1

      Yes, I have seen an income statement. Here's blizzards:
      http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=ATVI

      Notice it has separate lines for
      Revenue, gross profit, and net income

      That is because they are DIFFERENT

      "Different" is when two things are not the same.. like how revenue and gross profit are not the same.

    22. Re:This is ridiculous by flimflammer · · Score: 2

      You have to be incredibly dense not to see why they would do this. It costs them less to sell authenticators at cost than it is to constantly have staff fixing hacked accounts and having people quit over hacks.

      One time fee; Consistently recurring subscription
      --or--
      Player hacked, costs CS manhours to fix, player potentially quits.

      Which one do you think a smart business is going to choose?

    23. Re:This is ridiculous by mlts · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A good chunk that (if not almost all) goes for shipping, as well as to Vasco DigiPass GO6 which then is rebranded (adding extra cost).

      If Blizzard wanted to make money from these, they could do very easily [1]. However, they don't.

      I'm normally a critic of Blizzard, but IMHO, this is one area where they are doing something right, because two-factor authentication is a significant improvement in security.

      As far as I know, this lawsuit is pointless. If one doesn't want to give Blizzard cash for an authenticator, the app that does the exact same thing is free on iOS and Android.

      [1]: Phase out the apps, then require the physical authentication token to be attached to the account in order for the user to use the AH or trade with other players.

    24. Re:This is ridiculous by DrgnDancer · · Score: 1

      But there's free options for authenticators. You can use a phone app. If you don't have a smart phone, the phone apps work on the iPod Touch, the iPad, or any Android tablet or "smart" MP3 player; they even work in the phone simulators that Apple and Google provide for free with their developer kits. Granted installing a phone simulator to run an authenticator is a pain in the ass, but it is free.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    25. Re:This is ridiculous by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Fine, I will rephrase;
      "Revenue is not the same a profit".

    26. Re:This is ridiculous by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      No, revenue less costs is net income.
      https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/net_income

      Gross income is total income before costs are deducted.
      https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gross_income

    27. Re:This is ridiculous by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Insightful

      His number is extremely bogus.

      Even if we ignore manufacturing costs, maintenance costs, shipping costs...hell, ALL of the costs...it still means that they would have sold 4M of these dongles at $6.50 each in order to make $26M. Mind you, Blizzard offers free Android and iOS apps that do the exact same thing, and Blizzard caters to the crowd that tends to get these devices, so that would eat into sales of the dongles. Not to mention that 4M sales would represent 1/3 of the WoW players at its peak, which seems like an unreasonably high number. And the numbers only get more ridiculous from there, since even if we were to grant that Blizzard had a hefty 50% profit margin on each dongle, you'd still need to have found 8M people to have bought them.

      Class actions can be useful at times. This is not one of those times. This is lunacy.

    28. Re:This is ridiculous by twocows · · Score: 1

      But that analogy's just wrong. This isn't Ford making you pay for gas, it's Ford making you pay because they sold you a car without a door lock and a very cheap ignition lock.

    29. Re:This is ridiculous by rgbrenner · · Score: 1

      gross income for a business is not the same as for your personal income:

      here is the business definition of gross income
      http://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/grossincome.asp

    30. Re:This is ridiculous by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      I don't think wiki world is a good source for that. They aren't even consistent:
      "Gross income in United States tax law is receipts and gains from all sources less cost of goods sold."
      per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_income

      That's the definition most people on this site would rightfully quote.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    31. Re:This is ridiculous by arth1 · · Score: 1

      How convenient.

      First of all, Android doesn't really have a simulator, it has an emulator. It's slow. It's heavy-weight. It's not much of a solution for the average joe. Speaking as someone who works with it daily, I don't think the Android emulator is something that should be required for a consumer who wants to play a game he supposedly just purchased.

      It's also neither offered by nor supported by Blizzard.

      The availability of an unsupported third party product[*] does in no way lessen any onus on Blizzard to provide customers who fulfil the requirements on the box with what's otherwise needed to play the game in full. Including the auction house.

      [*]: An SDK and an emulator, the set-up of which is so user-unfriendly that I'm sure a majority of Blizzard customers would give up during the initial installation, to say nothing about actually getting software to run under it. It's made for experienced programmers, and not mom playing DIII.

    32. Re:This is ridiculous by Archimonde · · Score: 1

      You are right on. Blizzard locked out my account because I was changing geographical zones too much (I'm a seaman, working on a cruise ship). So they said that I had to change my password. And to do that you have to receive a text message with a code on your mobile phone. This part didn't work even though the phone number stored was completely ok. So I couldn't change the account's password.

      Then you have to open support tickets which I did, and the same day I've received a mail that they are not going to unlock my account nor delete/change my mobile phone number because they cannot verify that it is the real person contacting them. And I've sent them my national ID card scan. Basically they didn't even read my support ticket. Then I've opened another ticket and a day later some guy unlocked my account because this guy obviously read my e-mail and it probably helped that I've sent them a scan of my ID and passport.

      But of course, the SMS text message functionality was still impossible to disable because I couldn't receive a verification code sent by a text to disable that "feature". Then I had to open another ticket and some guy disabled that shit.

      Then couple of days after this events I've received a mail from Blizzard that I should purchase and authenticator to avoid problems like this. Fuck them! I've given them like hundreds of dollars and they give me shit like this and locking me out of my own account which has a very secure password.

      --
      Trolls are like broken clocks. They show the truth two times a day. The rest of the day they talk nonsense.
    33. Re:This is ridiculous by Elbart · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because running the authenticator on the same machine you're trying to authenticate from is best practice. Right?

    34. Re:This is ridiculous by fa2k · · Score: 1

      The reason these car analogies fail is that Blizzard isn't selling a product, they're selling a lifetime membership to a service. It's like buying a lifetime bus pass. Then the bus company installs RFID readers on a few bus routes and you have to buy an RFID chip or use a phone with NFC to go on those buses.

    35. Re:This is ridiculous by cratermoon · · Score: 1

      completely unnecessary if you use a good password.

      That's a dangerously incorrect assertion to make. People's battle.net accounts don't get compromised because a malicious party cracked a password. Keyloggers, phishing, social engineering, and just plain fraud are all far more common avenues for password leakage, both in battle.net and overall.

      The days when a hacker could bang on the front door of a service trying username/password combinations until finding one that worked are long gone. The reason Blizzard introduced authenticators was because their own experience indicated that no matter how tightly locked the servers, or how strong the password requirements, with the client software and hardware out of their control, passwords were still getting out. So they went with the next best convenient security practice: something you know, and something you have.

    36. Re:This is ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, this Ford selling you a car with industry standard locks, and offering reinforced locks as an option. What company are you thinking of that gives you a free 2FA dongle on signup?

    37. Re:This is ridiculous by ildon · · Score: 2

      It doesn't create revenue for Blizzard, but it does greatly reduce their support ticket volume (by directly reducing the number of compromised accounts) which allows them to hire less support staff to handle it which reduces their support overhead. There is no doubt in my mind, that despite the fact that they probably LOSE tons of money on authenticators, they "make it back" in spades saving on support costs. But this is a GOOD THING. Players who get their accounts compromised often just use it as an excuse to quit, and for those who don't quit, no matter how helpful customer support is, it's still a really shitty experience and it still takes time out of your game playing.

      In the end, it's a net positive for both Blizzard and the consumer.

    38. Re:This is ridiculous by ildon · · Score: 1

      It's more like they have free wifi on the bus, but you have to pay for your own laptop or smart phone to access the free wifi, and they also offer to sell you a laptop that only browses the internet on their bus wifi for $50. But it's still a fucking laptop that cost the bus company like $400 or more.

    39. Re:This is ridiculous by antdude · · Score: 1

      Was that woman from "RussianBride" company (which one?) worth or a rip-off too? [grin]

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    40. Re:This is ridiculous by Bremic · · Score: 1

      When I bought the Authenticator's for my wife and I several years ago, it was $6.50 for each Authenticator, and then about $30 for shipping. If you don't live in the US, the cost of these things is really quite high.

      Installing an Authenticator on your phone is an acceptable compromise, but people lose their phones a lot, and that is yet another issue.

      I still don't feel this man should have a case. Blizzard do not force you to use an Authenticator, though I think they should. They also don't charge for the Mobile Authenticator.

    41. Re:This is ridiculous by coxymla · · Score: 1

      Minor quibble: the IOS mobile authenticator app won't run in the simulator because the IOS sim is not an emulator. You need to compile an app specifically for the sim.

      The Android sim is actually a full-fledged emulator and so can run any app, but is obviously much less performant because of that.

    42. Re:This is ridiculous by void* · · Score: 1

      Every time Blizzard's response to an account being hacked is "get an authenticator", the only thing they are admitting that the user hasn't sufficiently secured data (the account password) that blizzard has no control over.

      --


      Code or be coded.
    43. Re:This is ridiculous by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      No, this Ford selling you a car with industry standard locks, and offering reinforced locks as an option. What company are you thinking of that gives you a free 2FA dongle on signup?

      Except to use the radio, you MUST buy the reinforced locks. Otherwise you can use the car just as you bought it, except the radio won't work. Your car works perfectly fine, the sound system is completely optional, but the ad did say it came with one. It didn't mention you have to buy an OPTION to use it.

      Basically if it's required to use a feature on the box, it should've been in the box from the get-go.

    44. Re:This is ridiculous by twocows · · Score: 1

      Except they're not. People in Diablo 3, at least, were getting hacked because session data in public games was being hijacked or something, allowing people to authenticate as someone else using that information (I believe there's a /. article about it, in fact). And as for WoW, I came back after 3 years of not playing and my account had been hijacked a year prior (God knows why, I had a single level 30 character). My password was not something easily breakable and was unique to my battle.net account, and I hadn't had any communication with Blizzard in that three year time period. The only explanation I can come up with is that they had a break-in that they failed to notify their users about or some other security flaw. Both of those are problems on their end.

      Blizzard's security is absolute crap. Selling a car with a shitty lock and then handing out dongles to fix it is not an acceptable practice. I wouldn't care if they were free; that's simply not how a professional corporation should do business. They need to fix their shit or I won't buy from them; it's that simple. The customer shouldn't have to deal with that crap.

  2. Going nowhere... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Question #1 will be : "Did blizzard make you buy one in order to play the game, and are there any consequences to not doing so?"... "No, and No"...."Case dismissed"

    1. Re:Going nowhere... by hawguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      not necessarily, he can always say that it wasn't well indicated on the box or website when he bought the game. So this can be applied under "false advertisement" since it doesn't tell him that he must pay additional money.

      But he doesn't have to buy it -- he can pick a secure password and protect it (and protect his computer against keyloggers and other malware). When I buy a car the dealer doesn't tell me that I have to buy a car alarm with it at extra cost. Because I don't. It might be prudent, depending on where I park the car, but it's not necessary.

    2. Re:Going nowhere... by LordLimecat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You have to sign into battle.net to order one, which indicates right away that you do not need one to sign into battle.net. That someone could be confused by this is absurd.

    3. Re:Going nowhere... by Rockoon · · Score: 2

      Question #1 will be : "Did blizzard make you buy one in order to play the game, and are there any consequences to not doing so?"... "No, and No"...."Case dismissed"

      No, and Yes. An authenticator is required for some aspects of some of blizzards games, such as the real money auction house in diablo 3. This requirement most certainly was not advertised during initial sales, but the real money auction house feature was advertised during initial sales as a selling point. In fact, you will find slashdot articles about the real money auction house prior to the games release.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    4. Re:Going nowhere... by steppin_razor_LA · · Score: 2

      You can also for free have them set it up so that they do phone authentication when you login from a different IP address.

      --
      Evolution: love it or leave it
    5. Re:Going nowhere... by Iceykitsune · · Score: 1

      1. No
      2. You cannot use the Real Money Auction House.

      --
      GENERATION 24: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social exper
    6. Re:Going nowhere... by hawguy · · Score: 1

      not necessarily, he can always say that it wasn't well indicated on the box or website when he bought the game. So this can be applied under "false advertisement" since it doesn't tell him that he must pay additional money.

      But he doesn't have to buy it -- he can pick a secure password and protect it (and protect his computer against keyloggers and other malware). When I buy a car the dealer doesn't tell me that I have to buy a car alarm with it at extra cost. Because I don't. It might be prudent, depending on where I park the car, but it's not necessary.

      Actually your car analogy doesn't work here. When I bought my car, the dealership installed another car alarm system for higher revenue on the sale.

      The analogy still applies - the car dealer installed an alarm system that you wanted, and you paid for it. If you didn't want the alarm system, you wouldn't have paid for it. The dealer may have said "Oh, too late, it's already installed, you have to pay for it", and if you don't want it, you just say "No problem, I'll buy the car at another dealer, and suddenly you'll find that the "non-removable" alarm system can suddenly be removed, or that the $499 alarm system is yours for free. They aren't going to let you walk over an alarm that cost them less than $100 to install.

      This is like Blizzard saying "Do you want the $6 token to make your account safer? If you want it, you pay the $6, if you don't, you say "No thanks".

    7. Re:Going nowhere... by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      You have to sign into battle.net to order one, which indicates right away that you do not need one to sign into battle.net.

      That's not how authentication usually works. As an admin, I also require my users to use to 2-step verification, but 2-factor authentication requirement doesn't kick in until the second time they log-in.

    8. Re:Going nowhere... by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      It's a flawed analogy to begin with however, because an alarm with an immobilizer is now required, by law, in enough markets that it's part of the standard kit on just about every car on the market. There's a reason that the market for after-market stereos and alarm systems has pretty much dried up in the last few years: it's because most new cars come with stereos that are good enough for most from the factory, and all new cars come with alarms.

      Of course, given that I live in one of the markets where the alarm/immobilizer is required, there may be cars I can't get here which don't come with it, but in the North American and European markets, it's pretty much a given that you'll have one.

  3. Free mobile version is free by Firehed · · Score: 2

    Like TFS says, the mobile version is free. Just another moron trying to make a quick buck.

    My concern with blizzard's authenticator is that they seem to have rolled their own implementation rather than adhering to an open, defined spec (HOTP/TOTP). And like so many of these services, there's no good way to move it to a new device without disabling 2FA temporarily. People do upgrade their phones, after all.

    --
    How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    1. Re:Free mobile version is free by synthparadox · · Score: 4, Informative

      They introduced a "restore" feature a while back that allows you to migrate devices without removing two-factor authentication. Basically, you enter the restoration code into the new phone/device and both devices will continue to generate the same seeded code. This can also be used to extend the authenticator to multiple devices like having a smartphone and a tablet both generate the same code. This is just an ease-of-use feature, especially when sometimes you can't find one of the devices you installed your authenticator on.

    2. Re:Free mobile version is free by Roogna · · Score: 1

      Not sure about if it's their own implementation or not, but it IS very easy to move to a new device.

      They provide a serial number in the app, and a recover code. Simply entering both on the new mobile device and you've got a clone of the original.

    3. Re:Free mobile version is free by arbiter1 · · Score: 1

      I forgot site off hand but there is software based one you can run on your computer as well that is free, no need to buy a keyfab or a phone that can run the app. software has optional lock down to 1 computer and password option's

    4. Re:Free mobile version is free by Cinder6 · · Score: 1

      I actually had to use the restore code last night--it didn't work. The restore code itself worked, but battle.net still said the authenticator code was wrong. It was fairly trivial to get them to remove the authenticator (enter a code sent via SMS), but by then I had "too many login attempts" and had to wait a few hours. Frustrating.

      --
      If you can't convince them, convict them.
    5. Re:Free mobile version is free by magamiako1 · · Score: 1

      http://www.wowwiki.com/Battle.net_Mobile_Authenticator_Specification

      I'll just leave this here. But feel free to continue thinking you know everything. Also check out RFC 4226 and 6238 and compare it with this wiki article. Enjoy!

    6. Re:Free mobile version is free by Nyder · · Score: 1

      Like TFS says, the mobile version is free. Just another moron trying to make a quick buck.

      My concern with blizzard's authenticator is that they seem to have rolled their own implementation rather than adhering to an open, defined spec (HOTP/TOTP). And like so many of these services, there's no good way to move it to a new device without disabling 2FA temporarily. People do upgrade their phones, after all.

      How is suing someone a quick buck? Unless they cave and decide to pay you off, you still have to pay filing charges, lawyer fees (providing you got one), and wait for the court date. Seems quite a hassle to be considered 'quick'.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    7. Re:Free mobile version is free by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

      I upgraded my phone last weekend and migrated my authenticator using the restore code, it worked fine. I checked the keys were in sync before wiping the old phone. I didn't need to disable the authenticator form my old account to do so, it just worked.

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
  4. Great! by hawguy · · Score: 1

    If they win this suit, I'm going after Google to pay my phone bills since they give me the option of using SMS based authentication to protect my Gmail account.

  5. Idiot? by Xenx · · Score: 1

    He seems to be an idiot to me. The authenticators were created to protect a community that is targeted regularly from their own stupidity. Basically, it's to protect from phishing and keylogging. Blizzard is just offering them an additional method to secure them, for a negligible cost. As for the issue with the hack on their servers, they made sure to alert their users via their registered accounts. Any legal requirements, anything else in regards to their quality of security... I can't speak for.

  6. Idiot. by girlintraining · · Score: 1

    It's not mandatory, and it's a game. A service provided to you, and a limited version that's free to use. The security problem is inherent to all MMOs -- and Blizzard is providing a way for people concerned with hacking to protect their investment in the game, at a reasonable rate. These authenticator tokens often cost a lot more than the cost of a meal at mcdonald's in other industries. The guy doesn't have a leg to stand on. He max-leveled in idiot.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  7. Authenticator is not a Blizzard product... by Kenja · · Score: 5, Informative

    It is made by Vasco and is sold in large quantity orders for around 6.50$, which is the same as what Blizzard charges for it. The idiot in question is basicly claiming Blizzard sold 400,000 Authenticators at a 100% profit margin.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:Authenticator is not a Blizzard product... by LordLimecat · · Score: 3, Informative

      at $26 million, that would be 4,000,000 at 100% margin, which stretches the bounds of credulity.

  8. Let's shut down these greedy bastards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Warcraft should be free, and Blizzard should become a charity.

  9. Re:Surprised? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Its been a while since I logged into battle.net, but I am almost POSITIVE the passwords are case sensitive, as case sensitivity has caused incorrect password entry several times.

    They allow passwords to be MUCH more complex than many other websites / services. This case is complete BS.

  10. Sometimes free by jklovanc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A friend of mine got hacked three times. Blizzard sent him an authenticator for free. It costs them less to send the free authenticator that keep fixing his account.

    This is just someone trying to make money on a frivolous law suit.

    1. Re:Sometimes free by Rockoon · · Score: 2

      A friend of mine got hacked three times. Blizzard sent him an authenticator for free. It costs them less to send the free authenticator that keep fixing his account.

      What you are saying is that if they got $6.50 out of him instead of giving him the device for free, that it would have been an additional $6.50 in pure profit?

      Think about that for a moment.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    2. Re:Sometimes free by maxdread · · Score: 1

      A wizard who also happens to have a buddy at the USPS willing to hook him up with free shipping as well.

    3. Re:Sometimes free by realityimpaired · · Score: 2

      No... what they were saying was that fixing the account and ensuring a continued revenue stream of $15/mo was favourable to him cancelling the account for want of a $6.50 one-time cost.

      While this is true for every account, and is an argument in favour of simply giving the things away, most accounts never get hacked, and they *do* simply give the things away to anybody with a smartphone. When they do get hacked, the labour costs for fixing the account are what makes sending the authenticator an option.

      It's not rocket science, people.

    4. Re:Sometimes free by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      No,what I am saying is that Blizzard decided decrease their losses by spending $6.50 + S&H instead of spending much more every time he was hacked.

      The only way it would have been pure profit is if the got $6.50 out of him without sending the device. If the device was sent the profit would be $0 ($6.50 income - $6.50 cost of goods sold).

      People really need to understand the terms income, expense, cost of goods sold, and profit. It is a simple equation profit = income - (expenses+cost of goods sold).

    5. Re:Sometimes free by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      People really need to understand the terms income, expense, cost of goods sold, and profit

      "People" clearly includes you.

      You are buying a car for $20000. Just before you sign the agreement I run in and hand you a 10% off coupon. Thats $2000 is pure profit. It doesnt matter that the car still costs you $18000.

      If your friend had given blizzard $6.50 for that authenticator instead of simply accepting it gratis, its exactly equal to a $6.50 coupon that blizzard cashes in. Pure profit. A windfall.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    6. Re:Sometimes free by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Profit is money you didn't have before, What you described is not profit it is less cost. The only person possibly making profit in the transaction you describe is the person selling the car and only if it cost him less that $18000. The definition of profit deal with the seller and not the buyer. It is a simple equation profit = revenue - expenses.

      This is irrelevant to the main conversation anyway. The premise of the suit is that Blizzard if profiting from the sale of authenticators and not that the plaintiff is profiting. Is Blizzard profiting directly from giving away authenticators?

    7. Re:Sometimes free by antdude · · Score: 1

      Why did your friend get hacked so many times? Isn't it his/her fault and not Bizzard's? Did Blizzard get hacked or something to send him/her a free authenticator?

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  11. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative
  12. Re:Surprised? by Dyinobal · · Score: 5, Informative

    No they aren't I just checked my copy of Diablo 3 (which was a total waste of money) and my password worked regardless of what I capitalized.

  13. Re:Surprised? by Antony+T+Curtis · · Score: 1

    Funnily enough, I only found out that passwords were case insensitive in 2010.

    --
    No sig. Move along - nothing to see here.
  14. Battle.net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The end of the article indicates he is suing to not require a battle.net account just to play a game, which seems reasonable to me.

    1. Re:Battle.net by cob666 · · Score: 1

      I hope you're being sarcastic. How are you supposed to play an online game without having an account? That would be like wanting to play Mafia Wars on Facebook without having to log into Facebook. I'm not a big fan of Blizzard but this lawsuit is total bullshit.

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
    2. Re:Battle.net by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      How is it reasonable to play an MMO without an account?

      Going back to the old standalone account system isn't any better than Battle.net. You can also have multiple Battle.net accounts, so it's not like you have to link every Blizzard game you buy to a single account.

  15. Re:Surprised? by TuringCheck · · Score: 4, Informative

    You know, there are plenty of WoW server emulators that had to reverse engineer the client authentication.
    Both the username and the password are converted to uppercase before being SHA-160 hashed and fed into the SRP6 authentication algorithm.

  16. Personal Responsibility by cigawoot · · Score: 2

    Instead of taking personal responsibility for the security of their own account, they instead sue Blizzard. Blizzard CANNOT control the end user's computer (not as much as they wish they could, at least). Therefore, the security of your login credentials are the sole responsibility of the account holder. Blizzard can't keep your computer from getting infected with malware, falling for a phishing scam, or sharing your credentials with your little brother.

  17. Re:Free mobile version costs $500 by eht · · Score: 1

    Not true, you can run it in an Android development emulator.

  18. Easy Solution by Greyfox · · Score: 1
    1) Raise the price of the game client by $6.50.

    2) Include a "Free Authenticator!" in every box, or mail one to people who opt to download the client.

    3) Profit.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Easy Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They literally can't do this. Vasco can't manufacture that many authenticators.

  19. And in return he expects to get...? by FaxeTheCat · · Score: 1

    Suing over $6.50.... even with a complete victory he would probably end up with something like $.50 after the lawyers get their part. This must be somebody with too much time to waste.

    1. Re:And in return he expects to get...? by arbiter1 · · Score: 1

      you forget, its a Class Action suit, so he might not even get that much.

    2. Re:And in return he expects to get...? by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      He's the actual plaintiff. If he wins (he won't) he'll probably get some ridiculously high number while everyone else are the people who gets nothing.

      Then again, he's not going to win this so it's irrelevant anyway.

    3. Re:And in return he expects to get...? by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      I might as well be psychic regarding this case.

  20. Re:Free mobile version costs $500 by tepples · · Score: 1

    How big is that to download (especially on a capped plan), and how much RAM does it use (in addition to the RAM your game uses)?

  21. Re:Free mobile version costs $500 by arbiter1 · · Score: 1

    Also one called WinAuth, no emulator needed. http://code.google.com/p/winauth/

  22. Re:Surprised? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    ... and yet if i change the case on my password, either in game or on the website, I get an authentication failure. Hell, that was true back when Diablo 2 was around

    Fact seems to disagree with you.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  23. Re:Surprised? by X0563511 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually no, i'm wrong. What the hell?

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  24. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    The stupid, it burns

  25. Re:Surprised? by tofubeer · · Score: 2
  26. Re:Required for the RMAH. by arbiter1 · · Score: 1

    Its right to require one on real money auction. Since its real money involved gotta take extra security on that. But with that said this guy apperently is to stupid to realize the 2 other FREE options. The Phone app and program called WinAuth that will this stuff for FREE.

  27. They May Be Evil... But No One's Car Lot Evil! by nick_davison · · Score: 1

    "When I buy a car the dealer doesn't tell me that I have to buy a car alarm with it at extra cost."

    You've not bought a car from a dealer lot recently, have you?

    Expect to find LoJack (even in markets where the local police have bought zero units), alarms, windshield VIN etching, clear paint protectors, sealants, rust proofing, teflon upholstery protection and a wide variety of exciting floor mats pre installed and added on to the price of every actually available car, taking them way above and beyond the "Starting From..." low, low advertized MSRP on the banners around the lot. Listen to the radio commercials where whichever "mile of cars" with "over X thousand vehicles to choose from!" has "three at this price."

    The difference between Blizzard and a car lot is, if Blizzard were a car lot, they'd be telling you, "We're sorry, the only copies we've got on hand today already have their accounts hooked to a validator and we can't remove it. We could order you a copy without a validator in 8-12 weeks or you can pay the premium to take a copy home today."

    1. Re:They May Be Evil... But No One's Car Lot Evil! by hawguy · · Score: 1

      "When I buy a car the dealer doesn't tell me that I have to buy a car alarm with it at extra cost."

      You've not bought a car from a dealer lot recently, have you?

      Expect to find LoJack (even in markets where the local police have bought zero units), alarms, windshield VIN etching, clear paint protectors, sealants, rust proofing, teflon upholstery protection and a wide variety of exciting floor mats pre installed and added on to the price of every actually available car, taking them way above and beyond the "Starting From..." low, low advertized MSRP on the banners around the lot. Listen to the radio commercials where whichever "mile of cars" with "over X thousand vehicles to choose from!" has "three at this price."

      "

      If you fall for this, then you deserve what you get -- trumped up dealer add-ons have always been a part of the car buying game. Unless you're looking for a hard to find car (in which case you're going to just have to pay whatever the dealer asks), if you don't want a dealer add-on, just tell him you'll get the car elsewhere. He'll either remove them or write them off (since the dealer cost is a small fraction of what they are charging).

      I just bought a car a few months ago, and that's exactly what I did -- I told the salesman I wasn't going to pay for his "$199 upgraded floor mats", "$299 auto-dimming compass mirror", "$59 first aid kit", and certainly wasn't going to buy a $299 paint protection package. I was clear that if it's not on the manufacturer's window sheet, I'm not paying for it. After the traditional "I need to approve this with my manager", they took the mats (the same OEM mats are available for $59 online) out of the car and threw in the mirror and first aid kit for "free" and stopped trying to upsell the rustproofing and paint protection package. I still got the car under published invoice price (which of course, is not his real cost for the car).

      Shop around, look for cars well outside your area, so you can tell the dealer "I saw this exact car at XXX dealer, if you don't want to sell me the car, I'll get it from him". But above all, be prepared to walk if you don't get the deal you want.

  28. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Clearly they are the stupidest person on earth for not knowing off hand the password mechanics of a shit mmo.

  29. gross income is NOT revenue by rgbrenner · · Score: 1

    No, gross income is not revenue. It is revenue - cost of goods sold

  30. Re:Free mobile version costs $500 by Ultra64 · · Score: 1

    " (in addition to the RAM your game uses)?"

    Who cares? it's not like you have to leave the authenticator running while you are playing

  31. Re:Required for the RMAH. by flimflammer · · Score: 1

    Wrong. It is not required to use the RMAH. It's required to link a PayPal account to the RMAH or keep a RMAH balance. Buying things is easily possible without one.

    There are also free alternatives to the actual keyfob.

  32. How exactly does it work? by tepples · · Score: 1

    But you still have to have both the game and the Android simulator open while you're running the authenticator to get the code to type into the game. The only way I can see otherwise is if one would start the Android simulator, run the authenticator, close the Android simulator, and then start the game. This is possible only if the authenticator needs no information from the game and the game tolerates a delay of up to a few minutes between running the authenticator and running the game. Is this the case? I can't try it myself because the last Blizzard product I bought was the first StarCraft.

    1. Re:How exactly does it work? by DrgnDancer · · Score: 1

      So your computer is so close to minimum spec that you can't run the login screen for a game and the simulator simultaneously? I mean, sure, a lot of these games are somewhat resource intensive during actual play, especially if you have the settings turned way up, but if you can't run the login screen at the same time as an Android emulator, chances are the game will be unplayable anyway.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
  33. *STOP BATTLE.NET REQUIREMENT* by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

    I support it simply for this:

    He also seeks to stop Blizzard from requiring players to sign up for a Battle.net account.

    1. Re:*STOP BATTLE.NET REQUIREMENT* by black3d · · Score: 2

      Why? How do you expect to play an online game without an account? Or do you seriously expect them to simply open servers up to the world, and rely on IP banning to deal with hackers?

      --
      "The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
    2. Re:*STOP BATTLE.NET REQUIREMENT* by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      Did I say I expect to play online games without an account?

      However, I expect to play single player games *WITHOUT* a fucking online account, such as StarCraft 2 or Diablo 3.

      Further more, I expect to be able to play without having to RESET MY FUCKING PASSWORD EVERYTIME MY ISP CHANGES MY IP ADDRESS. This requirement is help push people towards authenticators.

      And real IDs.

      Make no mistake. This isn't really about authenticators, this is about collecting real IDs.

    3. Re:*STOP BATTLE.NET REQUIREMENT* by psiclops · · Score: 1

      D3 is not a single player game. while some people may choose to not interact with others is is not possible* to create a character that is unable to interact with the online world of D3. they will always have access to the auction house, join other games, & get achievements.

      the fact that you think the game should have a single player mode, doesn't mean it does.

      *if it were, playing any such character would not require a battle.net account.

      --
      i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
    4. Re:*STOP BATTLE.NET REQUIREMENT* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Neither of those are single player games.

      THEY ARE MULTIPLAYER GAMES THAT YOU CAN OPTIONALLY CREATE PRIVATE GAMES FOR.

      Each of those private games optionally allows you to let other people in. Hardly their fault if you don't have any friends.

      Know what you're supposed to do when you don't agree with shit like that? Don't buy or even use their product. Seriously. Knock it off.

    5. Re:*STOP BATTLE.NET REQUIREMENT* by black3d · · Score: 1

      However, I expect to play single player games *WITHOUT* a fucking online account, such as StarCraft 2 or Diablo 3.

      Then buy offline games? Nobody forced you to buy games which have an online requirement. Unreasonable people like yourself are exactly why they made Diablo 3 require an internet connection. Because they focus-grouped and discovered that entitled brats felt ripped off if they couldn't take their offline character "online" to play with their friends - they don't expect the general populace to understand why thats bad, so they just make it "online only" instead. Also, that funnels more loot drops into the RMAH - I think you'll find this as a key motivator far ahead of "real IDs".

      I expect to be able to play without having to RESET MY FUCKING PASSWORD EVERYTIME MY ISP CHANGES MY IP ADDRESS. This requirement is help push people towards authenticators.

      The same happens even if you do have an authenticator. It's got nothing whatsoever with trying to "push people towards authenticators". It's got everything to do with trying to help prevent idiots who use the same password everywhere from getting their account hacked. Seriously - I can't tell you where I got this information, but roughly 20% of registered forum accounts on a semi-popular Warcraft *hacking* site, used the same username/password as their Battle.net account. There's not enough bullets to take care of this level of stupid.

      Make no mistake. This isn't really about authenticators, this is about collecting real IDs.

      They already have your name from your account - they don't need you to sign up for a RealID which simply puts this same information in-game. If you're referring to the possibility of them making money off selling who your RealID "friends" are, then no. You're a paranoid fool. They're not selling, or even giving away, this information to anyone.

      --
      "The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
    6. Re:*STOP BATTLE.NET REQUIREMENT* by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      There's a reason why I bought a boxed copy of D3 - so that I don't have to give Blizzard my credit card #, which then pulls in my real information.

      So, you can see why I might not be interested in giving them my phone number.

    7. Re:*STOP BATTLE.NET REQUIREMENT* by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      what makes you think I used my real name when I was forced to sign in to battle.net for SC2?

      And really, you are sucking too hard on the koolaid nipple. SC2 and D3 is obviously a single player game with multi player options. Just because they claim it so doesn't make it so. I've never heard of people wanting to take their offline game character online - any idiot can see that these are two different games.

  34. Re:Surprised? by dohzer · · Score: 1

    And what's more, this article talks about how they don't know the password mechanics of a good MMO either!

  35. Re:Surprised? by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

    Good. Case sensitivity in passwords is stupid.

    There, I said it.

    Also: if you're going to lock the user out after three bad attempts anyway (and therefore already have a mechanism in place to deal with external dictionary attacks), there's no good reason for that "Oh, you entered it wrong? Here, let me wait for 30 seconds before I tell you" delay that just fucking pisses people off rather than helps. I just thought I'd mention it, it's another pet peeve.

    Actually, there's no need to lock after three bad attempts, just make the delay ONE TENTH OF A SECOND. That'll be long enough to foil virtually every dictionary attacker while short enough to not be irritating to end users.

    Also, what's the deal with caps lock? Why the hell is that key still on the keyboard? NOBODY uses it and... I've gone waaaaaaaaaaay off-topic haven't I? I'll shut up and let the rest of the post be insightful.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  36. Re:Surprised? by ynp7 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Also, what's the deal with caps lock? Why the hell is that key still on the keyboard? NOBODY uses it and... I've gone waaaaaaaaaaay off-topic haven't I? I'll shut up and let the rest of the post be insightful.

    I use caps lock every day, you insensitive clod! It's cruise control for cool.

  37. Re:Required for the RMAH. by Golden_Rider · · Score: 1

    You do not need the keyfob. You need an AUTHENTICATOR. And that can be had for free (on your phone) or even as a free application on your PC : http://code.google.com/p/winbma/

    So the extra cost to get the needed authenticator is exactly $0.

  38. Re:Surprised? by Dachannien · · Score: 2

    Also, what's the deal with caps lock? Why the hell is that key still on the keyboard? NOBODY uses it

    My dad uses it. It's like he's still yelling at me every time he sends me an e-mail. /cry

  39. Re:Surprised? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

    My mind is boggling at this.

    Is this new? Or has it always been this way? I swear that as of a few years ago caps-lock could cause your auth to fail.

  40. Re:Surprised? by magamiako1 · · Score: 2

    You are an idiot. Seriously.

  41. Re:Surprised? by Xenx · · Score: 1

    There are legitimate business reasons for all caps. Only one I know of is tax returns, but wouldn't be surprised for there to be others.

  42. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I can't believe people keep passing that around. It's terrible advice, unless of course you happen to live alone and never have anybody in the same room as you when you type in your passwords. By using real words, you greatly increase the ability of an attacker to fill in the gaps if they miss a few characters or pick it up over your shoulder.

    It also completely misses the fact that you probably have more than a couple of passwords, at which point, you're going to want to use a password manager anyways, at which point, you might as well go for the one with the most entropy and the least predictability.

    Plus it's a bit of a strawman there as you were never supposed to take a real word and substitute 0s and such in, that's never been an accepted practice for as long as I can remember.

  43. Re:Surprised? by dbet · · Score: 1

    People don't get their accounts stolen through brute force password hacks, so who cares about case sensitivity.

  44. Re:1. It is a standard tradition on slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It doesn't matter what Blizzard is paying for them, Blizzard still has to pay for shipping and the bit you're taking issue with isn't really the point. The point is that it's impossible for Blizzard to make a $26m profit on it, unless they get free shipping and sell 4m units.

    Demanding information which is clearly irrelevant just makes you look like a butthurt fanbois. As long as the figure is non-zero, which it is, and the shipping is non-zero, the post you're bitching about is correct.

  45. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's not stupid at all. People are fucking stupid. If you can't type a password correctly, don't choose that password.

  46. Re:Surprised? by bug1 · · Score: 1

    Smart peopel keep the stupid well hiden.

    Fakedit: DUOH

  47. Re:Surprised? by psiclops · · Score: 1

    Plus it's a bit of a strawman there as you were never supposed to take a real word and substitute 0s and such in, that's never been an accepted practice for as long as I can remember.

    back in the real world: upon password creation, it is always accepted by the system, and therefore generally what people use so that they can remember it.

    actually most people don't bother with substitution they just capitalise the first letter & add the required characters at the end - which is usually just a number. whenever they are required to change password by the system they increase the number by one.

    although - if 'correcthorsebatterystaple' were a standard password creation method, a brute force using a decent dictionary would be quite plausible.

    --
    i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
  48. Re:Surprised? by Luckyo · · Score: 2

    Actually it's likely the exact opposite. Not only do people leave the game after being hacked (or come back from hiatus, see a hacked account and leave for good), but the support costs associated with stolen and hacked accounts constituted a huge amount of support calls and contacts before authenticators. Probably after as well, but as there is not a single account compromise for account with authenticator attached (according to blizzard) their costs must have come crashing down for accounts that have authenticator attached.

    Full disclosure: I have two separate accounts on battle.net, one since early 2007 (former WoW currently battle.net account) and one since SC2 release. Neither has authenticator attached, neither has ever been hacked. I've had one guildie actually hacked in WoW during a black temple raid back in TBC for their own stupidity. Literally "sorry guys, I just got hacked right after talking to GM [provides details on being socially engineered in a really silly way]".

  49. two factor authentication is a good thing by kenorland · · Score: 2

    So, the company did the right thing in terms of offering two factor authentication (I wish my bank would do that). They made it optional and made free apps available so that people aren't forced to use it. All of that is good.

    This lawsuit is frivolous, and the guy should not only lose, but have to pay court and defense costs.

  50. Re:Surprised? by cyclohazard · · Score: 2

    Also, what's the deal with caps lock? Why the hell is that key still on the keyboard? NOBODY uses it and... I've gone waaaaaaaaaaay off-topic haven't I? I'll shut up and let the rest of the post be insightful.

    The purpose of the Caps-Lock key is to remap it to Ctrl.

  51. Re:Surprised? by aaron552 · · Score: 1

    if 'correcthorsebatterystaple' were a standard password creation method, a brute force using a decent dictionary would be quite plausible.

    Would it be though? According to a study by Harvard and Google, there are around 1 million words in the english language. 10^24 possible combinations for a four-word password. Not sure that a brute force dictionary attack would be plausible on that search space.

    --
    I had a sig once. It was lost in the great storm of '09.
  52. Re:1. It is a standard tradition on slashdot by Bengie · · Score: 2

    The value of his comment is more than yours. You seem to have no concept of the idea of "wholesale" and seem to have some idea that Blizzard can magically get prices much lower.

    1) Vasco advertises $6.5/unit wholesale for large batches
    2) Blizzard buys large batches, then pays to customize them and then pays again to ship them to Blizzard warehouses
    3) Blizzard incurs administrative overhead for processing and storage
    4) Blizzard sells end-product for $6.5 and covers the cost of shipping 2 day priority mail(I've purchased 5 auths over the many years and all have come within 2 days from across the nation via USPS).

    Really, how much money to you think Blizzard is making?

    To add to it, when I purchased my original auths, it was buy one get one free, so I was able to get 2 for $6.5 and they were shipped from Cali and made it to the Midwest with in 2 days.

  53. Re:Surprised? by wwphx · · Score: 1

    They don't even have case sensitivity on their passwords. Compromised accounts drive additional sales, including the fobs.

    Wow (no pun intended). You are absolutely correct. Part of my Battle.Net password was upper-case, I just tried it all upper, all lower, and reversed my core word/suffix case scheme and all signed in. I was fairly sure that in the past it was case-sensitive, so I was either mistaken or something changed in the past.

    --
    When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
  54. Re:Surprised? by ildon · · Score: 1

    Almost no one is going to get their battle.net account compromised due to lack of case sensitivity in passwords. It's because they do things like make their password "password1", or (primarily) because their forum account on a completely different gaming related website got compromised and they use the same email and password for WoW that they do for that forum, or their email account got compromised, or they fell for a phishing scam. If someone is lifting your password from another site or from a phishing scam, it literally does not matter what your password is because the attacker is going to have it, mixed case and all.

    I would wager almost no one loses their account to brute force attacks. It's almost entirely social engineering or compromised external sites where they use the same passwords or trojans/keyloggers. Guild forums especially often run on very old and/or insecure forum software that's often compromised for years with no one realizing it.

  55. Re:Surprised? by X0563511 · · Score: 2

    ... and claiming you know, and admitting when you discover when you were wrong, is another entirely.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  56. Re:Surprised? by Bremic · · Score: 1

    The biggest issue is having the same password for both Forum and Game access.

    Many years ago Blizzard should have made it that you have a "Forum Password" field in your account, and that is used to log into the forums. The number of people I see who use really secure passwords, then log into the Blizzard Forums from work using IE 6 is crazy. They are giving their passwords away.

    Even when I have something to say, which isn't often, I rarely do because I don't want to log into the forums with the same password as my game.

  57. Re:Surprised? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    You know exactly what you're talking about except for the "I know for certain it was a blizzard associate that sold my account info to get them in both times" part.

  58. Re:Surprised? by TranquilVoid · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well I just found out now, very surprising. And I thought I was uncrackable with PaSsWoRd too :(

  59. Re:1. It is a standard tradition on slashdot by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    You just troll slashdot for free.

    Trolling is saying things you don't believe. I might be some kind of idiot, though. I should be checked. I will tell them how much time I spend here, and they will probably confirm such a suspicion.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  60. Re:Surprised? by ildon · · Score: 1

    The Blizzard forums use the exact same authentication method as the game. I guess you can argue that people don't realize that logging into the forums on a public computer (like at a library or school computer lab) is dangerous, but I think Blizzard's time would be better spent educating users of that danger than making the user's life more difficult by having to manage two separate logins for the forums and for their account access, and setting up all the required software and hardware on their end to handle that change.

  61. Re:Surprised? by TranquilVoid · · Score: 1

    Technically English has a lot of words but the vocabulary of the average person is closer to 50,000, and the average working vocabulary is way, way less (5,000 to 10,000 and certainly not evenly distributed). That is, there are a lot of words we recognise but would never think to use. From memory I believe that Shakespeare's works use 60,000 and the King James Bible 11,000. Most passphrases would be chosen from this smaller space.

    Crunching the numbers, a 4-word passphrase (lowercase) would have 6.25e14 to 1e16 combinations. An 8-character password (uppercase, lowercase, numbers) would have 2.18e14. So they're in the same realm, at least with this simplistic analysis.