Slashdot Mirror


Two-Factor Authentication Fail: Identity Thieves Hijack Cellphone Accounts to Go After Virtual Currency (nytimes.com)

Reader Cludge shares an NYT report: Hackers have discovered that one of the most central elements of online security -- the mobile phone number -- is also one of the easiest to steal. In a growing number of online attacks, hackers have been calling up Verizon, T-Mobile U.S., Sprint and AT&T and asking them to transfer control of a victim's phone number to a device under the control of the hackers. Once they get control of the phone number, they can reset the passwords on every account that uses the phone number as a security backup -- as services like Google, Twitter and Facebook suggest. "My iPad restarted, my phone restarted and my computer restarted, and that's when I got the cold sweat and was like, 'O.K., this is really serious,'" said Chris Burniske, a virtual currency investor who lost control of his phone number late last year. A wide array of people have complained about being successfully targeted by this sort of attack, including a Black Lives Matter activist and the chief technologist of the Federal Trade Commission. The commission's own data shows that the number of so-called phone hijackings has been rising. In January 2013, there were 1,038 such incidents reported; by January 2016, that number had increased to 2,658. But a particularly concentrated wave of attacks has hit those with the most obviously valuable online accounts: virtual currency fanatics like Mr. Burniske. Within minutes of getting control of Mr. Burniske's phone, his attackers had changed the password on his virtual currency wallet and drained the contents -- some $150,000 at today's values. Most victims of these attacks in the virtual currency community have not wanted to acknowledge it publicly for fear of provoking their adversaries. But in interviews, dozens of prominent people in the industry acknowledged that they had been victimized in recent months.

76 comments

  1. The system works just fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Two factor hasn't failed: the people running the two factor scheme did.

    1. Re:The system works just fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      word. you can provide recovery key(s) and offer no method of account retrieval over any factor. if I was trying to secure my titties on iCloud this would be my preference.

      ofcourse I would need to staff the fuck out of my helpdesk, because it's so user unfriendly it's not suitable for the masses and they will constantly need people to assist. who knows, maybe that's another attack vector, but that selfie of my butthole is safe

    2. Re:The system works just fine by unrtst · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I see no part of the two factor scheme that failed. The title is misleading, at best.

      This was password recovery/reset that was exploited, not the two factor auth. In fact, this sort of issue is PRECISELY why two factor should be used, because one of the factors may be compromised, and the account would still be secure. The auth still was secure, but the attackers exploited the weak password reset security - weakest link and all that.

    3. Re:The system works just fine by Drethon · · Score: 2

      This seems like a bit of a problem with the method of two factor authentication. One factor should only ever possibly be in one place, on your phone in your hand. This works well with RSA tokens as the only way to use them is to be able to see the display. Not saying I have a solution but it doesn't seem right to be able to use the two factor authentication without the phone in your hand.

    4. Re:The system works just fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly this.

      Calling or SMSing your cell phone number is not a second authentication factor, it is at best an out-of-band identifier.

      But similar to government and corporations who believe your SSN is somehow a form of secret instead of only an identification, these types of things will continue to be mislabeled and abused improperly for authentication purposes.

      For example, I see no way possible using this method of porting my phone number away from me that would gain an attacker access to my real second auth factor, an RFC6238 time based one time password client on my phone.
      It's private keys are not backed up or synced to any cloud storage nor are they accessible to anyone knowing my phone number.

      I suppose it could be possible knowing the IPv6 address of my cellular radio to exploit any OS flaws to gain access to those keys, but I would imagine having my cell phones number ported away would end up disconnecting it from GSM service, basically knocking it offline and removing even this possibility.

    5. Re:The system works just fine by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      Agree. And also blogger nowadays intend to misuse the word "hacker" because the word sounds more interesting to readers.

      In a growing number of online attacks, hackers have been calling up Verizon, T-Mobile U.S., Sprint and AT&T and asking them to transfer control of a victim’s phone number to a device under the control of the hackers.

      The above sentences from TFA is describing what you should call "social engineering" instead of hacking.

    6. Re:The system works just fine by eth1 · · Score: 1

      I see no part of the two factor scheme that failed. The title is misleading, at best.

      This was password recovery/reset that was exploited, not the two factor auth. In fact, this sort of issue is PRECISELY why two factor should be used, because one of the factors may be compromised, and the account would still be secure. The auth still was secure, but the attackers exploited the weak password reset security - weakest link and all that.

      Well, it is sort of a two-factor fail. Because it's not really two factors if one of the factors is dependent for its security on the other one. This is like someone being able to use a stolen SecurID fob to reset the password on the associated account. It's only one factor at that point.

    7. Re:The system works just fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually no - the attackers stole the targets phone number and redirected it to their own phone. Its not a weakness in the password reset, its a weakness in the implicit assumption (in most MFA systems) that your phone number binds to an actual mobile phone that only you have.

      The real weaknesses are a) that assumption, b) the phone companies that are so open to social attack via pleading phone calls

    8. Re:The system works just fine by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      coinbase uses the authy app (similar to RSA) such that if you lose your phone number you are still not locked out of your account (and they can't get in). BUT if you have no other account recovery options in place and your phone goes titsup you're in trouble!

      That is the crux of the problem, users want both super ease of use and high security; they are quite often opposite sides of the coin.

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    9. Re:The system works just fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that's essentially it. A phone is really a poor 2nd factor - the only reason that it is being used is because everyone has one. Any 2nd factor that requires that you go out and buy some sort of token is going to be a hard sell to lots of people.

    10. Re:The system works just fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And simple enough to solve.

      Login-options:
      Normal 2fa: Hardware token as second-auth.. Less secure like google's authenticator or more secure like a dedicated hardware with one-time passwords.

      Fallback 1:
      - At account-creation a random 128 character password would be generated.
          Less secure option: User would be responsible to print it on paper and store it securely.
          More secure option: Have the company send you the password etched in metal to allow it to be fire-proof.
      - At account creation a second 2fa device is bound to the account and used only for password recovery. Should only require a public id of the device to add it... Allows the device to be stored securely at another location in case of a fire etc.

      Fallback 2:
      - If all ways to login have been lost allow a password-reset to be performed.
          Initiate via web-page. Notification via both SMS and mail. 4 weeks grace-period before any reset would become active.

      Fallback 3:
      - Identification needs to be proven via secure 3'rd party where you have to go and show ID. (bank/police or other trusted party) .. Could be a good revenue-source for banks since they already have quite high requirements for identification... More secure would be to require you to go to the bank where you live..

      Problem is that for this to work in a sane, and secure way, you would have to get most of the services to agree on a common security-scheme. And users would have to pay somewhere between $5-$20 for the more advanced security... Fat chance either of those things will happen.

  2. google voice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    trust google or don't, but at least their security will protect against this type of social engineering. use a google voice number for security.

    1. Re:google voice by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Why use SMS at all? It's best to use time based codes with an app like Google Authenticator. It's an open standard so other apps are available and it works with many services.

      The only disadvantage is that you can't easily move it to another phone with the Google app, you basically have to generate new codes for all the services that use it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:google voice by mfh · · Score: 1

      I can only imagine some scammer calling up Google and asking to transfer the service to their device. Techsup would treat them as if they were new internet users under the age of 13 or over the age of 50 with a nephew's celly on speed dial for all those pebkac level issues.

      --
      The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    3. Re:google voice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google voice seems like a good choice. Where I live I have seen evidence of land line phone system being hacked. If someone could hack the phone system they could redirect the Google voice message.

    4. Re:google voice by El+Cubano · · Score: 1

      The only disadvantage is that you can't easily move it to another phone with the Google app, you basically have to generate new codes for all the services that use it.

      In my experience, sites (like Google, Amazon, etc.) tend to allow you to see the actual secret (not just the QR code). I use this to store the secret in my password manager, so that if something were to happen to my phone I could simply input the secrets to another device to maintain access. The only thing I don't like is that Google requires you to have a backup in addition to a primary. If you choose SMS as a backup 2FA method, then you are still sort of in the same boat.

    5. Re:google voice by ctilsie242 · · Score: 1

      There are some ways to back up Google Authenticator codes. After Authy bit me (not just purged the codes on my main device, but decided not to restore the ones synced [1]), I use more than one program. When a site shows a QR code, I fire up one app, add it to that, then another app, same.

      So far, enPass, 1Password, and Authenticator Plus have been good, allowing restores. All three allow export of the OTP seeds in plain text as well.

      [1]: I have an iPod Touch, whose sole purpose is to store authenticator codes as backup. Using this, I was able to get into all the sites and services using 2FA and reset the codes. Had I not done this, I would have been SOL with a number of places.

    6. Re:google voice by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      more detail about Authy issue please... I use it!

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    7. Re:google voice by ctilsie242 · · Score: 1

      No clue what caused it, but I used it to authenticate to some local sites, and after a crash, it would not allow access to the stored items. I erased and reinstalled the app, and it would not allow me into my account after that.

      Security applications, when they fail, they fail hard. I highly recommend, if you use Authy, to use another app that not just stores tokens, but can back them up to your desktop as a plain text file, so if worse comes to worst, you can type them in.

  3. More like "Social Media Fail" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you post enough info on Facebook and Twitter that it's actually possible for others to bypass your security questions, YOU are the problem, not the hackers. Also, here's a friendly tip: if a question is something like "Name of your daughter", try answering it with some something like "Random male name" or "Something totally unrelated to the question". Also, if you don't already know this, every hacker knows that the most common passwords are "love", "secret", "sex", and "God".

    1. Re:More like "Social Media Fail" by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      There's also "penis" but it doesn't work.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re:More like "Social Media Fail" by tattood · · Score: 1

      Also, if you don't already know this, every hacker knows that the most common passwords are "love", "secret", "sex", and "God".

      Thanks for the tip, Crash Override.

      --
      WTB [sig], PST!!!
  4. Why include this fella? by bogaboga · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A wide array of people have complained about being successfully targeted by this sort of attack, including a Black Lives Matter activist (bold mine)

    Why include this fella, really?

    That is out of 1,000 victims or so...?

    1. Re:Why include this fella? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By including a token person of color, it can be presumed that this affects not only white and asian people, but also people typically not thought to be intelligent enough to use computers. However, lumping this one person of color in with others that have been swindled is certainly not doing that person of color any favors. It seems to imply that BLM activists are easily duped and manipulated.

    2. Re:Why include this fella? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking racist! Facist!

      BLM activist is an EQUAL qualification to chief technologist of the FTC. I want to hear more about what this activist thinks about 2FA, fuck this dude from the FTC who is almost certainly old, white, a chief technologist, and a dude

    3. Re:Why include this fella? by Comboman · · Score: 2

      Why not include it? It serves to illustrate that not all of the attacks are financially motivated.

      --
      Support Right To Repair Legislation.
    4. Re:Why include this fella? by bogaboga · · Score: 1

      This line of thinking presupposes that this fella is kind-of broke. I personally know of a number of colored folk who are doing way better than myself.
       
      Some of these folk run their own businesses and are doing quite well.

      They prefer to remain low; but are doing very very well. One of them I am sure, would hire you.

    5. Re:Why include this fella? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the people of color I know that are down low are gay, but pretend to be heterosexual. Not that I'm judging, but having unprotected sex with random men multiple times a day is kinda gross, regardless of whether you are male or female. I guess it is hard to be straight when you spend so much time in prison.

    6. Re:Why include this fella? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your line of thinking presupposes that black life matters activist are all back

    7. Re:Why include this fella? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Black Lives Matter should be excluded from this. There have not been any peer-reviewed studies which conclusively show that Black Lives Matter. Centuries of data suggests the opposite.

    8. Re:Why include this fella? by CODiNE · · Score: 1

      Haven't you gotten the memo? Conservatives are evil and the source of all problems. Surely he was not hacked by a liberal.

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    9. Re:Why include this fella? by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      I found that more disconcerting than money theft. These dudes are trying to hack activists to sabotage their political action. It's like Mexico hacking journalists.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
  5. Never put all your eggs in one basket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... particularly when that basket is connected to the Internet.

    1. Re:Never put all your eggs in one basket by tsqr · · Score: 1

      ... particularly when that basket is connected to the Internet.

      And when that basket is full of deplorables.

  6. Done to me ... Verizon is the weakest link by NothingWasAvailable · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While I was out having dinner, Verizon called me three times to verify if I'd lost my phone. Each time I said no, the second time I was asked if I wanted to add a passcode and lock the account. I did. (It was Verizon, I checked later and they had the logs of all three calls to me, but I'm not sure if callers can spoof the Verizon internal caller ID)

    Later that evening, I found myself locked out of my email accounts. I could see it happening in real time, but couldn't stop it. I called Verizon by landline and was told that they'd activated my spare iPhone after I dropped my phone in a pool. NO! I might have said a number of harsh words to them.

    In the meantime, American Express had called my cell and emailed me to confirm a dodgy transaction, and the folks who had my phone number and email confirmed the transaction. By the time I called Amex, it was too late (although I ended up with no liability)

    I tried to file a complaint with the local PD and was told "I don't have time for this" by the receptionist.

    1. Re:Done to me ... Verizon is the weakest link by David_Hart · · Score: 2

      While I was out having dinner, Verizon called me three times to verify if I'd lost my phone. Each time I said no, the second time I was asked if I wanted to add a passcode and lock the account. I did. (It was Verizon, I checked later and they had the logs of all three calls to me, but I'm not sure if callers can spoof the Verizon internal caller ID)

      Later that evening, I found myself locked out of my email accounts. I could see it happening in real time, but couldn't stop it. I called Verizon by landline and was told that they'd activated my spare iPhone after I dropped my phone in a pool. NO! I might have said a number of harsh words to them.

      In the meantime, American Express had called my cell and emailed me to confirm a dodgy transaction, and the folks who had my phone number and email confirmed the transaction. By the time I called Amex, it was too late (although I ended up with no liability)

      I tried to file a complaint with the local PD and was told "I don't have time for this" by the receptionist.

      In my opinion, the reason to file an identity theft case with the Police is useful if you ever have to challenge a charge, etc. Even if the receptionist says that they don't have time for it, have them open a case. They won't do anything about it and it's a pure administrative task (i.e. opening a case). But, in my opinion, it does provide a bit of legal cover if something major would happen. I am not a lawyer, so take my opinions with a grain of salt.

    2. Re:Done to me ... Verizon is the weakest link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... but I'm not sure if callers can spoof the Verizon internal caller ID

      It's pretty easy in a lot of cases. There are some mechanisms with some carriers that try to stop it, but usually that's on the originating side of the call.

    3. Re:Done to me ... Verizon is the weakest link by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      Why can't the phone companies use your email account as they're second factor for all attempts to re-point your phone number? Assuming there's a cumbersome fallback method to get you into your email account without your phone, this would at least require somebody trying to steal your email account by stealing your phone to already have access to that account. But it wouldn't prevent you from replacing your lost phone.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    4. Re:Done to me ... Verizon is the weakest link by Athanasius · · Score: 1

      I came to the comments section to suggest that perhaps the phone companies in question should be doing exactly what you outline Verizon initially did. You'd have thought that after the 2nd time they'd have marked the account as "receiving active attempts to compromise" and gone the long route around (letters to your home or you visiting a store if needs be) to verify the request to activate a different phone on the account.

      But apparently if you try enough times you eventually hit a monkey (they're no doubt paid peanuts) who will ignore proper procedure and just do whatever the bad guys want.

      *sigh*

    5. Re:Done to me ... Verizon is the weakest link by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Why can't the phone companies use your email account as they're second factor for all attempts to re-point your phone number?

      Well really, that's not even the problem here. Why didn't Verizon flag the fact that they'd called the customer and he'd repeatedly said he wasn't authorizing the changes, and locking the account in response? Why isn't Verizon honoring the passcode he added to his account?

      This is a Verizon problem, not a technical problem.

    6. Re:Done to me ... Verizon is the weakest link by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      My truck was burgled and I lost a checkbook.
      Called my bank that morning and they basically said the same thing:
      We're cancelling all your checks for you now, but be sure to file a police report, even though they won't do anything, just so when someone tries to fraudulently pass off your checks you have a report that they were stolen from *before* the attempt was made.

      Also in OP's case I would consider a lawsuit against Verizon.

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    7. Re: Done to me ... Verizon is the weakest link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I lived in Ireland I lost my phone once. I went to Vodafone and asked to have the SIM card locked. They locked it on the spot, without requiring any form of identification whatsoever. And they gave me a duplicate.
      Bullshit like this is unthinkable where I come from.

  7. No problem: FDIC Insured... right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    right? right

  8. Requiring a phone number is a bad move by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    Just like cable-cutting seemed alien a decade or two ago, I do not have a phone number. I do everything by email and instant messaging (not SMS but iMessage, etc).

    Every fucking place that requires a phone number is eliminating ahead-of-the-curve users.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
    1. Re:Requiring a phone number is a bad move by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      I don't have a phone number either, but I guess I'm not as stubborn as you are. I got a google voice account which lets me do voice calls or sms for people/businesses that require a number. There are other providers if you hate the gooble. The one I use is "free."

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
  9. Why not use TOTP all the time? by El+Cubano · · Score: 2

    I know that some sites only allow phone-based (i.e., SMS and.or voice) verification. But most of the big ones support things like U2F and TOTP. Why not use those instead?.

    I always recommend TOTP to people since you can save the secret and store it in a safe or some other secure location if, for example, you ever lose your phone. Then you can simply load up the authenticator app (pick your favorite) and reload the secret. In fact, I can't think of a major on-line service that offers 2FA or MFA that doesn't offer TOTP support. Of course, there is also U2F and if you want to be really secure you can get something like a YubiKey and not even store the secrets directly on your device. With a phone/tablet that supports NFC you can just have the YubiKey close by or you could plug it into the USB port on your computer if that happens to be more convenient.

    The point is that the pain threshold for SMS-based 2FA/MFA is the same as the pain threshold for a TOTP/U2F solution and the TOTP/U2F solution is demonstrably more secure.

    1. Re:Why not use TOTP all the time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact, I can't think of a major on-line service that offers 2FA or MFA that doesn't offer TOTP support

      AppleID. Requires an iOS or macOS device. If you do not have either, you can only do 2FV, which is over the phone/SMS. None of these are TOTP that I can load onto Authy or Google Authenticator app.

    2. Re:Why not use TOTP all the time? by Kythe · · Score: 1

      Some of those big ones include Paypal, Twitter, Apple, and LinkedIn.

      Problems with SMS-based 2-factor authentication have been known for years, yet these behemoths still make use of it with no other options. It's becoming a little ridiculous.

      --

      Kythe
    3. Re:Why not use TOTP all the time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have dealt with Google by removing all backup telephones. It's impossible to recover without a code (I've tried it, and thankfully it failed). Apple however, you MUST provide a mobile number and there's no way to put one that fails as they check the first code. I tried a password recovery on a dummy account and, unfortunately, it succeeded. It makes me serious question their commitment to security when all their methods are circumvented by a "simple" hijack of a SIM card.

  10. Criminals are moving faster than protectors by sarbonn · · Score: 1

    Part of the problem is that criminals are learning quicker than before and where you used to have foreign entities contacting people with broken English or sending emails/letters with horrible spelling, they're getting a lot better, and companies like AT&T, Verizon and such don't consider themselves part of the problem, so they're going to be easy to grab the information and then completely screw other people over. Some of these companies don't even tell you when they've been breached, basically saying it would be a good idea to change your password, but not tell you why or when it was in question. In the past few months, I've had to change passwords to different services more times than I can count, which means they're getting the information they need to breach. It's only a matter of time before a bunch of pretty much lose everything and are tossed aside because then we won't have any resources to make the businesses interested in helping us.

    --
    Sarbonn's blog: http://www.sarbonn.com/blog
  11. Cell Phone Carriers Should Be Legally Liable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Seems to me the cell phone carriers should be held liable, at least to some extent, for damages. Not sure how far one would get in court, but if I had $150K stolen, I'd sue the carrier for not following due diligence. How can a carrier just transfer numbers without any real verification knowing the security ramifications can be severe.

    AT&T offers an optional extra security code feature, but I suspect it's not that much better than no code at all. Have there been reports of AT&T customers with extra security enabled having their numbers transferred too?

    1. Re:Cell Phone Carriers Should Be Legally Liable by networkBoy · · Score: 3, Informative

      I have T-Mobile and have my account set to *require* in store identification to move phone number.
      I tested it and so far they've not let me move my phone number away to my spare phone, replying only that "I'm sorry sir but your account is very specific that you must go into our store and provide proper identification and pin before you can move your number. I would be happy to provide you a temporary number until you can get to a retail location."

      So, they could still rack up charges on my account with a temp number I suppose, but at least can't redirect my actual number.

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    2. Re:Cell Phone Carriers Should Be Legally Liable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if they do you can claim that you did not authorize it and you set your account to require in-store verification.. Ie it would be T-Mobile's problem, even if you would have to make them aware of it.

      This is one reason why i do like SIM cards.. You will be required to get a new SIM card if the old one breaks.. No way to just transfer a number to a new phone.. (we only have SIM card-based phones here, but contract-phones are usually locked to a specific operator)

      Some of the nice benefits of using SIM cards:
      * Will usually not break even if the rest of the phone is dead.... Dropped one phone in the ocean and took about 5 minutes to retrieve.. Sim card-survived even with all of that salt-water, but it did show some minor corrosion on the pads..
      * Can cheaply be sent as a normal letter with delivery the next day.. Or be picked up at a local store if urgent..
      * Does not require your local store to have the phone you want and allows you to buy it from wherever you want..
      * Requires a PIN to be unlocked, some operators send the PIN in a unmarked envelope on a separate day from when the SIM was sent..
      * Just grab a prepaid card when traveling to get around roaming-charges.. Dual-SIM phones are even nicer where you can keep your original SIM for incoming calls/texts.
      * Grab a secondary pre-paid SIM from another operator for incoming calls, if your normal operator has too crappy reception where you are.

  12. Not Two Factor by pwileyii · · Score: 2

    Security experts have been warning about this and saying that two channel authentication (like text messages or emailing codes) is not true two factor authentication. For two factor authentication, it has to be tied directly to a device and the device cannot be changed without a enrollment process (for example, with Google Authenticator, where you see the code once and cannot retrieve it again). In this way, you either have to use a phishing mechanism to get the code or have physical access to the device. Getting access to the users phone number or email address does not allow you to get the code with two factor authentication because it is truly something you have (your device).

    1. Re:Not Two Factor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      True security adds a "secret" to the two-factor authentication. Something known (password), something unknown (a PIN that I memorized), and something random (Google Authenticator - okay, pseudo-random). Not something resetable (password), something resetable (recovery account), and something stealable/duplicatable (phone or phone number).

      And no, those probably aren't real words.

    2. Re:Not Two Factor by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      Heck, NIST removed its recommendation of using a phone number for two-factor authentication earlier this year.

      Of course, the thinking was that criminals would hijack SS7 and use that to intercept SMS messages, not wholesale takeover of the phone number.

      I'm guessing NIST didn't think that they would hijack people's phones instead, but the recommendation is still there - a phone number is not sufficient for two-factor authentication.

  13. Sounds like stupid support agents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Same ol' same ol'. They don't get paid enough to care, and they don't get any reprimandation for fucking up.

  14. Jokes on them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm Virtually broke already.

  15. Criminals have been doing this for a while by timholman · · Score: 1

    This scam is hardly new to cryptocurrency. Criminal gangs have been doing it for years. It happened to my mother a few months back, who was a perfect target: excellent credit history, no online accounts with her bank or her credit card companies (the criminals very obligingly created some for her), a cell phone that she rarely turned on, and her home phone number as the only listed means of contact.

    What they did was go to a Verizon store and get her home phone number transferred over to a mobile phone. After that, they went on a buying spree at several stores across the state, and even got into her personal savings account. When the credit card companies tried to call my Mom, all they got was the voicemail for the scammer at my Mom's number. She thought there was a problem with her phone service; she had no idea what was happening until three days later.

    Fortunately my Mom had a credit freeze in place with the credit reporting agencies, so the gang was unable to open new lines of credit in her name. That limited the damage, and she was ultimately made whole by the bank and credit card companies.

    To this day my brothers and I are convinced that some insider at a bank or credit agency must have sold her information to the gang, or else the information was stolen and never revealed. They hit her bank account and ALL her credit cards in parallel, created a whole set of fake online accounts in her name, and even tried to reopen a credit card account she closed years ago. It was too well coordinated, and they knew too much about her.

    So some lessons for everyone:

    (1) Activate online accounts for your banks and your credit cards, and then secure them with 2-factor authentication. If you don't do it, the criminals will do it for you.

    (2) Activate a credit freeze with the credit reporting agencies. If you have elderly parents, sit down with them and do it for them. If my wife and I hadn't persuaded my Mom to activate a credit freeze two years ago, the damage would have been far worse.

    1. Re:Criminals have been doing this for a while by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So how exactly can an online bank account be enabled without physical presence at the bank? I believe you need to fill-up some forms and be there physically in front of a human bank teller to make your bank account online.

    2. Re:Criminals have been doing this for a while by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check with the 3 credit monitoring companies to see if a "free" credit report was taken out in her name before that 3-day period. All those account numbers and everything else are pretty easy to get all in one report, especially if they weren't masked somehow.

    3. Re:Criminals have been doing this for a while by Holi · · Score: 1

      I can easily open a bank account without ever stepping foot in a branch.
      https://www.google.com/search?...

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    4. Re:Criminals have been doing this for a while by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then that's the problem right there. Solution is to avoid those banks which allows this practice.

  16. Nonsensical drivel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Most victims of these attacks in the virtual currency community have not wanted to acknowledge it publicly for fear of provoking their adversaries."

    What do they mean by this? If they already are victims, they have already lost their coins?

  17. Phone vs. Phone Number by icknay · · Score: 1

    Just to clarify, the problem here is the phone number linked SMS, which customer-service can be badgered into changing. 2FA that stores the secret on the phone are not susceptible to this, with Google Authenticator/TOTP being the most prominent example.

    When you upgrade your phone, it all switches around: SMS 2FA convenient just keeps working since it goes with the number, but TOTP is now kind of a pain since you have to set it up again.

    The U2F standard gets my vote as the nifty solution to this password madness. I wrote a U2F FAQ: https://medium.com/@nparlante/...

  18. 2FA is not a panacea, there are better ways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Grab the book of Kevin Mitnick Ghost in the Wires and he has mentioned in that book his phreaking adventures, including redirecting the calls from Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to his own cellphone, and answering DMV related questions of unsuspecting victims. So in my opinion, fully trusting 2FA whether by sms or voice, can be dangeours.

  19. CONTROL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't have full control of your phone. Even when you BUY your phone your service provider will still force whatever updates they want, and will get away with it.

    Don't ever trust your phone for ANY data.

    Soon you will be required to give all kinds of information just to have a simply voice communication. Everybody MUST be working on independent solutions.

  20. Idiots... by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 1

    Re: "a virtual currency investor who lost control of his phone number" -- There's 0.0595430107527 born every minute (2,658 per month).

    --
    Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
  21. Targeted attack... by XSportSeeker · · Score: 2

    This is just the way security goes. Things get increasingly fragile when we're talking about targeted attacks. Most people still don't need to worry about this in generalized attacks seeking for massive ammounts of data, but for targeted attacks social engineering always seems to find a way to work around security schemes.

    To the point, there is no failure on two factor here. There's a failure on mobile networks' security checks for highly sensitive operations like transfering a number to another device. It's taken lightly when it shouldn't.
    But people have been talking about cases like these for a while now, recommending that instead of using SMS, you'd better use apps like Google Authenticator and whatnot, inside a locked down phone.

    SMS is also vulnerable to interception, so there's also that. Apps like Google Authenticator are vulnerable only when someone gets hold of your phone unlocked, which SMS also is. But if someone hijacks your phone number alone and puts it into another device, they cannot replicate authenticator apps. It's tied to the device.

    1. Re:Targeted attack... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need to unlock a phone to read SMS messages. Most just display them on the lock screen. All you have to do is have the phone within eyesight when you get them to send you the one-time use token, you don't even need to steal the phone. The phone user will simply ignore the message and you'll get the code and their accounts.

    2. Re:Targeted attack... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have my SIM PIN locked and my phone set to require unlocking before it shows the message. Took me a while to get used to it, but on the iPhone I just need to put my finger on the scanner and the message shows. It's actually very cool. In this way stealing my phone or using it while it's not with me cannot provide access to text messages. However, I still have no way to protect against a SIM theft.

  22. Bring back human interaction. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All this shit happens because you never have to go somewhere and meet an actual human. Isn't it crazy that someone can send some information in the mail and then get a credit card with a 10K limit in another person's name? Link someone's phone number to a new device? Turn off their electricity?

    Saves companies money, and the consumers pay the cost.

  23. Help me understand... by Ignoramous-5684 · · Score: 1

    People are letting their ($150k) Bitcoin wallet credentials get backed up to their phone's cloud?

    1. Re:Help me understand... by Ignoramous-5684 · · Score: 1

      Or are they just backing up the wallet which happens to be secured with "p4$$w0rd?"

  24. A separate PAYG cellphone under a fake name by knorthern+knight · · Score: 1

    Let's say your name is John Q Smith, and your friends know that your number is 555 234-5678 Does the particular email account or whatever say... "we are sending a confirmation request to Jane Doe @ 555 345-6789" or does it just say that "we are sending a confirmation request to your cellphone"? If I had so much depending on security, a separate, cheap Pay-As-You-Go phone and plan would be worth it.

    --

    I'm not repeating myself
    I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user