Slashdot Mirror
Phone Numbers Were Never Meant as ID. Now We're All At Risk (wired.com)
One key lesson from the recent T-Mobile and several other breaches: our phone numbers, that serve as a means to identity and verify ourselves, are increasingly getting targeted, and the companies are neither showing an appetite to work on an alternative identity management system, nor are they introducing more safeguards to how phone numbers are handled and exchanged. From a report: Identity management experts have warned for years about over-reliance on phone numbers. But the United States doesn't offer any type of universal ID, which means private institutions and even the federal government itself have had to improvise. As cell phones proliferated, and phone numbers became more reliably attached to individuals long term, it was an obvious choice to start collecting those numbers even more consistently as a type of ID. But over time, SMS messages, biometric scanners, encrypted apps, and other special functions of smartphones have evolved into forms of authentication as well.
"The bottom line is society needs identifiers," says Jeremy Grant, coordinator of the Better Identity Coalition, an industry collaboration that includes Visa, Bank of America, Aetna, and Symantec. "We just have to make sure that knowledge of an identifier can't be used to somehow take over the authenticator. And a phone number is only an identifier; in most cases, it's public." Think of your usernames and passwords. The former are generally public knowledge; it's how people know who you are. But you keep the latter guarded, because it's how you prove who you are.
The use of phone numbers as both lock and key has led to the rise, in recent years, of so-called SIM swapping attacks, in which an attacker steals your phone number. When you add two-factor authentication to an account and receive your codes through SMS texts, they go to the attacker instead, along with any calls and texts intended for the victim. Sometimes attackers even use inside sources at carriers who will transfer numbers for them.
"The bottom line is society needs identifiers," says Jeremy Grant, coordinator of the Better Identity Coalition, an industry collaboration that includes Visa, Bank of America, Aetna, and Symantec. "We just have to make sure that knowledge of an identifier can't be used to somehow take over the authenticator. And a phone number is only an identifier; in most cases, it's public." Think of your usernames and passwords. The former are generally public knowledge; it's how people know who you are. But you keep the latter guarded, because it's how you prove who you are.
The use of phone numbers as both lock and key has led to the rise, in recent years, of so-called SIM swapping attacks, in which an attacker steals your phone number. When you add two-factor authentication to an account and receive your codes through SMS texts, they go to the attacker instead, along with any calls and texts intended for the victim. Sometimes attackers even use inside sources at carriers who will transfer numbers for them.
For some reason, many of the vendors all but insist I provide them my mobile phone number. I always refuse because I know that once I give out the phone number, my phone will start ringing with telemarketing calls. They vendors say they want the mobile phone number for back-up identification purposes, but I just do not believe them.
And that's caused all kinds of problems with identity theft in recent years. I'm not surprised we are making the same stupid mistake with phone numbers.
Setting up Google Authenticator or another TOTP app requires first setting up either SMS, U2F, or Google Search prompts, and printing backup codes. From "Install Google Authenticator":
The phrase "2-Step Verification turned on" links to "Turn on 2-Step Verification", which implies that you'll need to have one of these:
A. A mobile phone to receive SMS.
B. A USB security key implementing FIDO U2F and a desktop or laptop computer running a compatible version of the Google Chrome browser. I haven't tested whether Chromium from a GNU/Linux distribution works as well or whether U2F is one of the proprietary extras included only in Google Chrome. In addition, the U2F key has to have been manufactured in batches of at least 100,000.
C. A phone or tablet with the Gmail or Google Search app installed (which works only on iOS or Android with Google Play, not AOSP alone or Windows Phone). This was introduced fairly recently, and I began using 2FA on Google once it was introduced.
You'll also need to own a second phone as a backup or a printer to receive backup codes.
How is this any different from a Social Security card, which is also a federally-issued, unique identification card? How does issuing everyone a passport solve any problem?
Dunno how to break it to you youngsters, but my SSN is being **used** as a unique ID, but in fact it is not a traceable identification number. Like everyone born in the antediluvian epoch (more or less pre-Reagan), I walked into a federal office one day and asked for a SSN. They asked my name, typed up a card, and there I was. Basically same procedure as happens now if you want to pull an EIN for a trust.
Just like phone numbers, SSNs are being misused for something they were not intended.
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
Why not adopt a points based system like in other countries? Bring enough uniquely identifiable information to a table to qualify for whatever important thing you are doing. Passport, drivers license or other government issued photo ID = 50 points, birth certificate or other government official issued document without photo ID, 40 points, credit card or financial documents 20 points, addressed letter from a recognised institution = 10 points.
Need to open a bank account, take out a home loan, or apply for a visa, pony up 100 points, Need to buy a phone, pony up 40, etc.
That solves the whole problem of having to force people to obtain a specific form of ID, it also solves the problem of a single unique document covering everything.