advertisement
advertisement

If A Pattern Can Beat The FBI, Maybe It Should Be The New PIN

Written by Frank Hayes
March 21st, 2012

Maybe Android phones are more secure for mobile payments than we thought. Earlier this month, an FBI forensics lab was unable to unlock a Samsung Galaxy W smartphone after it got a warrant to examine the phone belonging to a suspected pimp in San Diego. According to Ars Technica, the phone was locked with Android’s “pattern lock,” which involves dragging a finger along an onscreen keypad, rather than specifically punching in a PIN. That seems to have been enough to keep out the feds, who had to get a court order to ask for Google’s help to access the phone.

Four-digit PINs are notoriously insecure, but they’re still the default security mechanism for both payment cards and alternative payment schemes—in part because they can be entered using a POS device, computer keyboard or phone keypad, and in part because they’ve been around for 40 years. The total possible choices for four-digit PINs are 10,000, while the pattern-lock options could top more than 150 million. Considering that smartphone screens and many POS devices can now handle pattern-lock style security, maybe it’s time for a new default. If it’s hard enough to keep out the FBI, it might be good enough to lock a mobile wallet.


advertisement

2 Comments | Read If A Pattern Can Beat The FBI, Maybe It Should Be The New PIN

  1. A reader Says:

    The nature of the PIN or pattern or password has almost nothing to do with it. The security came from the five-tries-and-it-locks-up-requiring-more-authentication model.

    It could be argued that Apple’s model is at least as secure. They can be configured to wipe personal data the device after n failed tries, requiring the owner restore it from a backup.

  2. A Responder Says:

    The focus of the article was not device related, but rather the concept of using gestures for authentication, rather than a PIN. Based upon the exponentially higher number of possible combinations, the author suggests they might be used for securing devices which, if concepts and technologies technologies like NFC or mobile wallets take off, would serve as a more secure method to protect the users’ financial and personal information. Why must every mobile accolade, other than Apple’s, be subject to an immediate repudiation?

Leave a Reply

Readers, specifically those who want to comment on a story:
Our Comment SPAM system is getting very aggressive these days and has been blocking legitimate comments. If you post a comment and don't see it appear within 2 hours or so, can you please send a heads-up to customer-service@storefrontbacktalk.com? Ideally, please include the time you posted the comment. That will allow us to try and hunt for it. Thanks! P.S. We're working on fixing the system, but we don't want to lose any valuable comments in the meantime.

Newsletters

StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 17,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!
advertisement

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

StorefrontBacktalk
Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.