zlacker

All of the stories in his books are like this. An existing seemingly sensible system is used in a creative way to get access. Every time you read one the creative solution is so elegant you just go "Ah, can't believe I didn't think of that" (and then go try it yourself obviously - had lots of fun as a teenager taking down websites/stealing ppl's passwords/etc as a party trick for my friends).

>>alex-m+(OP)
Seemingly sensible? This one?

> the authentication mechanism was reading out your own account number in your voice

That's the most suspect part of it to me - even vulnerability to malicious attack like this aside, who would think that's a good idea or going to work well?

What percentage of people could successfully use a voice assistant to make a note of their bank account number the first time? Nevermind have it determine that it was indeed their voice not someone else's.

>>OJFord+fw
I think something was lost in the retelling. It could just be an era when people didn't figure out biometrics yet. It makes sense today, but caught up in new hype, people often implement cutting edge technology where it doesn't belong.

>>OJFord+fw
Yes, I think this is pretty stupid too.

Ahem.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/sep/22/voice-recognit...

>>muzani+hx
“Your voice is your password” kind of systems are still around.

>>emoden+C91
Sure, but usually we have 2FA now. It tends to be what you have (token/documentation), what you know (password), and what you are (voice auth).

Often you need one type for basic access (see balance), two for an actual transfer, three for say, transferring a million dollars. This may be something that people like Mitnick proved were necessary.