Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.mobile.android > #57320 > unrolled thread
| Started by | K120 <hunterfox@interweb.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-11-08 10:52 -0500 |
| Last post | 2018-11-17 10:30 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 170 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android
8MB sms pic K120 <hunterfox@interweb.net> - 2018-11-08 10:52 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic KenW <ken1943@invalid.net> - 2018-11-08 09:11 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-08 22:31 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic K120 <hunterfox@interweb.net> - 2018-11-09 17:07 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-10 02:36 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-11-11 11:34 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-11-11 11:47 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-11 13:08 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-11-11 17:23 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic K120 <hunterfox@interweb.net> - 2018-11-11 12:37 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-11-11 19:19 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic K120 <hunterfox@interweb.net> - 2018-11-11 16:34 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 07:53 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-11-12 08:11 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-12 02:29 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2018-11-12 12:22 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-12 14:02 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2018-11-12 20:01 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-13 02:27 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2018-11-13 10:51 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-13 11:05 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2018-11-13 12:39 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-12 19:02 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-11-12 21:16 +0100
[OT] Ping: Piet (was: 8MB sms pic) Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-15 22:10 +0000
Re: [OT] Ping: Piet Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2018-11-16 09:46 +0100
Re: [OT] Ping: Piet Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-16 11:50 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-11-12 06:19 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-12 02:20 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-11-11 17:21 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic K120 <hunterfox@interweb.net> - 2018-11-11 16:44 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-11-12 06:21 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 08:17 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-12 02:32 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-11 20:47 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-11-12 06:27 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-11 23:40 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-12 19:02 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-11-12 19:07 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-11-12 21:28 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-12 21:21 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-12 20:25 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-13 02:29 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-12 20:39 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-13 08:11 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-13 09:03 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-13 15:40 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-13 15:50 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-13 11:13 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-13 10:26 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-13 13:08 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-13 11:43 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-13 13:49 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-13 12:06 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-11-14 08:28 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-14 09:15 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-14 10:17 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-14 12:53 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-14 15:38 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-15 00:04 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-15 00:25 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-11-14 18:46 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-14 15:38 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-11-15 18:57 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-15 12:37 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-11-15 22:40 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-15 16:06 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-15 21:14 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-11-15 22:16 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-11-14 18:41 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-14 14:33 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-11-15 18:57 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-13 18:48 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-11-13 18:36 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-13 20:32 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-13 15:49 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-16 14:30 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-13 15:12 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-13 10:21 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-13 18:51 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-12 19:22 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-12 21:42 -0400
Re: 8MB sms pic 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-12 19:54 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-12 22:06 -0400
Re: 8MB sms pic 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-12 20:26 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-12 22:40 -0400
Re: 8MB sms pic 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-12 21:23 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-12 23:32 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-12 22:21 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-13 00:50 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-13 08:18 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-13 19:02 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-13 09:29 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-13 08:18 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-13 08:27 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-12 23:34 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-13 09:32 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-13 09:08 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-13 15:43 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-13 09:54 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-13 19:08 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-13 13:22 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-13 18:31 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-13 13:49 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-13 19:16 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-13 14:24 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-14 09:34 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-14 09:31 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-14 09:15 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-14 17:28 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-14 12:53 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-14 18:47 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-14 14:33 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-14 19:00 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-14 14:33 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-14 15:38 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-15 00:04 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-15 00:25 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-15 12:09 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-15 12:53 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-15 15:08 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-15 15:03 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-15 17:10 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-15 15:40 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-15 16:27 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-15 12:09 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-15 19:01 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-15 14:51 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-15 21:11 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-15 16:47 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-16 14:43 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-16 13:11 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-17 01:10 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-16 20:10 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-17 11:24 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-15 10:32 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-16 14:48 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-14 09:34 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-11-13 18:05 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-13 19:10 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-13 13:22 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-16 15:03 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-13 08:23 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-13 11:40 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-13 15:46 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-11-13 06:35 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-13 08:17 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-13 09:03 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-13 15:37 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-11-13 06:12 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-13 00:21 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-11-13 11:57 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-13 09:34 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-11-13 11:59 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-13 15:38 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-11-13 06:08 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-13 00:21 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-13 09:34 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-13 08:12 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-11-13 06:06 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-13 15:04 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-12 10:54 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic M.L. <me@privacy.invalid> - 2018-11-13 06:59 -0600
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-13 09:03 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-11 13:11 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-11-11 17:27 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-12 02:37 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic KenW <ken1943@invalid.net> - 2018-11-08 09:19 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic musika <mUs1Ka@NOSPAMexcite.com> - 2018-11-09 11:48 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic K120 <hunterfox@interweb.net> - 2018-11-17 10:30 -0500
Page 3 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-12 21:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pscu84.5sk.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #57414 |
Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote: > Am 12.11.18 um 20:07 schrieb Andy Burns: > > 123456789 wrote: > > > >> Joerg Lorenz wrote: > >> > >>> SMS/MMS plays no role anymore in personal communication. > >> > >> in my part of the > >> world your stated demise of SMS is greatly exaggerated... > > > > In the UK usage has peaked, but it's still 82 billion/year with a > > population of 70 million. > > > The providers are desperate because SMS hardly plays a role in personal > communication any more. For dentist reminders and credentials of > forgotten logins and that kind of info it has a lease of life. Try to read and understand what was written, will you!? It's not (only) for "credentials of forgotten logins". 123456789 mentioned quite different use for SMS, for which there is no practical general alternative yet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-12 20:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <121120182025189475%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #57417 |
In article <pscu84.5sk.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote: > > >>> SMS/MMS plays no role anymore in personal communication. > > >> > > >> in my part of the > > >> world your stated demise of SMS is greatly exaggerated... > > > > > > In the UK usage has peaked, but it's still 82 billion/year with a > > > population of 70 million. > > > > > The providers are desperate because SMS hardly plays a role in personal > > communication any more. For dentist reminders and credentials of > > forgotten logins and that kind of info it has a lease of life. > > Try to read and understand what was written, will you!? > > It's not (only) for "credentials of forgotten logins". 123456789 > mentioned quite different use for SMS, for which there is no practical > general alternative yet. there definitely is a very practical alternative, one which is also significantly more secure *and* works offline.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-13 02:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <g4uno4F91i6U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #57424 |
On 13/11/2018 02.25, nospam wrote:
> In article <pscu84.5sk.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>>> SMS/MMS plays no role anymore in personal communication.
>>>>>
>>>>> in my part of the
>>>>> world your stated demise of SMS is greatly exaggerated...
>>>>
>>>> In the UK usage has peaked, but it's still 82 billion/year with a
>>>> population of 70 million.
>>>>
>>> The providers are desperate because SMS hardly plays a role in personal
>>> communication any more. For dentist reminders and credentials of
>>> forgotten logins and that kind of info it has a lease of life.
>>
>> Try to read and understand what was written, will you!?
>>
>> It's not (only) for "credentials of forgotten logins". 123456789
>> mentioned quite different use for SMS, for which there is no practical
>> general alternative yet.
>
> there definitely is a very practical alternative, one which is also
> significantly more secure *and* works offline.
Which is...?
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-12 20:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <121120182039069132%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #57427 |
In article <g4uno4F91i6U2@mid.individual.net>, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > >> It's not (only) for "credentials of forgotten logins". 123456789 > >> mentioned quite different use for SMS, for which there is no practical > >> general alternative yet. > > > > there definitely is a very practical alternative, one which is also > > significantly more secure *and* works offline. > > Which is...? totp
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-13 08:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <g4vborFd1mmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #57428 |
On 13/11/2018 02.39, nospam wrote:
> In article <g4uno4F91i6U2@mid.individual.net>, Carlos E. R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>> It's not (only) for "credentials of forgotten logins". 123456789
>>>> mentioned quite different use for SMS, for which there is no practical
>>>> general alternative yet.
>>>
>>> there definitely is a very practical alternative, one which is also
>>> significantly more secure *and* works offline.
>>
>> Which is...?
>
> totp
>
<https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+totp&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b>
Time Based One Time Password?
Oh, common!
And where is the "all phones must have it out of the factory" requirement?
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-13 09:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <131120180903004120%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #57448 |
In article <g4vborFd1mmU1@mid.individual.net>, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > >>>> It's not (only) for "credentials of forgotten logins". 123456789 > >>>> mentioned quite different use for SMS, for which there is no practical > >>>> general alternative yet. > >>> > >>> there definitely is a very practical alternative, one which is also > >>> significantly more secure *and* works offline. > >> > >> Which is...? > > > > totp > > > <https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+totp&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox- > b> > > Time Based One Time Password? yes > Oh, common! very much so. > And where is the "all phones must have it out of the factory" requirement? no such requirement. there are *numerous* totp apps not just for phones, but also laptops and desktops, making it both more secure than sms and more convenient too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-13 15:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <g5062rFikcoU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #57466 |
On 13/11/2018 15.03, nospam wrote:
> In article <g4vborFd1mmU1@mid.individual.net>, Carlos E. R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>>> It's not (only) for "credentials of forgotten logins". 123456789
>>>>>> mentioned quite different use for SMS, for which there is no practical
>>>>>> general alternative yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> there definitely is a very practical alternative, one which is also
>>>>> significantly more secure *and* works offline.
>>>>
>>>> Which is...?
>>>
>>> totp
>>>
>> <https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+totp&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-
>> b>
>>
>> Time Based One Time Password?
>
> yes
>
>> Oh, common!
>
> very much so.
>
>> And where is the "all phones must have it out of the factory" requirement?
>
> no such requirement.
>
> there are *numerous* totp apps not just for phones, but also laptops
> and desktops, making it both more secure than sms and more convenient
> too.
>
Hre it is the minimal requirement. If you want to use banks and other
services. It is your choice, of course: no SMS, no banking :-P
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-13 15:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <psevbq.c50.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #57472 |
Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > On 13/11/2018 15.03, nospam wrote: > > In article <g4vborFd1mmU1@mid.individual.net>, Carlos E. R. > > <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > > > >>>>>> It's not (only) for "credentials of forgotten logins". 123456789 > >>>>>> mentioned quite different use for SMS, for which there is no practical > >>>>>> general alternative yet. > >>>>> > >>>>> there definitely is a very practical alternative, one which is also > >>>>> significantly more secure *and* works offline. > >>>> > >>>> Which is...? > >>> > >>> totp > >>> > >> <https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+totp&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox- > >> b> > >> > >> Time Based One Time Password? > > > > yes > > > >> Oh, common! > > > > very much so. > > > >> And where is the "all phones must have it out of the factory" requirement? > > > > no such requirement. > > > > there are *numerous* totp apps not just for phones, but also laptops > > and desktops, making it both more secure than sms and more convenient > > too. > > Hre it is the minimal requirement. If you want to use banks and other > services. It is your choice, of course: no SMS, no banking :-P Don't be a wuss, Carlos! If nospam says it can be done, it can be done! You just have to change banks, move to another country or similar minor inconviences. And when you've done that, there will be another problem with some other 'provider' so you once again change provider or/and company. Peanuts. BTW, just for laughs have a look at the server and client implementations on the Wikipedia 'Time-based One-time Password algorithm' page to see what a total mess this "very practical alternative" is. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-based_One-time_Password_algorithm> FYI, my bank(s) are using OTPs with proprietary tokens similar to the CAP readers which MC uses for their CAP. (There you have some more acronyms/initialisms to look up! :-) But as they're proprietary, they're obviously *not* the required "practical general alternative" for SMS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-13 11:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <131120181113585630%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #57481 |
In article <psevbq.c50.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote: > > BTW, just for laughs have a look at the server and client > implementations on the Wikipedia 'Time-based One-time Password > algorithm' page to see what a total mess this "very practical > alternative" is. there is no mess and it's a very straightforward algorithm. end users can download any of a number of totp apps, including google authenticator, microsoft authenticator, lastpass, 1password, authy, freeotp, as well as several others. there are numerous server-side options as well. unlike sms, totp is not limited to only one device, providing backup sources for codes should one device (e.g., phone) be lost or stolen or otherwise inoperative. it's also more convenient to use a desktop app when using a desktop computer. unlike sms, nothing is sent over the air, therefore nothing can be intercepted or hijacked, making it *much* more secure than sms.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 123456789 <12345@12345.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-13 10:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <psf1g7$1uq6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #57482 |
On 11/13/2018 9:13 AM, nospam wrote: > unlike sms, totp is not limited to only one device, providing backup > sources for codes should one device (e.g., phone) be lost or stolen > or otherwise inoperative. Unlikely problem. My apps use a one time SMS 2 Factor Authentication code. That is they use the code to certify the device ONCE. After that there is only my password required to access a sensitive app on that device. If bad guys know my password they can't access my account on a non-certified device and if they have access to my certified device they don't know my password. > unlike sms, nothing is sent over the air, therefore nothing can be > intercepted or hijacked, Since the 2FA SMS code is only sent ONCE per device it's very unlikely that bad guys will get it. And even if they do how would they use it? The banking SMS code to certify my phone was sent over two years ago... > making it *much* more secure than sms. Sometimes too much security is a PITA...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-13 13:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <131120181308287858%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #57484 |
In article <psf1g7$1uq6$1@gioia.aioe.org>, 123456789 <12345@12345.com> wrote: > > > unlike sms, totp is not limited to only one device, providing backup > > sources for codes should one device (e.g., phone) be lost or stolen > > or otherwise inoperative. > > Unlikely problem. My apps use a one time SMS 2 Factor Authentication > code. That is they use the code to certify the device ONCE. After that > there is only my password required to access a sensitive app on that > device. If bad guys know my password they can't access my account on a > non-certified device and if they have access to my certified device they > don't know my password. unless they *do* know your password from a data breach... or vish. > > unlike sms, nothing is sent over the air, therefore nothing can be > > intercepted or hijacked, > > Since the 2FA SMS code is only sent ONCE per device it's very unlikely > that bad guys will get it. And even if they do how would they use it? > The banking SMS code to certify my phone was sent over two years ago... hijack your phone and game over. log in with a new device, new code is sent to them, not you, and they're in. > > making it *much* more secure than sms. > > Sometimes too much security is a PITA... except that totp is both more secure *and* less of a pain. u2f, on the other hand, is a lot more secure, but also a lot more of a pain. some things require that. most do not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 123456789 <12345@12345.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-13 11:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <psf60j$rp0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57489 |
On 11/13/2018 11:08 AM, nospam wrote: > In article <psf1g7$1uq6$1@gioia.aioe.org>, 123456789 > <12345@12345.com> wrote: >>> unlike sms, totp is not limited to only one device, providing >>> backup sources for codes should one device (e.g., phone) be lost >>> or stolen or otherwise inoperative. >> Unlikely problem. My apps use a one time SMS 2 Factor >> Authentication code. That is they use the code to certify the >> device ONCE. After that there is only my password required to >> access a sensitive app on that device. If bad guys know my password >> they can't access my account on a non-certified device and if they >> have access to my certified device they don't know my password. > unless they *do* know your password from a data breach... So the perps have BOTH my device in their possession AND know ALL my passwords from ALL my apps from a separate data breach? I give that many millions to one. Better chance of getting hit by a truck today... > hijack your phone and game over. Not so easy these days. But still useless without passwords. > log in with a new device, new code is sent to them, not you, and > they're in. Not without passwords. > except that totp is both more secure *and* less of a pain. u2f, on > the other hand, is a lot more secure, but also a lot more of a pain. > some things require that. most do not. Paranoia is sometimes a bit unreasonable... ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-13 13:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <131120181349204966%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #57495 |
In article <psf60j$rp0$1@dont-email.me>, 123456789 <12345@12345.com> wrote: > > > hijack your phone and game over. > > Not so easy these days. But still useless without passwords. it's very easy these days and getting easier. > > log in with a new device, new code is sent to them, not you, and > > they're in. > > Not without passwords. which they have from a breach, or they vish it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 123456789 <12345@12345.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-13 12:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <psf7b7$5fa$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57496 |
On 11/13/2018 11:49 AM, nospam wrote: > 123456789 <12345@12345.com> wrote: >>> hijack your phone and game over. >> Not so easy these days. But still useless without passwords. > it's very easy these days and getting easier. no it's not. (typical nospam answer... ;) >>> log in with a new device, new code is sent to them, not you, and >>> they're in. >> Not without passwords. > which they have from a breach, or they vish it. no they don't. BTW, I'll be keeping my eye out for trucks today...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-14 08:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <psgmb0$hm8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57496 |
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <psf60j$rp0$1@dont-email.me>, 123456789 <12345@12345.com> > wrote: > >> >>> hijack your phone and game over. >> >> Not so easy these days. But still useless without passwords. > > it's very easy these days and getting easier. Only if the target is a fool by reusing passwords. A practical example of how not easy it is... http://infozonic.com/2018/11/06/operation-luigi-how-i-hacked-my-friend-without-her-noticing/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-14 09:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <141120180915002110%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #57509 |
In article <psgmb0$hm8$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> hijack your phone and game over. > >> > >> Not so easy these days. But still useless without passwords. > > > > it's very easy these days and getting easier. > > Only if the target is a fool by reusing passwords. that helps, but is not required. there is sufficient information about people to pretend to be the target and pwn all sorts of stuff. not only are data breaches becoming more common, but people voluntarily give out key information on various social media sites or other venues. they usually give real answers to the insecurity questions, which is almost always public information, including mother's maiden name, first car that they owned, etc. and sometimes all that's needed is just a phone number: <https://www.zdnet.com/article/tmobile-bug-let-anyone-see-any-customers- account-details/> A bug in T-Mobile's website let anyone access the personal account details of any customer with just their cell phone number. ... The returned data included a customer's full name, postal address, billing account number, and in some cases information about tax identification numbers. The data also included customers' account information, such as if a bill is past-due or if the customer had their service suspended. The data also included references to account PINs used by customers as a security question when contacting phone support. Anyone could use that information to hijack accounts. > A practical example of > how not easy it is... > http://infozonic.com/2018/11/06/operation-luigi-how-i-hacked-my-friend-without-her-noticing/ looks like he was successful.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 123456789 <12345@12345.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-14 10:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pshlak$c2n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57513 |
On 11/14/2018 7:15 AM, nospam wrote: > Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> hijack your phone and game over. >>>> Not so easy these days. But still useless without passwords. >>> it's very easy these days and getting easier. >> Only if the target is a fool by reusing passwords. I use a formula that INTERMINGLES certain letters of the site/apps name (for example first + third + last 2) with a memorized number/character combination. The sensitive sites have an extra pin inserted. Looks like gibberish, good for exercising the old memory, and no password lists laying around. Ok password manager users, I can see you squirming...GO > they usually give real answers to the insecurity questions, which is > almost always public information, including mother's maiden name, first > car that they owned, etc. I thought insecurity questions dumb too. I always used nonsense answers and just saved them. What was the make of your first car: Donkey... In recent years I've not been asked those questions. The sites that used to use that system now rely on the (infamous?) semi-2FA we've been discussing. When I recently froze my three credit bureau accounts online they asked verification questions like what year my house was built? And what was the prefix of my previous home phone number? Those were not prearranged and apparently obtained from my account.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-14 12:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <141120181253365476%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #57516 |
In article <pshlak$c2n$1@dont-email.me>, 123456789 <12345@12345.com> wrote: > > they usually give real answers to the insecurity questions, which is > > almost always public information, including mother's maiden name, first > > car that they owned, etc. > > I thought insecurity questions dumb too. I always used nonsense answers > and just saved them. What was the make of your first car: Donkey... that's a very good idea. unfortunately, that doesn't always work. some places validate the answers, so if you put in something nonsensical, it will reject it, especially if it's not an actual word (i.e, a generated passphrase). one bank i know of had a 4 character minimum for any answer, which means kia, bmw, vw, mg would be rejected. some places even have a preselected list of answers, such as what date of the month was your mother born, with 8 possible choices in a popup menu, one of which is the one you chose when signing up. instead of 31 possible answers, it's now 8. > In recent years I've not been asked those questions. The sites that used > to use that system now rely on the (infamous?) semi-2FA we've been > discussing. 2fa normally replaces the insecurity questions. > When I recently froze my three credit bureau accounts online they asked > verification questions like what year my house was built? And what was > the prefix of my previous home phone number? Those were not prearranged > and apparently obtained from my account. that's all public information.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 123456789 <12345@12345.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-14 15:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <psi85s$7gn$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57518 |
On 11/14/2018 10:53 AM, nospam wrote: > 123456789 <12345@12345.com> wrote: >> I thought insecurity questions dumb too. I always used nonsense >> answers and just saved them. What was the make of your first car: >> Donkey... > some places validate the answers Really a dumb waste of time. Fortunately I never ran across any of those. > one bank i know of had a 4 character minimum for any answer, which > means kia, bmw, vw, mg would be rejected. I would have used kiacar, bmwcar.... or Donkey. > some places even have a preselected list of answers, such as what > date of the month was your mother born, with 8 possible choices in a > popup menu, one of which is the one you chose when signing up. > instead of 31 possible answers, it's now 8. Probably cuts down on service calls. Customers had a better chance of guessing their mom's birthday right... >> When I recently froze my three credit bureau accounts online they >> asked verification questions like what year my house was built? And >> what was the prefix of my previous home phone number? Those were >> not prearranged and apparently obtained from my account. > that's all public information. Glad someone else didn't hack in and freeze my accounts...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-15 00:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <151120180004454296%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #57530 |
In article <psi85s$7gn$3@dont-email.me>, 123456789 <12345@12345.com> wrote: > >> I thought insecurity questions dumb too. I always used nonsense > >> answers and just saved them. What was the make of your first car: > >> Donkey... > > > some places validate the answers > > Really a dumb waste of time. Fortunately I never ran across any of those. yes it is dumb, but there are a lot of dumb people writing software and many of them work at banks. > > one bank i know of had a 4 character minimum for any answer, which > > means kia, bmw, vw, mg would be rejected. > > I would have used kiacar, bmwcar.... or Donkey. sure, but why didn't that get caught in testing? how did it make it into the product in the first place? certainly *someone* at the bank owns a bmw, kia, vw, etc. > > some places even have a preselected list of answers, such as what > > date of the month was your mother born, with 8 possible choices in a > > popup menu, one of which is the one you chose when signing up. > > instead of 31 possible answers, it's now 8. > > Probably cuts down on service calls. Customers had a better chance of > guessing their mom's birthday right... sadly, that's probably part of it. > >> When I recently froze my three credit bureau accounts online they > >> asked verification questions like what year my house was built? And > >> what was the prefix of my previous home phone number? Those were > >> not prearranged and apparently obtained from my account. > > > that's all public information. > > Glad someone else didn't hack in and freeze my accounts... yet...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web