Ethical Hacking Learn to find vulnerabilities before the bad guys do! Gain real world hands on hacking experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Course designed and taught by expert instructors with years of penetration testing experience. 12 student maximum in every class. Certification attempt included in every package. | Computer Forensics Training at InfoSec Institute Gain the in-demand skills of a certified computer examiner, learn to recover trace data left behind by fraud, theft, and cybercrime perpetrators. Discover the source of computer crime and abuse at your organization so that it never happens again. All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 12 students or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors. |

| Subject: | RE: Two-Factor Authentication on the Web |
|---|---|
| Date: | Fri, 30 Jun 2006 09:56:47 -0700 |
The best I have seen is the Digital Security Device used in conjunction with username, password and pin# by www.kmdo.com. The Pin and DSD#s (changes every 16 seconds and good for only one access for each number) is never made available online and does not reside on your computer for others who know how to access. I am confident this is 100% secure and access by anyone other than the user is not possible. Need to know more? Go to: https://app.kmdo.net/servlets/com.komodo.servlet.registration.RegistrationSe rvlet?a=i LM -----Original Message----- From: Pete Herzog [mailto:lists@isecom.org] Sent: June 30, 2006 8:36 AM To: Tim Cc: Harper.Matthew; RSD; webappsec@securityfocus.com Subject: Re: Two-Factor Authentication on the Web Hi,
What other controls, other then multifactor authentication, can mitigate that risk?
I was hoping to see a good answer to this question. While there are quite a few ways one can "authenticate" the root problem, to me, is Identification and Authorization which make up Authentication. If the same source for Identification is used and the same Authorization means is granted then any additional authentication factor really is kind of the same thing over the net. Sure, a token, dongle, fingerprint, timezone, location, software, etc. make things more difficult to make the attack, if the attacker can usurp the identity and the client, then the attack success is very high. Meaning, if you break into the house and use the banking info on that computer to make the attack your success chances will be much higher. An additional channel whether it be SMS or telephone call-back can improve the chances authentication, this is still not even close to the type of authentication one can get in person. Further discussion however, will show that physical presence is often over-rated because the people who do the identification and grant authorization can also be easily fooled. Risk of getting caught is not much higher for those people but the speed to repercussion is. Over the net, there is much less repercussion if denied: the difference between "Access Denied" on-line and "Hey, wait a minute while I get my manager" (as guard approaches). I've been doing a lot of researching into Trusted Computing for the OpenTC project and it's clear that TC may not have the answer either, but it's not as bad. At least it closes the link between person and computer a bit better for the sake of identification. I am interested in hearing from others though on replacement or enhancement security for authentication where identification and authorization are not weak links or the speed or level of repercussion is up there with the physical world. -pete. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sponsored by: Watchfire As web applications become increasingly complex, tremendous amounts of sensitive data - personal, medical and financial - are exchanged, and stored. Consumers expect and demand security for this information. This whitepaper examines a few vulnerability detection methods - specifically comparing and contrasting manual penetration testing with automated scanning tools. Download "Automated Scanning or Manual Penetration Testing?" today! https://www.watchfire.com/securearea/whitepapers.aspx?id=701500000008Vmm -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.8/380 - Release Date: 30/06/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.8/380 - Release Date: 30/06/2006 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sponsored by: Watchfire As web applications become increasingly complex, tremendous amounts of sensitive data - personal, medical and financial - are exchanged, and stored. Consumers expect and demand security for this information. This whitepaper examines a few vulnerability detection methods - specifically comparing and contrasting manual penetration testing with automated scanning tools. Download "Automated Scanning or Manual Penetration Testing?" today! https://www.watchfire.com/securearea/whitepapers.aspx?id=701500000008Vmm --------------------------------------------------------------------------
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Two-Factor Authentication on the Web, Tim |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Fwd: SF new column announcement: MySpace, a place without MyParents, Andrew van der Stock |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Two-Factor Authentication on the Web, Pete Herzog |
| Next by Thread: | Directed phishing attacks- protection methods, Joshua Perrymon |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |