[access-uk] Re: Fw: Response from Lloyds TSB re chip & pin at home
- From: "Graham Page" <gpage@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <access-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 21:22:13 +0100
simple. the reality is that that signatures ar not secure and convenient.
They soon wipe off the strip on the back of your card and then the card has
to be refused if playing stricly by the book. if this does not happen then
the validity of the signature is taken on trust. With chip and pin, the
details of the card have to be known along with the pin.
The only way a chip and signature system could be secure is if all machines
are linked to a database of signatures that can be checked against.
Both systems of course only work in face to face transactions at the moment.
on most web sites I use, I only have to give the card number, start date,
end date, and 3 digit security number. This info can be easily found by,
for example, someone who takes your card and scans it in a restaurant.
Cheers
Graham
----- Original Message -----
From: "martin wilsher" <m.wilsher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <access-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 9:01 PM
Subject: [access-uk] Re: Fw: Response from Lloyds TSB re chip & pin at home
Hi derik:
How can chip and signature be less secure than chip and pin? Recent
investigations have been highlighting how insecure the pin functions of =
the
chip and pin service is. Chip and signature is more secure than the old
swipe system as it prevents card cloaning to a degree. In the battle
between chip and pin and chip and signature, I think neither win out as =
one
can be tampered with to give away pin details, and the other could be =
swiped
and cloaned, so we're just going to have to be vigilant I think.
-----Original Message-----
From: access-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:access-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf =
Of
Derek Hornby
Sent: 21 May 2007 20:50
To: access-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [access-uk] Re: Fw: Response from Lloyds TSB re chip & pin at =
home
Graham said
"that's OK steve as far as it goes but presumably you stand more of a =
chance
of being the recipient of that fraud attempt in the first place and that =
is
worrying as I would rather not have to go through the hassle of trying =
to
claim back from the bank in the first place."
But it's same for those that use chip and signature!
Regards,
Derek
e-mail: derek.hornby_uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
** To leave the list, click on the immediately-following link:-
** [mailto:access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=3Dunsubscribe]
** If this link doesn't work then send a message to:
** access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
** and in the Subject line type
** unsubscribe
** For other list commands such as vacation mode, click on the
** immediately-following link:-
** [mailto:access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=3Dfaq]
** or send a message, to
** access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the Subject:- faq
** To leave the list, click on the immediately-following link:-
** [mailto:access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe]
** If this link doesn't work then send a message to:
** access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
** and in the Subject line type
** unsubscribe
** For other list commands such as vacation mode, click on the
** immediately-following link:-
** [mailto:access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=faq]
** or send a message, to
** access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the Subject:- faq
__________ NOD32 2282 (20070521) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
** To leave the list, click on the immediately-following link:-
** [mailto:access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe]
** If this link doesn't work then send a message to:
** access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
** and in the Subject line type
** unsubscribe
** For other list commands such as vacation mode, click on the
** immediately-following link:-
** [mailto:access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=faq]
** or send a message, to
** access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the Subject:- faq
Other related posts:
