• Vish (unregistered)

    Frist I believe

  • (nodebb)

    @Vish. Well, I for one don't believe it

  • ipguru (unregistered)

    Actually I did not write that comment about the WIFI cable But I wish I had :-)

  • Alex (unregistered)

    The cable wifi got me first laughing and then thinking. Besides being totally bonkers technically — the sign is for the general public. For non-tech guys, Wifi used to be "the other networking thing that doesn't need a cable". But for a few years now, Wifi is the norm, and wired is "the other thing with the cable that does the same as Wifi". Even if it hurts, "Wifi cable" is, for a non-techie, a pretty much accurate description on what you get there in just two words.

  • Nobody (unregistered) in reply to Alex

    Spot on.

    "Wifi" means "you can get onto the Internet this way".

    "Network cable" means "something for the IT specialists and not for the general public".

  • JustSomeDudette (unregistered)

    I cannot believe how much it is bothering me that they put "network" in speech marks and not "WiFi" - Arrrrrrh

  • Burner (unregistered)

    An LPT dongle, a VHS tape and a desk with a CRT monitor. Where's the Selectric typewriter?

  • (nodebb)

    The personal image one on banking sites always irks me. What makes them think some third party can't duplicate that if they are performing a man in the middle attack? It's a simple screen scrap to get the image and display. There is no security provided by this image, matter of fact it is worse security because they tell you it is more secure with it and the common populace believes them.

  • Ex-lurker (unregistered) in reply to KattMan

    Well, it is more secure in other contexts, for example when the user clicks a link in those oh-so-helpful emails from their bank (sometimes from banks where they were never a client of or closed account years before) and is directed to a fake login page. The criminals don't have the necessary data to display the personal image in that case, tipping the victim off.

    Which isn't actually any extra security after all, because these days those emails don't link to the fake page but to some malware the clueless victim will happily install before proceeding to the actual bank page.

  • I dunno LOL ¯\(°_o)/¯ (unregistered) in reply to Burner

    At least they stopped using the mechanical Hollerith card sorter image.

  • operagost (unregistered) in reply to Alex

    No, "wifi cable" is not accurate for the same reason gasoline is not "go juice" and a television is not a "Netflix screen".

    People use WiFi to get onto the internet. I'm pretty sure most people know it's called the internet. The sign should say, "internet access". If they know enough to realize their WiFi isn't working and they should use a cable, they probably know the thing that gets them their dank memes is called the internet.

  • (nodebb)

    "for example when the user clicks a link in those oh-so-helpful emails from their bank (sometimes from banks where they were never a client of or closed account years before) "

    Which begs the question of why banks aren't required to use some kind of PGP-like signature on their emails, accepted by email providers, and all similar-looking "from" addresses to be filtered by the email provider or marked as "not-a-bank-address".

  • simen (unregistered) in reply to kurkosdr

    Who should handle the central register of approved banking domains, and what about other phishing targets?

    DMARC is a step in the right direction, making it possible to at least block phishing attacks that use the bank's real domains.

  • Foo AKA Fooo (unregistered)

    "Getting on the wifi with the 'network' cable was a snap but I found the range to be very limited."

    Sorry? With a WiFi cable you can easily get 100m (or whatever that is in hands and feet). Most wireless WiFis don't do that well.

  • Foo AKA Fooo (unregistered)

    Well, some of the stuff on that pizza does look a bit undefined ...

  • Clint G. (unregistered)

    Is no one else curious about the Ticketmaster application running on Walmart workstations? What's that about?

  • Al (unregistered)

    "WiFi cable" isn't a whole lot more ridiculous than just "WiFi" itself. Doesn't anyone remember what the "Fi" is? Fidelity! Back in the old days, a HiFi was a High Fidelity audio system. For some reason, "WiFi" became the name associated with wireless network access, even though it has nothing to do with an analog audio signal or its "fidelity".

    So the "Fi" doesn't make any sense, why should we expect any more of the "Wi"?

  • Anonyme (unregistered) in reply to Al

    Well where I'm from we usually call it WLAN for Wireless Local Area Network, WiFi is understood but rarely used

  • Alex Papadumbass (unregistered) in reply to Al

    "Fi" in WiFi is not Fidelity. Who teaches you this nonsense? No wonder nobody "remembers" it.

  • Foo AKA Fooo (unregistered) in reply to Alex Papadumbass

    "Who teaches you this nonsense?"

    Let's see, who would do such nonsense:

    The Wi-Fi Alliance used the nonsense advertising slogan "The Standard for Wireless Fidelity" for a short time after the brand name was created, leading to the misconception that Wi-Fi was an abbreviation of "Wireless Fidelity."[18][20][21] The name was however never officially "Wireless Fidelity".[22] Nevertheless, the Wi-Fi Alliance was also called the "Wireless Fidelity Alliance Inc" in some publications[23] and the IEEE's own website has stated "WiFi is a short name for Wireless Fidelity".[24] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi)

    Al's point was that "Fi" doesn't make any sense if it meant fidelity. Now, actually it means, well, nothing, which doesn't make any sense either. I think his point stands.

  • Joseph Osako (google)

    TIL that Ontario, Canada is in the United States.

  • (nodebb) in reply to Joseph Osako

    TIL that Ontario is a city located in southwestern San Bernardino County, California, United States

  • foxyshadis (unregistered) in reply to Ex-lurker

    "Well, it is more secure in other contexts" No, it's not, and KattMan just said exactly why: "It's a simple screen scrap to get the image and display."

    The era when the majority of phishing scams were made by illiterate non-coders just trying to get you to type in a password or credit card is long past. Nowadays they're sophisticated sites in their own right that communicate back and forth with the real site to display exactly what it would, so that even 2-factor auth doesn't help. Sure, they can only log in once with proper 2-factor, but that's all they need.

  • Ex-lurker (unregistered) in reply to foxyshadis

    Incredible! You managed to disagree with me, while completely ignoring that I dismissed the first paragraph's claim by myself. It's almost as if you had never read my comment past the first period. But that couldn't possibly have happened in the interwebs, right?

    And while these more sophisticated attacks you mention indeed exist, my point was that even low sophistication perps weren't more than slightly inconvenienced by these supposedly secure login systems. They barely needed to change their approach to get in (although MITM attacks are indeed more successful against more savvy users).

  • Ex-lurker (unregistered)

    (also this attack you mention, which is not MITM, but is more sophisticated anyway)

  • (nodebb) in reply to Anonyme

    I've seen the WLAN abbreviation being used a lot in the German speaking area. In the rest of the places where I've been, wireless network access is usually referred to as WiFi.

  • Robin Bobcat (unregistered)

    I am amused by the arguments regarding bank authentication and phishing attracting spam bots.

  • James (unregistered)

    Sooo, yet again a post with errors awaits me in my inbox. What a sack of shit, it would be slightly humorous if it was intentional but it never is. Get your shit together.

    And as for "I wonder if someone wanted to buy tickets, would they be allowed?" Did you even look at the image?

Leave a comment on “Banking on the Information Super Highway”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

« Return to Article