Of course not withholding the fact that one time use card numbers would pose an issue for standing instructions that consumers would issue to pay their recurring monthly bills. There has been some talk of a Card 2.0 platform that would allow a consumer to self regenerate two card numbers at random on the card display, but that too has a lot of repercussions on legacy banking systems.
Something like this I suppose: http://www.poweredcards.com/products_dynamic_cc.php On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 3:43 AM, Shane <[email protected]>wrote: > I hear in the old days of credit fraud, physical lists of bad-account > numbers were send out in the mail, merchants had to review each > transaction manually or risk being taken. > > I suppose the pressure of having one-time-use card numbers is a > legacy/comparability problem, the amount of carbon paper imprints being > used today is still fairly high. > > One-time-use numbers would probably be fairly tricky to implement also, > to avoid duplicates while still affording hard to sequence/predict series. > > > On 2/9/2011 1:43 PM, dave wrote: > > So the other thing that became obvious is that we are completely wasting > our time > > having law enforcement track down people who steal credit cards numbers. > There's no > > reason a credit card number should be valid for anything but a single > transaction, > > but the banks for some reason don't want to redo their systems. > > > > So instead, the US Govt subsidizes them and spends all their time hunting > down the > > thousands of people involved in credit card theft, which accomplishes > exactly > > nothing. Honestly, they have better things to do, imo. > > > > For every "BadB" caught, five more are in line to do exactly the same > thing. > > Meanwhile, the number of days a credit card can be in use before it gets > compromised > > by a hacker is approximately one. What's wrong with this picture? > > > > -dave > > > > > > Dave Aitel wrote: > >> So I was at a meeting last week, and one of the high ranking members > >> said something like this, which I'm sure you've heard before: > > > >> Member: We've improved our communications by setting up this great > >> website! It allows us to communicate all our super-important and > >> highly confidential information. We had a marketing team put it > >> together so it looks really professional and nice and is easy to use. > >> We think this will really help our mission. Oh, and we had a friend of > >> a friend do a quick free security scan for us, so it's secure too. > > > >> So here's my simple and 100% accurate metric: If you spent more on > >> your GUI than on your security, you don't have a secure application. > >> Start preparing for the PR fallout of your website getting hacked now. > > > > > >> -dave > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Dailydave mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://lists.immunityinc.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Dailydave mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.immunityinc.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave >
_______________________________________________ Dailydave mailing list [email protected] https://lists.immunityinc.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave
