Here's an example of what I mean:
(It's basically the same thing as a traditional signature.)
Given I've never seen someone fail this control, it's unclear to me what real security such a system would provide. Am I missing something?
Tell me more
×
IT Security Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for
IT security professionals. It's 100% free, no registration required.
|
|
||||
|
|
A signature is gold standard for authenticating paperwork. Really I see this is an evolutionary artifact of progress technology. For so many years we didn't have anything better, and so it has been "grandfathered in". I have heard of credit card companies performing automated analysis on the transaction and signature to see if it is a fraudulent purchase, but this is a very difficult problem to automate. Personally I think signatures are nearly useless. Perhaps they are most useful as evidence to be used in court. If you clone a credit card, the only evidence of the transaction is a grainy security camera, and a signature of the transaction. |
|||
|
|
|
Traditional signatures are still the most widely used form of authenticity for the exchange of physical goods (think paper documents, packages, etc.) or for acknowledging an event in person. Other forms are creeping in (think chip-based credit cards, NFC, etc). This digital pad is simply a replacement to physical ink and paper and can be used to sign digital documents. Not everyone has an assigned private key. |
|||
|
|
