475 reputation
217
bio website cnst.su
location San Jose, CA
age
visits member for 2 years, 5 months
seen 7 hours ago

8h
comment Why do banks still hack-up autocomplete=off functionality?
Actually, as per the comment in the other answer, I'd argue the complete opposite -- a computer compromise is clearly the user's fault, whereas phishing is not. "On the other hand, if the user receives an email, asking them to provide a password for the bank, -- that sounds more like the bank's fault for failing to create a policy against such emails, and clearly inform the user of such policy. (And, ironically, it's quite amazing how many times I've received emails from various banks (including PayPal) that, failing a passing header inspection, I'd identify as a phishing attack!)"
8h
comment Why do banks still hack-up autocomplete=off functionality?
Well, based alone on what you say, I'd argue that if a user's computer is compromised, it's clearly the fault of the user. On the other hand, if the user receives an email, asking them to provide a password for the bank, -- that sounds more like the bank's fault for failing to create a policy against such emails, and clearly inform the user of such policy. (And, ironically, it's quite amazing how many times I've received emails from various banks (including PayPal) that, failing a passing header inspection, I'd identify as a phishing attack!)
1d
comment Why do banks still hack-up autocomplete=off functionality?
Besides, the credentials used for e.g. credit card access, never have any way to transfer money or do anything "useful" with the account, other than looking at the transaction history. Even new card requests are often protected by the customer being required to provide the CCV number of their physical card.
1d
comment Why do banks still hack-up autocomplete=off functionality?
by making it harder to store it in the browser means that fishing will be easier; it's a pendulum, why do they swing it only one way?
1d
asked Why do banks still hack-up autocomplete=off functionality?
1d
answered Why is GSM still used?
Apr
17
comment Is cacert.org more harmful than self-signing?
@cpast, well, frankly, I just don't trust cacert.org, and I do trust undeadly.org -- I'm willing to bet the likelihood of undeadly.org keeping their certs in a more secure manner than cacert.org is higher. As such, I don't see why you suggest that I should trust a long-term CA root cert, as opposed to a long-term individual cert.
Apr
16
comment Is cacert.org more harmful than self-signing?
@cpast, so, do you suggest it is better to accept the long-term root cert from a third-party CA, than a long-term cert just for the site alone?
Apr
16
comment Is cacert.org more harmful than self-signing?
@cpast, i don't exactly know what they (CA Cert) do, so, i don't know whether or not i trust them (but the fact that they appear to limit people to 6-mo certs conflicts with my beliefs on set-it-and-forget-it approach to things)
Apr
16
revised Is cacert.org more harmful than self-signing?
fix title and clarify that cacert.org was included, but was removed, basically, per cacert's own request!
Apr
16
comment Is cacert.org more harmful than self-signing?
@schroeder, basically, every single time i am to make a new comment?
Apr
16
asked Is cacert.org more harmful than self-signing?
Apr
13
revised thunderbolt wiki excerpt
added 66 characters in body
Apr
13
revised dma-attack wiki description
added 143 characters in body
Apr
13
revised dma-attack wiki excerpt
added 115 characters in body
Apr
13
revised thunderbolt wiki description
added 110 characters in body
Apr
13
wiki created thunderbolt description
Apr
13
wiki created thunderbolt excerpt
Apr
13
suggested approved edit on thunderbolt tag wiki
Apr
13
suggested approved edit on thunderbolt tag wiki excerpt