fable wrote:Online shops whose databases can be accessed, and whose "public face" can be replaced by another that transfers input to other sites. This isn't new information I'm suggesting. Websites illegally accessed either for profit or sheer mayhem aren't new, and this happens even to some sites with a relatively strong amount of protection. It seems to depend in part on the strength of desire of those who wish to bring in.
<snip>
I can not recall once I've heard of a case like this.
Usually when evil-doers go "phising" it is via e-mails requesting peope to go to some obscure link to their controlled site to "verify" creditcard, not by defacing a webshop and hijacking traffic that way. I'd be very, personal as well as professiona,l interested if you have some online sources pointing to these issue as it is something I work with each day, and would like to know how it is "over there".
fable wrote:
Nah, it's my regular interview and working contacts with heads of corporations, biometrics and security firms, and business analysts. They're the ones who are spouting sensationalist, generalized comments about these problems; people like the former Chairman of the International Biometrics Industries Association, the head of the American Securities and Exchange Commission, etc. Real, anarchists, that lot.
After the first dozen or so interviews you conduct, you begin to sense a certain consensus arising. Personally, I make no pretense to great knowledge on the subject, and maintain a skeptical frame of mind at all times. But too many people whom I deal with regularly and whose opinions I respect are mentioning these problems to write them off.
All respect to your "sources", but I also do think they are trying to over-sentionalize the issue, as Vicsun hinted at. Why? - because they sound as the people in charge of organisations others turn to when they think everything is unsafe.
Or perhaps while they have the excutive aspect, they lack the real hands on technological aspect. And while they have access to the reports, perhaps lack the aspect to read them in their prober light.
I referer once more to the compareing of "planes vs. cars as transportation". When a car chrashes it is everyday news, when a plane does it is headlines around the world yet the total amount of people injured are actually vice versa. I certainly read it as you see it this way. When real life people get cheated, it is everyday - but when somebody does it online - it is "front page news" so to speak - hence the chance of over-sentionalize the incident.
And one thing is also to mention the problems and seeing the pitfalls - and another thing is having them happen in the same scope as you seem to indicate. Chances are they are conveying fears, but not reality ... the so called FUD (fear, uncertaincy, doubt).
Online payments is so big a part of peoples lives now - at least in Denmark, and I venture most of IT-Europe, that if there was such huge risks, I'd think simply a proof of concept would slow that down.
Some statistics:
In 2005, the average british Internet user purchased 12 items for a value of €1285, whereas the danish average internet user purchased 9 for a value of €1078, and downwards for other european countries.
eiaa
And in Denmark, the amount of transactions with our national credit card doubled from 2003 to 2005.
With total online transaction (in reference to buying from online retailers) reaching a value of over DKK 1 billion, but with total online sales (where payment is different then online credit card transactions, either wire, payment in cash/delivery etc) total about DKK 7 billion, also in 2005 - sorry, but I only have danish sources to this (currently).
And yet, I hear of very few cases where what you/your sources indicate actually happen.
I thus simply can not recognize the view you express, so unless the US is some sort of lawless country online (wild wild west) of the "western world" where it is the rule of the strongest with Jesse-James gangs ride around plundering at will, then I'll simply write it off as FUD. I work with this and try to keep up with the news, the technologies and pitfalls - and while I do occasionally hear of (large) companies having some of their data compromised, the amount of transactions with creditcard I have read/heard about being compromised - given the customer wasn't blatantly ignorant and did something stupid - are next to none, and smaller then real life abuse of cards as already explained (either stolen physical cards, compromised card details or reading of magnetic strips).
As I'm not sure what you're referring to, I guess I'll just continue to live in a bliss of mindful ignorance. And wave my privates in your aunties' faces.
Well, if I should venture a guess - I'd think it is amongst other your usage of "identity thieves".