<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Mobile Industry Review - Latest Comments in Podcast Episode 11</title><link>http://smstextnews.disqus.com/</link><description>Daily news and opinion for 250,000 industry executives and mobile fanatics</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 05:55:12 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Podcast Episode 11</title><link>http://www.smstextnews.com/2008/06/podcast_episode_11.html#comment-796465</link><description>Two 'something you haves' are obviously better than 1 in some scenarios, but in a number of others there's no benefit at all - a thief can steal my phone and token from a hotel just as easily as the phone alone for instance.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;WRT the passcode, M4E enforces a 3 (or is it 5?) attempts then completely wipes the device to prevent brute forcing.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">bensmith</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 05:55:12 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Podcast Episode 11</title><link>http://www.smstextnews.com/2008/06/podcast_episode_11.html#comment-795156</link><description>The hope with the tiered idea was that you would encounter the extra authentication bits less often than you currently do.  I have not run into what you were talking about (luckily, my phone is just for fun at the moment) so my theory may not mesh well into real-world application.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I get the "something you have, something you know" paradigm, but isn't something you have + something else you have more powerful?  Might have to look at what Schneier has to say on that, but it seems like having the phone and having your face/having a fob would be more secure than a passcode that could be guessed, brute forced, etc.  Again, something for real-world experimentation as this is just brainstorming at the moment.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">bogart</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2008 22:41:34 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Podcast Episode 11</title><link>http://www.smstextnews.com/2008/06/podcast_episode_11.html#comment-793934</link><description>Yes - Jay knows his stuff good 'n proper... a privilege to have him on.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Interesting thoughts re: security.  I'm not sure our corporate security types would go for the token approach - they prefer to match 'something you have' and 'something you know'... a token might be one too many 'something you haves'... although it sounds like an option for consumers potentially.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Definitely like the tiered authentication bit - that ties nicely with Nokia's attempt to add dual use personal / business features to the E-series so they could be secured independently... like so much here though I think it would all be in the execution.  Anything more cumbersome would be unwelcome on my devices!</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">bensmith</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2008 19:08:39 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Podcast Episode 11</title><link>http://www.smstextnews.com/2008/06/podcast_episode_11.html#comment-792463</link><description>Great podcast all around, I thought Jay Fenton had some great insight into the Symbian announcement.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Ideas for fingerprint-less security:  The camera could be used to either recognize your face, or you could carry a 2D barcode "fob" on your keychain (or elsewhere) that could be scanned with the camera.  Oh, thought of another: a bluetooth fob that is on your keychain.  All of these sound kind of cumbersome, but that's the brainstorming for now.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;What might be better would be for only certain apps to rrequire this extended security (another signing mechanism) so that, say, Mail 4 Exchange requires it, but you do not need to jump through those hoops just to make a call.  If that were the case, it would be nice to have an area on the file system similarly protected, making the handset a secure file storage device.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">bogart</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2008 16:01:47 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Podcast Episode 11</title><link>http://www.smstextnews.com/2008/06/podcast_episode_11.html#comment-785102</link><description>good podcast guys! Agree with all your comments about Blyk, just waiting for a decent operator to come out with a similar model that works! :)</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">rickyc</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:15:16 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>