Path: ...!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Frank Slootweg Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android Subject: Re: Codes sent by text message Date: 11 Mar 2024 14:59:33 GMT Organization: NOYB Lines: 33 Message-ID: References: <1uppdwld2qlfe$.dlg@v.nguard.lh> X-Trace: individual.net jrT8ruYvXb/GRxNY6GLOAQL6S9V5o1kIn99ruI5POA9nrIv0Oz X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail Cancel-Lock: sha1:6AweESo5S7G/hPk2a2pHrexr1cE= sha256:HJHmDkJwFZCQhMcFNhcAz2OCAGWo7j/hjrRnvxVom/w= User-Agent: tin/1.6.2-20030910 ("Pabbay") (UNIX) (CYGWIN_NT-10.0-WOW/2.8.0(0.309/5/3) (i686)) Hamster/2.0.2.2 Bytes: 2254 VanguardLH wrote: > "Carlos E.R." wrote: > > > Newyana2 wrote: > > > >> "The Real Bev" wrote > >> > >>> WTF? Why is the google voice number not a REAL phone number? > >> > >> As V said, the simple answer is that they want to spy. > > > > No, that's not it. Not for a bank. > > > > They want to know that you are an actual person with a phone and > > contract. They have to trust the company giving those numbers. > > Well, that *is* tracking to a device. They hope the device belongs to > you, and you're the one in charge of the phone when the call arrives. > Rather a stupid concept: send the code to the same phone that is trying > to log into a web form. Geez, of course the thief or hacker just must > ignore the code sent to that phone for the login they're trying to hack. Huh? Who is saying that the "log into a web form" is done on a *phone*? It's more likely done on a computer and in that case, the scenario involves *two* devices and the thief/hacker must be in possesion of the second device (phone), which he isn't. *If* the "log into a web form" is done on a phone, then it's most likely not a "web form" - i.e. via a web-browser -, but an *app* on the phone and that app will - together with the bank (or other service provider) - provide the needed security (by checking hardware IDs, PIN, fingerprint, etc.).