• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Finance worker pays out $25 million after video call with deepfake CFO"

Collapse

  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by hobnob View Post

    I agree with having a process in place so that the directors need to log in and authorise the big transaction. And at that point you might as well enable MFA. However, MFA itself wasn't the issue here, i.e. it was a spoken conversation where the big boss said "do it" and the minion said "Yes sir".

    I wonder whether this will affect discussions about people working in the office vs working from home. I.e. if someone is standing in front of you (after swiping their pass to get into the building) then you can be pretty confident that they're the real deal, whereas you don't know who's on the other end of a Teams meeting.
    You know its going to be the minion's fault. Until the insurance is invalid then stuff all will change.

    Leave a comment:


  • hobnob
    replied
    Originally posted by vetran View Post
    Back when we used cheques you needed 2 directors to co sign for over £10k. Seems reasonable for over a million to ask for 2+ directors to verify via MFA.
    I agree with having a process in place so that the directors need to log in and authorise the big transaction. And at that point you might as well enable MFA. However, MFA itself wasn't the issue here, i.e. it was a spoken conversation where the big boss said "do it" and the minion said "Yes sir".

    I wonder whether this will affect discussions about people working in the office vs working from home. I.e. if someone is standing in front of you (after swiping their pass to get into the building) then you can be pretty confident that they're the real deal, whereas you don't know who's on the other end of a Teams meeting.

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by vetran View Post

    Back when we used cheques you needed 2 directors to co sign for over £10k. Seems reasonable for over a million to ask for 2+ directors to verify via MFA.
    This is actually very easy to use.
    https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/secu...henticator-app

    Leave a comment:


  • ladymuck
    replied
    Originally posted by hobnob View Post

    You could have a password to prove that this person isn't an imposter, but people aren't good at remembering passwords. Or you could have a "tell me something that only the real Fred would know" conversation.
    This is something I've seen suggested a lot recently - have a word or phrase agreed within the family that proves it's you.

    It doesn't work very well if you've got elderly parents with memory issues, of course.

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by hobnob View Post

    In this case, I don't see how that would help. The person who transferred the money didn't have their credentials stolen (e.g. nobody guessed their password). If the system had prompted them for MFA, they would have typed in the code from their app, because they thought that the transfer was legitimate. The problem was that they were tricked by someone impersonating their boss.

    There's a fairly common scam where people get text messages saying "Hi Mum, I've lost my phone, please can you send me some cash." There's a targeted version where the child's voice can be faked (e.g. if they've done podcasts or YouTube videos for the AI to learn from), which would then make it more convincing.

    You could have a password to prove that this person isn't an imposter, but people aren't good at remembering passwords. Or you could have a "tell me something that only the real Fred would know" conversation.
    Back when we used cheques you needed 2 directors to co sign for over £10k. Seems reasonable for over a million to ask for 2+ directors to verify via MFA.

    Leave a comment:


  • hobnob
    replied
    Originally posted by vetran View Post
    20+ years ago I had MFA as standard for remote access. Why not have a similar protection for large transfers. people are stupid.
    In this case, I don't see how that would help. The person who transferred the money didn't have their credentials stolen (e.g. nobody guessed their password). If the system had prompted them for MFA, they would have typed in the code from their app, because they thought that the transfer was legitimate. The problem was that they were tricked by someone impersonating their boss.

    There's a fairly common scam where people get text messages saying "Hi Mum, I've lost my phone, please can you send me some cash." There's a targeted version where the child's voice can be faked (e.g. if they've done podcasts or YouTube videos for the AI to learn from), which would then make it more convincing.

    You could have a password to prove that this person isn't an imposter, but people aren't good at remembering passwords. Or you could have a "tell me something that only the real Fred would know" conversation.

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by SueEllen View Post

    It is surprising when you talk to people how many companies still don't have an authorisation process for transactions.

    They presume that people dipping their hands in the till will do it for small amounts not a few thousand at a time.
    20+ years ago I had MFA as standard for remote access. Why not have a similar protection for large transfers. people are stupid.

    Leave a comment:


  • SueEllen
    replied
    Originally posted by vetran View Post
    You would assume they would have some sort of authorisation process for significant amounts.
    It is surprising when you talk to people how many companies still don't have an authorisation process for transactions.

    They presume that people dipping their hands in the till will do it for small amounts not a few thousand at a time.

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    seems security isn't. You would assume they would have some sort of authorisation process for significant amounts.

    Leave a comment:


  • Finance worker pays out $25 million after video call with deepfake CFO

    Deep fake has improved :-)

    https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/04/a...hnk/index.html

Working...
X