The answer to your question, IMO, is yes and no.
Post# of 82686
(Total Views: 158)
Posted On: 10/24/2017 8:46:32 AM
The answer to your question, IMO, is yes and no.
SFOR's patent is so powerful because of the security computer that goes out of band.
Before out of band there was inband in which the host computer would send and receive the verification (text, phone call, beeper passcode, etc.)
This is directly from SFOR's patent:
"Obviously, as an access control system is the first line of defense, it is important that the selection thereof be well-suited to the application. In access control systems there is a broad dichotomy between user authentication and host authentication systems. In current practice, the most common user authentication systems include simple password systems, random password systems, and biometric systems. The simple password systems are ubiquitous in our society with every credit card transaction using a pin identification number, every automatic teller machine inquiry looking toward a password for access, and even telephone answering messages using simple password systems for control."
Then further down the patent continues to say the following:
"Typically, access-control security products, as described above, are in-band authentication systems with the data and the authentication information on the same network. Thus, upon accessing a computer, a computer prompt requests that you enter your password and, upon clearance, access is granted. In this example, all information exchanged is on the same network or in-band. The technical problem created thereby is that the hacker is in a self-authenticating environment.
Except for callback systems, the above access control products authenticate only the user and not the location. When computer networks could only be accessed by modems, the authentication of location by dialing back the access-requesting computer, provided a modicum of security. Now, as virtually all computer networks are accessible by modem-independent internet connection, location authentication by callback is no longer secure. The lack of security arises as there is no necessary connection between the internet address and a location, and, in fact, an internet address most often changes from connection to connection. Thus, callback systems are rendered useless against attacks originating from the internet."
So, I recommend all invested or considering investing in SFOR to read atleast the first 10-20 paragraphs on the left side of the patent. This is where SFOR calls out the inband systems using all the current forms of tech. (fingerprint, passwords, etc). SFOR' s COBAS system is true OOBA. It uses a Centralized Authentication Computer (System).
It's in their name. Centralized Out of Band Authentication System. SFOR has the most secure authentication system on the market. IMO.
By now, it is my opinion that most institutions are or are in the process of adapting to an OOBA system.
Hope this helps.
Please verify.
IMO
SFOR's patent is so powerful because of the security computer that goes out of band.
Before out of band there was inband in which the host computer would send and receive the verification (text, phone call, beeper passcode, etc.)
This is directly from SFOR's patent:
"Obviously, as an access control system is the first line of defense, it is important that the selection thereof be well-suited to the application. In access control systems there is a broad dichotomy between user authentication and host authentication systems. In current practice, the most common user authentication systems include simple password systems, random password systems, and biometric systems. The simple password systems are ubiquitous in our society with every credit card transaction using a pin identification number, every automatic teller machine inquiry looking toward a password for access, and even telephone answering messages using simple password systems for control."
Then further down the patent continues to say the following:
"Typically, access-control security products, as described above, are in-band authentication systems with the data and the authentication information on the same network. Thus, upon accessing a computer, a computer prompt requests that you enter your password and, upon clearance, access is granted. In this example, all information exchanged is on the same network or in-band. The technical problem created thereby is that the hacker is in a self-authenticating environment.
Except for callback systems, the above access control products authenticate only the user and not the location. When computer networks could only be accessed by modems, the authentication of location by dialing back the access-requesting computer, provided a modicum of security. Now, as virtually all computer networks are accessible by modem-independent internet connection, location authentication by callback is no longer secure. The lack of security arises as there is no necessary connection between the internet address and a location, and, in fact, an internet address most often changes from connection to connection. Thus, callback systems are rendered useless against attacks originating from the internet."
So, I recommend all invested or considering investing in SFOR to read atleast the first 10-20 paragraphs on the left side of the patent. This is where SFOR calls out the inband systems using all the current forms of tech. (fingerprint, passwords, etc). SFOR' s COBAS system is true OOBA. It uses a Centralized Authentication Computer (System).
It's in their name. Centralized Out of Band Authentication System. SFOR has the most secure authentication system on the market. IMO.
By now, it is my opinion that most institutions are or are in the process of adapting to an OOBA system.
Hope this helps.
Please verify.
IMO
(1)
(0)