I like that in the middle of that, a wild "block-chain" appeared. Congrats to whichever consulting company managed to sell that bullshit to the government.
> You would likely believe it, given the sender ID, wouldn’t you?
No. I absolutely don't believe anyone unknown calling me, no matter who he claims to be, or what the CLIP says, unless I can call back to a public number of the institution he claims to represent. CLIP just isn't secure.
I choose to risk believing for non-essential things, because security is just not convenient. But banks, government, anything where there's well reported fraud going on regularly,... no way.
Calling back is also good, because outgoing calls are automatically recorded by my operator and sent to my email, so if I'm to enter into any agreement, it's better to do it on an outgoing call.
> Essentially, anyone can’t send arbitrary messages using the above-mentioned loophole anymore. TRAI’s new system fixed that loophole.
> One can still send any message that fits in the template. But this largely restricts the possibilities of scams and misuse.
Seems to be fixed and that it was fixed during the time he did _nothing_ and just waited. Perhaps there was a responsible disclosure but he didn't said how he did it.
He should use this to tell everybody in India to stay hime, wear masks and stop going to mass worship ceremonies that are causing this devastating covid spike.
bellyfullofbac|4 years ago
the-dude|4 years ago
pfortuny|4 years ago
megous|4 years ago
No. I absolutely don't believe anyone unknown calling me, no matter who he claims to be, or what the CLIP says, unless I can call back to a public number of the institution he claims to represent. CLIP just isn't secure.
I choose to risk believing for non-essential things, because security is just not convenient. But banks, government, anything where there's well reported fraud going on regularly,... no way.
Calling back is also good, because outgoing calls are automatically recorded by my operator and sent to my email, so if I'm to enter into any agreement, it's better to do it on an outgoing call.
eta-meson|4 years ago
woliveirajr|4 years ago
Seems to be fixed and that it was fixed during the time he did _nothing_ and just waited. Perhaps there was a responsible disclosure but he didn't said how he did it.
canadianfella|4 years ago
fareesh|4 years ago
tinus_hn|4 years ago
yeshok|4 years ago
Aeolun|4 years ago
jeswin|4 years ago
mschuster91|4 years ago
That would have prevented the author just randomly stumbling on the credentials.
garaetjjte|4 years ago
No, it's not. Caller ID is not authenticated and shouldn't be depended for anything sensitive.
jaytaylor|4 years ago
swiley|4 years ago
asaddhamani|4 years ago
privacyking|4 years ago
zenexer|4 years ago
unknown|4 years ago
[deleted]
williesleg|4 years ago
[deleted]
belatw|4 years ago
pWFk41mFfie1NOd|4 years ago
[deleted]
BiteCode_dev|4 years ago
2Gkashmiri|4 years ago