Hi, Am 02. April schrieb Sholes, Joshua: > And how fast would those ATM manufacturers switch to a Linux or other > offering if, say, Bank of America said "We won't buy an ATM with an easily > skimmable reader or with an insecure OS on it?" I agree. But it's not _one_ bank that has to say, it's more of them. Because they would have to pay more for the "secure" ATM (development, testing anyone?) and they have to wait a bit. That's completely doable. But: In the end it's the bank's customer who has to pay for it. And if BoA charges him higher interest rates on his loan, what's he gonna do? He just wants a simple device (like in: card in -> money out) and he simply doesn't care about the OS. > Diebold, for example, has a market cap of less than $3B. BoA is sitting > around $182B. With that much leverage, the big banks have NO excuse to > just accept whatever crap the vendors shovel out the door. Again, I fully agree. But as long as the customer doesn't care (he gets his money back in case of fraud, right?) the banks won't care, too. We won't see banks turn until the financial damages grow beyond the costs for security. Like anywhere else in IT-security. Yours sincerely Stefan -- make -it ./work GnuPG-Key: 742ADF27 <stefan@xxxxxxxxxxx> Fingerprint: 037F 17FC CF4B C1E0 598D 97B1 C2CE 7963 742A DF27
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Sent through the Full Disclosure mailing list http://nmap.org/mailman/listinfo/fulldisclosure Web Archives & RSS: http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/