Why making a call-centre worker say “poopsy-poo” will strengthen your security » The Privacy Surgeon # HT @owenblacker

Having become heartily sick of arguing the toss over who should provide information first I discussed the dilemma with a helpful call centre manager and we figured a solution.

It turns out that nearly all call centre systems have a “special instructions” field that allows operators to add useful comments about calling times, payment instructions or special customer requirements. Into this field we placed a word. I must say it’s the most hilariously camp and silly word ever to grace an otherwise tedious financial management system, but it is memorable and unique. Now whenever I’m called by T-Mobile I demand that they read out the word before they get any information from me. The mutuality works for both of us, and we all get a giggle.

via Why making a call-centre worker say “poopsy-poo” will strengthen your security » The Privacy Surgeon.

Comments

4 responses to “Why making a call-centre worker say “poopsy-poo” will strengthen your security » The Privacy Surgeon # HT @owenblacker”

  1. Dave Walker

    I’m happy enough to do telephone banking (but not Internet banking), and recognised a hole like this, a few years back. My bank has a big numeric authentication string that they use to authenticate customers, when either party calls the other; the authentication procedure involves a challenge-response where the customer is required to supply two digits from the string, at positions in the string chosen apparently-randomly by the bank.

    This works just fine, if I ring the bank. However, on the rare occasions when the bank rings me, it doesn’t (or, rather, it didn’t); I’d explain carefully that while they had a mechanism to identify who I was, the converse wasn’t true, and therefore I’d ring them right back on the number I had for them.

    Eventually, we got to the point where someone on their security team needed to talk to me (there was a suspicious-looking transaction on one of my cards, which happened in the end to be genuine), and we had a chat about this. We agreed that the big string was a bona fide shared secret, and that it was entirely reasonable for me to require authentication from them, when they called me rather than vice versa – so now it’s all set up such that I can ask them for two digits, by position, and expect correct validating answers. (We actually use a second big numeric string, for reasons which are obvious when you think about it.)

    It’s not as entertaining as “poopsy-poo”, but it works :-).

  2. Humorous passwords^Wphrases can catch the unsuspecting shoulder surfer too, okay it’s only worked twice but that is better than nothing.

  3. Robbie Mackay

    “so now it’s all set up such that I can ask them for two digits, by position, and expect correct validating answers.” .. I’m fairly impressed that a bank could vary their call center procedure enough for that to work..

  4. Brad

    I thought about this recently as well, when my insurance company called to verify information. I insisted on calling back a known number, and the first person I talked to told me that the call back number I had been given was not legit (it turns out it was).

    I wanted the same solution: I want to ask them the equivalent of “what’s your mother’s maiden name?” (yes, I know, strings of numbers are better, but…).

    I hadn’t thought to ask them to put it in the notes field. I’ll try that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *