Also on AOL
- Autos
- Technology
- Lifestyle
- Gaming
- Finance
- Entertainment on AOL
- Lifestyle on AOL
- Sports on AOL
- Travel on AOL
- More on AOL
Featured Galleries
Joystiq
© 2013 AOL Inc. All rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks | AOL A-Z HELP | About Our Ads

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
8-05-2008 @ 4:06PM
Thorn said...
Yeah, people keep talking about the weaknesses of the number generation methods and whatnot, but as Belfaire said, whoever changed the password had access to the physical key at some point, because they gave the serial number printed on it. That's the key piece here, and it pretty much frees up any blame on Blizzard's end.
So the issue in this case is "how did that number/device get into someone else's hands", not "is the device secure". Maybe someone intercepted the package, maybe a friend did all of this... who knows?
This is WI missing the story yet again. Or actually, ignoring the story, and trying to sensationalize things by refusing to see that it's their source's fault.
Reply
8-05-2008 @ 7:11PM
StarGryphon said...
Exactly - The point that was not mentioned in the original post was the serial number of the authenticator was requested at the time of the 'compromise' and it was supplied.
The issue here is not a failure of the authenticator or a failure in Customer Service. The person who accessed the account either had physical control of the authenticator at sometime and had knowledge of the account information or the system was key-logged prior to the authenticator being activated to the account.
Overall the post really missed the point of the official forum post - really disappointing a lot of uncertainty could have been laid to rest with a better representation of that post.