Talk:Transaction authentication number

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

One-time password?[edit]

Isn't this basically a form of one-time passwords? Shouldn't this be described in both articles? --ZeroOne 12:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conceptual errors and Sensacionalist views[edit]

First, 'hackers'.. Should Wikipedia tolerate both uses of the term? Personally, I think it is important to distinguish and start working against the widespread misuse of the term.

Isn't the TAN method secure? Well, there is no 'secure' system! There is the probability of a system becoming compromised, that is it. And indeed, in respect to the simple password method, the TAN does decrease this probability.

A trojan that 'intercepts' https? If interception means to encounter while en-route, the sentence is misleading. Indeed, the trojan on discussion taps directly at the source - this has nothing to do with https.

Well, there's still some work to do. The article is quite stub-like, and needs some sectioning to distribute the emphasis properly. I would also like to see some info on how secure the TAN generating algorithm is, etc. Rdrs 20:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Recent research"[edit]

The article says "Recent research has shown that slightly over half of all identity theft is committed by an insider"

What research is this? What source is it from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.124.16.14 (talk • contribs) 4 December 2006

Hear, hear! In a newspaper, “recent” is vague. In Wp articles it is (at its best) a lie that has not yet tested its wings.
—2601:199:C201:FD70:9D54:C6D5:8FA6:26FD (talk) (ex-User:Jerzy, ex-User:JerzyA), 14:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

re: `Hacking`[edit]

re: `Hacking`. Linguistic democracy has voted as hacking to mean black hat/cracking. Better response would be to change use of tech society word from Hacker meaning non negative to Coder or something else. Sorry, getting off-topic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.47.244 (talk) 12:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TAN-Generator section should be updated[edit]

At least in some countries TAN-generators meanwhile use starting codes or optical flickering codes transmitted during the transaction process. Furthermore these TANs are bound to a specific amount of money and the receiving account cannot be manipulated (the generator shows the sum and the account). In some eurpean countries the bank use the TAN-generating abilities of the EMV-chip on debit cards (you have to have access to the card to generate a TAN). I suppose this change is significant considering the risks of TAN-phishing. 87.182.236.217 (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is now described in the article, in the section on ChipTAN.Sebastian (talk) 07:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

“(indexed as TAN)”[edit]

I removed that cryptic appositive phrase from the Dab page Itan, while preserving the link to the article accompanying this talk page.
Dab pages must needs be concise, and (not surprisingly) unambiguous. I’ve no expectation that my version will be the final word on the subject, but what was there was totally unacceptable; only an *improvement* upon what I have left there will be acceptable, as a replacement for my presumably underinformed version.
—2601:199:C201:FD70:9D54:C6D5:8FA6:26FD (talk) (ex-User:Jerzy, ex-User:JerzyA), 14:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]