BT.com blats small privacy bug, ignores GAPING HOLE

Allow anyone to hike your bill? Yes, that's what we call customer convenience


BT has squashed a mild website privacy bug reported by a Reg reader - but the telco has refused to address a related issue that allows anyone to add paid-for features to any BT landline.

The latter problem, described by the telco as a "customer convenience", can be exploited using just a property's postcode and phone number to cause mischief and inconvenience.

However, the other flaw, which revealed the full name of the landline account holder, has been fixed.

The Reg reader who raised the alarm, himself a BT customer, wanted to upgrade his landline account using the "Phone & Calling Plan" packages section of BT's website. After clicking on "start your order" the website allowed him to add paid-for options, such as unlimited calls, to his phone account with just the telephone number and postcode of his home.

At the end of the process the website shows a button for punters to press to create an account with bt.com to view online bills. Our man said: "When I clicked on that button it pre-filled the form with the full name of the primary account holder."

Neither of these processes disclosed payment information.

But our reader argued that the process has insufficient security, and that the account number should be requested when adding extra paid-for services to an account. He was even more concerned about the display of an account holder's name on the sign-up form for online bills, which he argued may be in breach of the UK's Data Protection Act.

"You should not be able to order additional paid-for services with publicly available information," said the customer, who wished to remain anonymous. "The phone number and postcode of a property are freely given out on letterheads, websites and all sorts.

"One could easily make a nuisance of oneself ordering extra services for someone and BT would be happy to comply with those requests, it seems. They should ask for the BT account number as well at the very least, since that is not something that people give out."

In response, BT conceded that displaying the name of the account holder was a mistake and agreed to change its process to not show it. However the telco giant argued that knowing the phone number and postcode of a property was enough security when it came to adding paid-for options to an account:

Different levels of security apply to different products. Where judged as appropriate, for the purpose of customer convenience we do allow a limited number of services to be ordered online using the phone number and postcode.

It should not have been possible to view the name of the account holder by entering just the phone number and postcode. Thank you very much for bringing this to our attention, we have taken the appropriate action to close this issue.

®

Similar topics


Other stories you might like

  • Prisons transcribe private phone calls with inmates using speech-to-text AI

    Plus: A drug designed by machine learning algorithms to treat liver disease reaches human clinical trials and more

    In brief Prisons around the US are installing AI speech-to-text models to automatically transcribe conversations with inmates during their phone calls.

    A series of contracts and emails from eight different states revealed how Verus, an AI application developed by LEO Technologies and based on a speech-to-text system offered by Amazon, was used to eavesdrop on prisoners’ phone calls.

    In a sales pitch, LEO’s CEO James Sexton told officials working for a jail in Cook County, Illinois, that one of its customers in Calhoun County, Alabama, uses the software to protect prisons from getting sued, according to an investigation by the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

    Continue reading
  • Battlefield 2042: Please don't be the death knell of the franchise, please don't be the death knell of the franchise

    Another terrible launch, but DICE is already working on improvements

    The RPG Greetings, traveller, and welcome back to The Register Plays Games, our monthly gaming column. Since the last edition on New World, we hit level cap and the "endgame". Around this time, item duping exploits became rife and every attempt Amazon Games made to fix it just broke something else. The post-level 60 "watermark" system for gear drops is also infuriating and tedious, but not something we were able to address in the column. So bear these things in mind if you were ever tempted. On that note, it's time to look at another newly released shit show – Battlefield 2042.

    I wanted to love Battlefield 2042, I really did. After the bum note of the first-person shooter (FPS) franchise's return to Second World War theatres with Battlefield V (2018), I stupidly assumed the next entry from EA-owned Swedish developer DICE would be a return to form. I was wrong.

    The multiplayer military FPS market is dominated by two forces: Activision's Call of Duty (COD) series and EA's Battlefield. Fans of each franchise are loyal to the point of zealotry with little crossover between player bases. Here's where I stand: COD jumped the shark with Modern Warfare 2 in 2009. It's flip-flopped from WW2 to present-day combat and back again, tried sci-fi, and even the Battle Royale trend with the free-to-play Call of Duty: Warzone (2020), which has been thoroughly ruined by hackers and developer inaction.

    Continue reading
  • American diplomats' iPhones reportedly compromised by NSO Group intrusion software

    Reuters claims nine State Department employees outside the US had their devices hacked

    The Apple iPhones of at least nine US State Department officials were compromised by an unidentified entity using NSO Group's Pegasus spyware, according to a report published Friday by Reuters.

    NSO Group in an email to The Register said it has blocked an unnamed customers' access to its system upon receiving an inquiry about the incident but has yet to confirm whether its software was involved.

    "Once the inquiry was received, and before any investigation under our compliance policy, we have decided to immediately terminate relevant customers’ access to the system, due to the severity of the allegations," an NSO spokesperson told The Register in an email. "To this point, we haven’t received any information nor the phone numbers, nor any indication that NSO’s tools were used in this case."

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021