Talk:Personal identification number

message: In 2002 two PhD students at Cambridge University, Piotr Zielinski and Mike Bond, discovered a security flaw in the PIN generation system of the IBM 3624, which was duplicated in most later hardware. This has meant most ATM's are vulnerable to an attack known as the decimalization table attack which means that someone who can access ATM hardware can guess a PIN in an average of 15 guesses.
I've removed the above from the article, because it is somewhat misleading. For one thing, the proportion of the article taken up with it lends it undue weight, when it is actually of very little interest to anyone other than a bank manager. The exploit described is not in fact in ATM hardware, but in internal bank computing systems - a bank employee would probably have to have passed security screenings before they could access the systems on which the attack is possible. Nonetheless, it may bear insertion somewhere, and for reference, here's the research paper as a PDF  - IMSoP 05:27, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Rereading it, I agree that the location of the explot should be more clearly stated, but I think you're underestimating how important it is. See http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mkb23/media-coverage.html also Ross Anderson believes some of Bond's attacks have been used in practice.--Imran 14:03, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  PIN Hack 

message: It would be nice to add whether PIN should be pronounced P-I-N or PIN as in sPINning for foreign readers such as me :) Thanks, Swalot 11:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request: Pronunciation of PIN 

message: How are PIN's better than passwords? they are only 4 numbers and have fewer combinations than alphanumeric passwords. This has been removed from the article. 165.230.46.153 20:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Is the hoax tag because the page mentions the PIN security hoax (the belief that if you enter your PIN wrongly you can send a request for help if you're mugged in the ATM cubicle)? The article does label that section 'hoax'. Perhaps a little explanation of why such a system would be impossible and a stronger denial of its existence would clarify the section?  Rimi talk 06:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no reason for the hox tag that I can see. Talking about a hoax doesn't make the article a hoax. The existence of the software isn't a hoax - I've added an additional link to the article about it, just to clarify, although there were two already. CiaranG 08:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  hoax tag? 

message: 2019  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.207.88.169 (talk) 10:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  PIN CODE  

message: How do we get 0.06% chance of guessing a 4-digit random PIN after three attempts?  I calculate the probabilty as 1 - ((9,999 / 10 000) * (9,998 / 9,999) * (9,997 / 9,998)) = 0.0003.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.155.25 (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The preceding sentence ("some banks do not give out numbers where all digits are identical ... or consecutive ... or numbers that start with one or more zeroes") implies that the calculations are based on less than 104 possible PINs. (Note: I haven't actually done the calculations.) However the next sentence says "if all PINs are equally likely", implying (to me at least) "all PINs including all digits identical etc".  I suggest that the paragraph (especially "all PINs are equally likely") needs rewording to clarify. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The mathmatic formula is sound on the first comment, not to mention if you drop the possibility of all repeating digit PINs (i.e. 8888) there are 10 less numbers to choose from AND if you continue on to eliminate the possibility of PINs that start with 0 then you have reduced the TOTAL number of possible PINs by 1009, if you take away PINs that are consecutive in addition to the previous math it takes away another 6 potential PINs thus vastly increasing your chances of guessing correctly in 3 tries. I calculate the probabilty as 1 - ((8,984 / 8,985) * (8,983 / 8,984) * (8,982 / 8,983)) which, though I don't have a calculator in front of me, I can tell you is a heck of a lot different than the odds presented in the article. WesUGAdawg (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have put Citation needed tag on the 0.06% claim. This page http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Personal+Identification+Number quotes the same number but I suspect they got it from  this article. FrankSier (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Probability question 

message: hi  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.253.122.115 (talk) 04:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  1512034 

message: Many services and websites started off using PIN as "Personal Identification Number".   However, over time they have evolved the usage to extend to non-numberic values as well.  So PIN is not necessarily and anachronism anymore.   One example that comes to mind that I use every day is my RSA token.  I have a "PIN" assigned to that, but the "PIN" is not numeric.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docbillnet (talk • contribs) 14:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you provide some references for this use of "PIN" for non-numeric password? If so, we can update the article to mention the semantic change of the "word". Mitch Ames (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  PIN's are not necessarily numeric anymore 

message: the article says the following: "Throughout Europe and Canada the traditional in-store credit card signing process is increasingly being replaced with a system in which the customer is asked to enter their PIN instead of signing" I've had a debet card since 1998 and have never not used my PIN. I do remember(as a child) my mother signing something in the 80's but here (Denmark) the replacement is long over, and i'm wondering if it's the same case anywhere else.94.145.236.194 (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  outdates info? 

message: We now have several US suppliers demanding the "ATM PIN", ie the card PIN, for internet transactions.  Presumably, this enables them to avoid the Card-Not-Present transaction fees. I haven't seen any documentation about this. 
The Web is full of old documention saying that the PIN will not be required for Card-Not-Present transactions, and our (AUS) banks don't know anything about it either. 
Any further information would be welcome.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.162.148 (talk) 03:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  card-not-present 

message: At present the lead states that the usage "PIN number" is erroneous. The link  given for 'erroneously' goes to the article RAS syndrome, and that article itself gives reasons, I think, for not considering the usage to be erroneous. 
The usage is very common (examples: The most common pin numbers: is your bank account vulnerable?,Have only one PIN number? It's YOUR fault if your cash is stolen, ATM PIN Number Reversal hoax email) and could probably be counted as the standard usage, or at least a standard uasge. FrankSier (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. Unlike others like "ATM machine" which are clearly redundant, "PIN number" is not completely redundant. There are other types of pins. 4.238.1.82 (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are many other types of ATM as well - not all of them machines. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "PIN number" erroneous? 

message: I just changed a sentence in the introduction because I thought it was possibly to misinterpret as suggesting that PINs have not been used in the UK or Ireland at all prior to the Chip and PIN campaign. 
The previous text was "In the UK and Ireland this goes under the term 'Chip and PIN', since PINs were introduced at the same time as EMV chips on the cards."
I also added a reference. Stardarks (talk) 16:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update to Intro 

message: I've simplified the 3rd paragraph of the lead, which describes PINs in non-ATM/EFTPOS environments. If it's not described as a PIN, not subject to the formatting requirements of a PIN (4-12 numeric characters), is it really a PIN?
Note that this previous edit:
is not valid. A web site may limit PINs to those that meet ISO 9564. Eg, Qantas frequent flyer PINs are limited to four digits. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  PINs that are not PINs 

message: This edit says that PINs are used in card not present transactions, but that is definitely not the case in Australia, where there are as many as four independent authentication codes:
* the ATM/EFTPOS PIN
* the card security code, visibly printed on the card, used for telephone or internet credit card transactions
* the telephone banking code, numeric-only for entry on a touch tone phone, typically quite short (eg 3 digits with Westpac)
* the online banking password
The last two typically allow account enquiries and transfers between customer's own bank accounts and BPAY bill payment, possibly payments to other peoples' bank accounts, but not general purchases.
The Australian banks make a point of using different terms for each, and not using "PIN" to refer to anything other than the ATM/EFTPOS PIN.
Perhaps is other countries, the ATM/EFTPOS PIN is used for internet/phone transactions/banking, but if that is the case:
* The article needs to explicitly mention that different countries have different rules
* References should be provided.
(This matter was raised a couple of years ago in #card-not-present, but there was no follow-up.) Mitch Ames (talk) 02:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Card not present, 2014-06 

message: Plz help me revondaprice22@gmail.com 165.166.100.78 (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  My phone broke I don't have it anymore I don't have access to my Gmail phone number or my cash app I have locked my card cause I didn't want anything taking off it with out it being me that was doing it how do I get in to my card I. Have a new account card same name just new account and gmail 

message: Olvide mi contraseña 64.127.156.125 (talk) 11:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facebook 

message: Olvide mi contraseña 64.127.156.125 (talk) 11:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Olvide mi contraseña 64.127.156.125 (talk) 11:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daniel zapata