<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_09_0424230</id>
	<title>Blizzard Authenticators May Become Mandatory</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1263025620000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"WoW.com is reporting that a trusted source has informed them that Blizzard is giving serious consideration to <a href="http://www.wow.com/2010/01/08/blizzard-giving-serious-consideration-to-mandatory-authenticator/">making authenticators mandatory on all <em>World of Warcraft</em> accounts</a>. The authenticators function the same as ones provided by most banks &mdash; in order to log in, you must generate a number on the external device. Blizzard already provides a free iPhone app that functions as an authenticator. The source stated, 'it is a virtually forgone conclusion that it will happen.' This comes after large spates of compromised accounts left Bizzard game masters severely backlogged by restoration requests."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " WoW.com is reporting that a trusted source has informed them that Blizzard is giving serious consideration to making authenticators mandatory on all World of Warcraft accounts .
The authenticators function the same as ones provided by most banks    in order to log in , you must generate a number on the external device .
Blizzard already provides a free iPhone app that functions as an authenticator .
The source stated , 'it is a virtually forgone conclusion that it will happen .
' This comes after large spates of compromised accounts left Bizzard game masters severely backlogged by restoration requests .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "WoW.com is reporting that a trusted source has informed them that Blizzard is giving serious consideration to making authenticators mandatory on all World of Warcraft accounts.
The authenticators function the same as ones provided by most banks — in order to log in, you must generate a number on the external device.
Blizzard already provides a free iPhone app that functions as an authenticator.
The source stated, 'it is a virtually forgone conclusion that it will happen.
' This comes after large spates of compromised accounts left Bizzard game masters severely backlogged by restoration requests.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30708260</id>
	<title>If you can install a keylogger, you've already won</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263062640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I'm not sure that adding the authenticator will fix the problem of hacked accounts, it will just put things off until the thieves come up with a new system to break in.
</p><p>
If they can install a keylogger on your computer it should be easy enough for them to install a fake WoW login app.  Put up the login screen, pass the username, password, and authenticator value to themselves, and give the hacked user a login error, realm is down error, or some such.  Take the information and login to the account in the minute or so before the authenticator value expires.
</p><p>
Once the thief is in, it only takes a few minutes to sell gear and mail the gold.  Login and realm servers being down occurs frequently enough that most players wouldn't suspect anything was going on if they're locked out for 30 minutes, which is more than enough time to for the thief to wipe out an account.
</p><p>
This is not a new idea, but one that has been floating around for quite some time as a method to access bank accounts, etc. which require some sort of authentication token.
</p><p>
BTW, if you put an authenticator on your WoW account you get a nice in game pet.  If you remove the authenticator from your account, Blizzard removes the pet from your characters.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure that adding the authenticator will fix the problem of hacked accounts , it will just put things off until the thieves come up with a new system to break in .
If they can install a keylogger on your computer it should be easy enough for them to install a fake WoW login app .
Put up the login screen , pass the username , password , and authenticator value to themselves , and give the hacked user a login error , realm is down error , or some such .
Take the information and login to the account in the minute or so before the authenticator value expires .
Once the thief is in , it only takes a few minutes to sell gear and mail the gold .
Login and realm servers being down occurs frequently enough that most players would n't suspect anything was going on if they 're locked out for 30 minutes , which is more than enough time to for the thief to wipe out an account .
This is not a new idea , but one that has been floating around for quite some time as a method to access bank accounts , etc .
which require some sort of authentication token .
BTW , if you put an authenticator on your WoW account you get a nice in game pet .
If you remove the authenticator from your account , Blizzard removes the pet from your characters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I'm not sure that adding the authenticator will fix the problem of hacked accounts, it will just put things off until the thieves come up with a new system to break in.
If they can install a keylogger on your computer it should be easy enough for them to install a fake WoW login app.
Put up the login screen, pass the username, password, and authenticator value to themselves, and give the hacked user a login error, realm is down error, or some such.
Take the information and login to the account in the minute or so before the authenticator value expires.
Once the thief is in, it only takes a few minutes to sell gear and mail the gold.
Login and realm servers being down occurs frequently enough that most players wouldn't suspect anything was going on if they're locked out for 30 minutes, which is more than enough time to for the thief to wipe out an account.
This is not a new idea, but one that has been floating around for quite some time as a method to access bank accounts, etc.
which require some sort of authentication token.
BTW, if you put an authenticator on your WoW account you get a nice in game pet.
If you remove the authenticator from your account, Blizzard removes the pet from your characters.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30708472</id>
	<title>more expenses</title>
	<author>Snaller</author>
	<datestamp>1263064380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They still cost money - and the users have to pay the money of course, blizzard is not going to eat this.</p><p>So we are all being punished by the idiots children who can't figure out how to protect their account</p><p>(touch wood!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They still cost money - and the users have to pay the money of course , blizzard is not going to eat this.So we are all being punished by the idiots children who ca n't figure out how to protect their account ( touch wood !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They still cost money - and the users have to pay the money of course, blizzard is not going to eat this.So we are all being punished by the idiots children who can't figure out how to protect their account(touch wood!
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30707412</id>
	<title>Lastpass uses free paper printed Grid</title>
	<author>silviuc</author>
	<datestamp>1263054060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lastpass, uses a unique generated grid that one can print on paper. It asks for certain points on that grid identified by column and row as an added security measure. Why the heck Blizz did not think of something like this beats me.

Watch this youtube vid to see how it works

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcgzf1KvZlg" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcgzf1KvZlg</a> [youtube.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lastpass , uses a unique generated grid that one can print on paper .
It asks for certain points on that grid identified by column and row as an added security measure .
Why the heck Blizz did not think of something like this beats me .
Watch this youtube vid to see how it works http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = jcgzf1KvZlg [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lastpass, uses a unique generated grid that one can print on paper.
It asks for certain points on that grid identified by column and row as an added security measure.
Why the heck Blizz did not think of something like this beats me.
Watch this youtube vid to see how it works

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcgzf1KvZlg [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30709314</id>
	<title>I think it's great</title>
	<author>pclminion</author>
	<datestamp>1263028200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really don't know why so many have a problem with this. If we can start getting people used to using two-factor authentication in a popular online game, maybe it will be easier to convince them to use it for banking or other personal security reasons. The inconvenience is not that much in comparison to the security you get.</p><p>The people worried that it will create a killer culture where people are being assassinated left and right to get their personal authenticators is just total paranoia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really do n't know why so many have a problem with this .
If we can start getting people used to using two-factor authentication in a popular online game , maybe it will be easier to convince them to use it for banking or other personal security reasons .
The inconvenience is not that much in comparison to the security you get.The people worried that it will create a killer culture where people are being assassinated left and right to get their personal authenticators is just total paranoia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really don't know why so many have a problem with this.
If we can start getting people used to using two-factor authentication in a popular online game, maybe it will be easier to convince them to use it for banking or other personal security reasons.
The inconvenience is not that much in comparison to the security you get.The people worried that it will create a killer culture where people are being assassinated left and right to get their personal authenticators is just total paranoia.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30706886</id>
	<title>crap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263048360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll cancel my account before I pay for an aunthenticator. It's only $6.50, but it's an expense I wouldn't pay if I had an iphone. I don't have that luxury.</p><p>There's other financial motivation for the authenticator as well. With the authenticator, pretty much nobody else can use the account. No more borrowing accounts, no more selling accounts.</p><p>I see this as more the incentive for the authenticator than peoples' accounts getting "hacked". If you log into a website with your account uid and pwd, have a keylogger installed via your addons, or use your main's name and your uid and pwd, you deserve what you get.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll cancel my account before I pay for an aunthenticator .
It 's only $ 6.50 , but it 's an expense I would n't pay if I had an iphone .
I do n't have that luxury.There 's other financial motivation for the authenticator as well .
With the authenticator , pretty much nobody else can use the account .
No more borrowing accounts , no more selling accounts.I see this as more the incentive for the authenticator than peoples ' accounts getting " hacked " .
If you log into a website with your account uid and pwd , have a keylogger installed via your addons , or use your main 's name and your uid and pwd , you deserve what you get .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll cancel my account before I pay for an aunthenticator.
It's only $6.50, but it's an expense I wouldn't pay if I had an iphone.
I don't have that luxury.There's other financial motivation for the authenticator as well.
With the authenticator, pretty much nobody else can use the account.
No more borrowing accounts, no more selling accounts.I see this as more the incentive for the authenticator than peoples' accounts getting "hacked".
If you log into a website with your account uid and pwd, have a keylogger installed via your addons, or use your main's name and your uid and pwd, you deserve what you get.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30713974</id>
	<title>Re:Bliz</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263130020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Authenticators are not the problem, blizzards password scheme is.<br>You are limited to 8 characters two of which must be numbers and at least one non alpha numeric character that is limited to !@.</p><p>Blizzard could just add a virtual keyboard and make everyone click the letters and characters of their account password.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Authenticators are not the problem , blizzards password scheme is.You are limited to 8 characters two of which must be numbers and at least one non alpha numeric character that is limited to !
@ .Blizzard could just add a virtual keyboard and make everyone click the letters and characters of their account password .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Authenticators are not the problem, blizzards password scheme is.You are limited to 8 characters two of which must be numbers and at least one non alpha numeric character that is limited to !
@.Blizzard could just add a virtual keyboard and make everyone click the letters and characters of their account password.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30712066</id>
	<title>This is a necessary evil.</title>
	<author>Kyokugenryu</author>
	<datestamp>1263052440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have only ever accessed my WoW account from my gaming PC, which has Firefox and a hardware firewall.  I don't share my account info, and I'm a stickler for having strong passwords.  My account was hacked back in November, and everything cleaned out.  The only person who knows my credentials are my best friend, and I'm the only person who knows his credentials.  He uses a Mac and the same stringent security lengths, and he was ALSO hacked just two days ago.  I'm assuming there's a security breach somewhere that Blizzard can't patch up, so this would be a way to fix it.  Way, way too many accounts are being compromised as of late.  Out of our 30 or so constant raiders, well over half have had account security breaches in the last year.  Something's going down at Blizzard, and I for one welcome the mandatory Authenticator.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have only ever accessed my WoW account from my gaming PC , which has Firefox and a hardware firewall .
I do n't share my account info , and I 'm a stickler for having strong passwords .
My account was hacked back in November , and everything cleaned out .
The only person who knows my credentials are my best friend , and I 'm the only person who knows his credentials .
He uses a Mac and the same stringent security lengths , and he was ALSO hacked just two days ago .
I 'm assuming there 's a security breach somewhere that Blizzard ca n't patch up , so this would be a way to fix it .
Way , way too many accounts are being compromised as of late .
Out of our 30 or so constant raiders , well over half have had account security breaches in the last year .
Something 's going down at Blizzard , and I for one welcome the mandatory Authenticator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have only ever accessed my WoW account from my gaming PC, which has Firefox and a hardware firewall.
I don't share my account info, and I'm a stickler for having strong passwords.
My account was hacked back in November, and everything cleaned out.
The only person who knows my credentials are my best friend, and I'm the only person who knows his credentials.
He uses a Mac and the same stringent security lengths, and he was ALSO hacked just two days ago.
I'm assuming there's a security breach somewhere that Blizzard can't patch up, so this would be a way to fix it.
Way, way too many accounts are being compromised as of late.
Out of our 30 or so constant raiders, well over half have had account security breaches in the last year.
Something's going down at Blizzard, and I for one welcome the mandatory Authenticator.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30709278</id>
	<title>Finally</title>
	<author>kronchev</author>
	<datestamp>1263027960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They were already mandatory to anyone with more than 3 brain cells. No matter how careful you are, the chances of you logging in on a compromised machine are just too great. An authenticator removes absolutely any chance of a compromised account.</p><p>And for anyone who doesn't want the physical fob, it's quite easy to just load the cell phone based authenticator on a cell phone emulator.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They were already mandatory to anyone with more than 3 brain cells .
No matter how careful you are , the chances of you logging in on a compromised machine are just too great .
An authenticator removes absolutely any chance of a compromised account.And for anyone who does n't want the physical fob , it 's quite easy to just load the cell phone based authenticator on a cell phone emulator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They were already mandatory to anyone with more than 3 brain cells.
No matter how careful you are, the chances of you logging in on a compromised machine are just too great.
An authenticator removes absolutely any chance of a compromised account.And for anyone who doesn't want the physical fob, it's quite easy to just load the cell phone based authenticator on a cell phone emulator.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30708690</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263066300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Making authenticators mandatory has absolutely nothing to do with the platform WoW runs on. It just means that on the login screen you will not have to type your password anymore, but the random number displayed on the authenticator device.</p><p>The authenticator device does not connect to your computer and does not need any installation. It just displays numbers when you push its button.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Making authenticators mandatory has absolutely nothing to do with the platform WoW runs on .
It just means that on the login screen you will not have to type your password anymore , but the random number displayed on the authenticator device.The authenticator device does not connect to your computer and does not need any installation .
It just displays numbers when you push its button .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Making authenticators mandatory has absolutely nothing to do with the platform WoW runs on.
It just means that on the login screen you will not have to type your password anymore, but the random number displayed on the authenticator device.The authenticator device does not connect to your computer and does not need any installation.
It just displays numbers when you push its button.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30706622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30708676</id>
	<title>Another case of morons ruining things for everyone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263066120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By capitulating to morons who play WoW on unsecure public networks, Blizzard is creating a precedent for sinking to a level just under the lowest of common denominators.  Yes, that's right, you're no longer required to be responsible in your computer usage when gaming; Blizzard will be responsible for you.  And everyone else pays for your incompetence.</p><p>Blizzard fails.<br>Run along and die now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By capitulating to morons who play WoW on unsecure public networks , Blizzard is creating a precedent for sinking to a level just under the lowest of common denominators .
Yes , that 's right , you 're no longer required to be responsible in your computer usage when gaming ; Blizzard will be responsible for you .
And everyone else pays for your incompetence.Blizzard fails.Run along and die now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By capitulating to morons who play WoW on unsecure public networks, Blizzard is creating a precedent for sinking to a level just under the lowest of common denominators.
Yes, that's right, you're no longer required to be responsible in your computer usage when gaming; Blizzard will be responsible for you.
And everyone else pays for your incompetence.Blizzard fails.Run along and die now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30709726</id>
	<title>Re:No thanks</title>
	<author>ShakaUVM</author>
	<datestamp>1263032160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;I mean seriously, passwords are among the weakest chain when it comes to security today</p><p>No, the weakest chain in security today is not the password. I recently found out that the idiot at Verizon typed in my password wrong when I bought my droid, so even though it'd autologin on my phone, I couldn't access my account (I was wanting to pull up the calendar) on my PC. There's no way of resetting the password without not logging in for a while, and my phone (of course), was always logging in, so it mean for going a number of days (weeks?) without having a phone, just to be able to reset my password.</p><p>After clicking around for a while, I found the weakest link: the password recovery password. Favorite food? Well... I won't tell you. It's a secret! Only I love these delicious cheese and pepperoni covered delicacies from Italy.</p><p>Why on earth we demand ridiculous password strengths on one hand but have the most mind-bogglingly easy to guess password recovery passwords on the other. They're easily the weakest link. IIRC, Palin's email got compromised by a similar means.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; I mean seriously , passwords are among the weakest chain when it comes to security todayNo , the weakest chain in security today is not the password .
I recently found out that the idiot at Verizon typed in my password wrong when I bought my droid , so even though it 'd autologin on my phone , I could n't access my account ( I was wanting to pull up the calendar ) on my PC .
There 's no way of resetting the password without not logging in for a while , and my phone ( of course ) , was always logging in , so it mean for going a number of days ( weeks ?
) without having a phone , just to be able to reset my password.After clicking around for a while , I found the weakest link : the password recovery password .
Favorite food ?
Well... I wo n't tell you .
It 's a secret !
Only I love these delicious cheese and pepperoni covered delicacies from Italy.Why on earth we demand ridiculous password strengths on one hand but have the most mind-bogglingly easy to guess password recovery passwords on the other .
They 're easily the weakest link .
IIRC , Palin 's email got compromised by a similar means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;I mean seriously, passwords are among the weakest chain when it comes to security todayNo, the weakest chain in security today is not the password.
I recently found out that the idiot at Verizon typed in my password wrong when I bought my droid, so even though it'd autologin on my phone, I couldn't access my account (I was wanting to pull up the calendar) on my PC.
There's no way of resetting the password without not logging in for a while, and my phone (of course), was always logging in, so it mean for going a number of days (weeks?
) without having a phone, just to be able to reset my password.After clicking around for a while, I found the weakest link: the password recovery password.
Favorite food?
Well... I won't tell you.
It's a secret!
Only I love these delicious cheese and pepperoni covered delicacies from Italy.Why on earth we demand ridiculous password strengths on one hand but have the most mind-bogglingly easy to guess password recovery passwords on the other.
They're easily the weakest link.
IIRC, Palin's email got compromised by a similar means.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30707944</id>
	<title>Re:No thanks</title>
	<author>Late Adopter</author>
	<datestamp>1263059700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>OpenID is web-based.  That may work for WoW, but it's a non-starter for a long-term SSO solution.
<br> <br>
How about Kerberos or something based on it?  Is there a real need to reinvent the wheel?</htmltext>
<tokenext>OpenID is web-based .
That may work for WoW , but it 's a non-starter for a long-term SSO solution .
How about Kerberos or something based on it ?
Is there a real need to reinvent the wheel ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OpenID is web-based.
That may work for WoW, but it's a non-starter for a long-term SSO solution.
How about Kerberos or something based on it?
Is there a real need to reinvent the wheel?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705856</id>
	<title>Re:No thanks</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1263031320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>what about if this starts a trend and all online games start to require such?</p></div><p>This business of every  application requiring its own password is a problem in itself. (I've got 400 passwords in my Roboform archive!) That's why so many sites are adopting <a href="http://openid.net/get-an-openid/" title="openid.net">OpenId</a> [openid.net].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>what about if this starts a trend and all online games start to require such ? This business of every application requiring its own password is a problem in itself .
( I 've got 400 passwords in my Roboform archive !
) That 's why so many sites are adopting OpenId [ openid.net ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what about if this starts a trend and all online games start to require such?This business of every  application requiring its own password is a problem in itself.
(I've got 400 passwords in my Roboform archive!
) That's why so many sites are adopting OpenId [openid.net].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30707720</id>
	<title>But the anti-database folks will complain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263057480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are a lot of ways to do this. For example, the ID cards we have here in Finland (You can get one from a police stations) have the public and private keys (one pair for e-mail encryption, other for digital signatures which can be used to sign contracts, etc., though you naturally need a six digit pincode for that in addition to the card). The USB reader for such a smarcard is cheap, the software and drivers you need to install are provided by the government, free and open source. Anyone can design a system to allow authentication with those cards. That or similar system could well be used for WoW auhtentication, too. No need for additional cards, etc.</p><p>Yet, Slashdotters tend to complain about any plans to implement similar systems (or any kind of national databases). Too Orwellian, etc..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a lot of ways to do this .
For example , the ID cards we have here in Finland ( You can get one from a police stations ) have the public and private keys ( one pair for e-mail encryption , other for digital signatures which can be used to sign contracts , etc. , though you naturally need a six digit pincode for that in addition to the card ) .
The USB reader for such a smarcard is cheap , the software and drivers you need to install are provided by the government , free and open source .
Anyone can design a system to allow authentication with those cards .
That or similar system could well be used for WoW auhtentication , too .
No need for additional cards , etc.Yet , Slashdotters tend to complain about any plans to implement similar systems ( or any kind of national databases ) .
Too Orwellian , etc. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a lot of ways to do this.
For example, the ID cards we have here in Finland (You can get one from a police stations) have the public and private keys (one pair for e-mail encryption, other for digital signatures which can be used to sign contracts, etc., though you naturally need a six digit pincode for that in addition to the card).
The USB reader for such a smarcard is cheap, the software and drivers you need to install are provided by the government, free and open source.
Anyone can design a system to allow authentication with those cards.
That or similar system could well be used for WoW auhtentication, too.
No need for additional cards, etc.Yet, Slashdotters tend to complain about any plans to implement similar systems (or any kind of national databases).
Too Orwellian, etc..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30709010</id>
	<title>Outside of the USA/EU</title>
	<author>nzAnon</author>
	<datestamp>1263068940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In New Zealand for instance.</p><p># Subtotal: $6.50<br># Sales Tax: $0.00<br># Shipping &amp; Handling: $20.68<br># Grand Total: $27.18</p><p>Where 27.18 USD = 36.87 NZD</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In New Zealand for instance. # Subtotal : $ 6.50 # Sales Tax : $ 0.00 # Shipping &amp; Handling : $ 20.68 # Grand Total : $ 27.18Where 27.18 USD = 36.87 NZD</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In New Zealand for instance.# Subtotal: $6.50# Sales Tax: $0.00# Shipping &amp; Handling: $20.68# Grand Total: $27.18Where 27.18 USD = 36.87 NZD</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30707398</id>
	<title>The bigger view....</title>
	<author>santax</author>
	<datestamp>1263053940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think this idea is great in achieving what it is intended for. Less abuse/hacking of accounts. But what if more games take this up. Is it smart to buy a new cabinet to store all those devices now, or should I wait a bit, see if prices of cabinets drop?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this idea is great in achieving what it is intended for .
Less abuse/hacking of accounts .
But what if more games take this up .
Is it smart to buy a new cabinet to store all those devices now , or should I wait a bit , see if prices of cabinets drop ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this idea is great in achieving what it is intended for.
Less abuse/hacking of accounts.
But what if more games take this up.
Is it smart to buy a new cabinet to store all those devices now, or should I wait a bit, see if prices of cabinets drop?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30712498</id>
	<title>Use SSL client certificates</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1263057720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What's wrong with entering a entering a username, the site replying with a challenge token? I then sign the token with my PGP key and access is granted.</p></div><p>If I had it my way, I'd point my browser to ~/.gnupg/pubring.gpg or ~/.ssh/id\_rsa.pub or somesuch (or ~/.online-identity/pubkey) and use  SSL client certificates.  You know, where instead of just the server proving to be who it claims, the client does as well.  Then I would have zero-typing logins, securely.</p><p>Unfortunately, crypto takes a lot of CPU horsepower.  For that reason, most server operators will want to do as little as they can get away with (which is less than what is required for good security), and the uninformed public won't know that it should scream about this.  The informed public will scream and cry, but will be derided as lunatics or ignored (as is the case here on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.).</p><p>But you're going to need an auxiliary computer (smart card or usb fob or something) to plug into computers that aren't your own (or rather that you shouldn't trust).  And you need to be sure that the alien computer can talk to and understand your auxiliary computer.</p><p>Will most people want to pay for this?  Or will they prefer to use passwords, because they are free, and to hell with the second-order effects, we don't <em>want</em> to think about the consequences of our actions!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's wrong with entering a entering a username , the site replying with a challenge token ?
I then sign the token with my PGP key and access is granted.If I had it my way , I 'd point my browser to ~ /.gnupg/pubring.gpg or ~ /.ssh/id \ _rsa.pub or somesuch ( or ~ /.online-identity/pubkey ) and use SSL client certificates .
You know , where instead of just the server proving to be who it claims , the client does as well .
Then I would have zero-typing logins , securely.Unfortunately , crypto takes a lot of CPU horsepower .
For that reason , most server operators will want to do as little as they can get away with ( which is less than what is required for good security ) , and the uninformed public wo n't know that it should scream about this .
The informed public will scream and cry , but will be derided as lunatics or ignored ( as is the case here on / .
) .But you 're going to need an auxiliary computer ( smart card or usb fob or something ) to plug into computers that are n't your own ( or rather that you should n't trust ) .
And you need to be sure that the alien computer can talk to and understand your auxiliary computer.Will most people want to pay for this ?
Or will they prefer to use passwords , because they are free , and to hell with the second-order effects , we do n't want to think about the consequences of our actions !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's wrong with entering a entering a username, the site replying with a challenge token?
I then sign the token with my PGP key and access is granted.If I had it my way, I'd point my browser to ~/.gnupg/pubring.gpg or ~/.ssh/id\_rsa.pub or somesuch (or ~/.online-identity/pubkey) and use  SSL client certificates.
You know, where instead of just the server proving to be who it claims, the client does as well.
Then I would have zero-typing logins, securely.Unfortunately, crypto takes a lot of CPU horsepower.
For that reason, most server operators will want to do as little as they can get away with (which is less than what is required for good security), and the uninformed public won't know that it should scream about this.
The informed public will scream and cry, but will be derided as lunatics or ignored (as is the case here on /.
).But you're going to need an auxiliary computer (smart card or usb fob or something) to plug into computers that aren't your own (or rather that you shouldn't trust).
And you need to be sure that the alien computer can talk to and understand your auxiliary computer.Will most people want to pay for this?
Or will they prefer to use passwords, because they are free, and to hell with the second-order effects, we don't want to think about the consequences of our actions!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30708306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30707388</id>
	<title>Arms race</title>
	<author>Snaller</author>
	<datestamp>1263053820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, it just means the hackers upgrade their ways of attack.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it just means the hackers upgrade their ways of attack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it just means the hackers upgrade their ways of attack.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30710798</id>
	<title>My hack experience and thoughts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263042420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I previously was hacked. No keylogger no public use. No gold buying.  I don't understand the need to buy gold bliZzard has done everything short of click here and get 500 gold a day. It takes an hour tops. Plus play the auction house and your hooked up. Anyways  It was more of using an email address now that blizzard requires that is used on other sites and a relatively simple password. Brute force took care of the rest.</p><p>I feel I was at fault because of the shared email addy and easy password. But I waited over my week for restoration.</p><p>My point is too many people assume it's keyloggers or gold buying (which if someone sends gold to your char how do they know your login?).  There is still good old fashion brute force going on.</p><p>Also I work for a company that issues rsa securid devices. Granted we don't order the quantity blizzard does but these cost us around us 75 each. Now blizzard is not using rsa (as rsa would require their name on them) but they are customized with software option. I now have the authenticator for iPod touch and it's free.  I would argue blizzar makes nothing on them or even takes a loss. It reduces their call center and helps retain customers longer. Easy case to take the loss.</p><p>Hardest thing in mandatory is they should wave the fee. To ramp up that kind of production would be difficult but if anyone could do it it is blizzard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I previously was hacked .
No keylogger no public use .
No gold buying .
I do n't understand the need to buy gold bliZzard has done everything short of click here and get 500 gold a day .
It takes an hour tops .
Plus play the auction house and your hooked up .
Anyways It was more of using an email address now that blizzard requires that is used on other sites and a relatively simple password .
Brute force took care of the rest.I feel I was at fault because of the shared email addy and easy password .
But I waited over my week for restoration.My point is too many people assume it 's keyloggers or gold buying ( which if someone sends gold to your char how do they know your login ? ) .
There is still good old fashion brute force going on.Also I work for a company that issues rsa securid devices .
Granted we do n't order the quantity blizzard does but these cost us around us 75 each .
Now blizzard is not using rsa ( as rsa would require their name on them ) but they are customized with software option .
I now have the authenticator for iPod touch and it 's free .
I would argue blizzar makes nothing on them or even takes a loss .
It reduces their call center and helps retain customers longer .
Easy case to take the loss.Hardest thing in mandatory is they should wave the fee .
To ramp up that kind of production would be difficult but if anyone could do it it is blizzard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I previously was hacked.
No keylogger no public use.
No gold buying.
I don't understand the need to buy gold bliZzard has done everything short of click here and get 500 gold a day.
It takes an hour tops.
Plus play the auction house and your hooked up.
Anyways  It was more of using an email address now that blizzard requires that is used on other sites and a relatively simple password.
Brute force took care of the rest.I feel I was at fault because of the shared email addy and easy password.
But I waited over my week for restoration.My point is too many people assume it's keyloggers or gold buying (which if someone sends gold to your char how do they know your login?).
There is still good old fashion brute force going on.Also I work for a company that issues rsa securid devices.
Granted we don't order the quantity blizzard does but these cost us around us 75 each.
Now blizzard is not using rsa (as rsa would require their name on them) but they are customized with software option.
I now have the authenticator for iPod touch and it's free.
I would argue blizzar makes nothing on them or even takes a loss.
It reduces their call center and helps retain customers longer.
Easy case to take the loss.Hardest thing in mandatory is they should wave the fee.
To ramp up that kind of production would be difficult but if anyone could do it it is blizzard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30713458</id>
	<title>Re:The real REASON for authenticators</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263117900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So essentially what you're saying is, solve a much more difficult problem and this one will go away? Uh huh...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So essentially what you 're saying is , solve a much more difficult problem and this one will go away ?
Uh huh.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So essentially what you're saying is, solve a much more difficult problem and this one will go away?
Uh huh...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30707706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30709724</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263032160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So what, a keychain fob is going to suddenly stop working if it gets near a Linux device?  Open source is a powerful thing, but if it now has an aura that destroys all non-GPL devices in a ten foot radius, I'm really impressed.</p></div><p>Yeah, but you should see what the devs gave the MS EULA...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what , a keychain fob is going to suddenly stop working if it gets near a Linux device ?
Open source is a powerful thing , but if it now has an aura that destroys all non-GPL devices in a ten foot radius , I 'm really impressed.Yeah , but you should see what the devs gave the MS EULA... : - (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what, a keychain fob is going to suddenly stop working if it gets near a Linux device?
Open source is a powerful thing, but if it now has an aura that destroys all non-GPL devices in a ten foot radius, I'm really impressed.Yeah, but you should see what the devs gave the MS EULA... :-(
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30707598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30709794</id>
	<title>Good timing</title>
	<author>wwphx</author>
	<datestamp>1263032760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I manage two guilds on one server, one each faction.  One of our members got hacked.  His account got cleaned out to the tune of over 4,000 gold.  Both guild vaults got hit, several items and some 430ish gold.<br> <br>

We got everything back.<br> <br>

The only bad thing was it came in the form of an in-game mail message, so lots of arranging of items needs to be done.<br> <br>

The sad thing?  The guy who got hacked has an authenticator, just hadn't activated it yet.  The curious thing?  He doesn't know how he was compromised.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I manage two guilds on one server , one each faction .
One of our members got hacked .
His account got cleaned out to the tune of over 4,000 gold .
Both guild vaults got hit , several items and some 430ish gold .
We got everything back .
The only bad thing was it came in the form of an in-game mail message , so lots of arranging of items needs to be done .
The sad thing ?
The guy who got hacked has an authenticator , just had n't activated it yet .
The curious thing ?
He does n't know how he was compromised .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I manage two guilds on one server, one each faction.
One of our members got hacked.
His account got cleaned out to the tune of over 4,000 gold.
Both guild vaults got hit, several items and some 430ish gold.
We got everything back.
The only bad thing was it came in the form of an in-game mail message, so lots of arranging of items needs to be done.
The sad thing?
The guy who got hacked has an authenticator, just hadn't activated it yet.
The curious thing?
He doesn't know how he was compromised.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30706378</id>
	<title>Re:No thanks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263040080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The biggest proublem I have with the Authenticator is that it prevents sharing accounts. I know your not "suposed to" but me and a friend have been sharing our WoW accounts with each other since we started, and we shared our Final Fantasy 11 accounts before that. Because my friend lives on the other side of America it will be next to impossible to log him on real quick to cut a few gems for me if Authenticators become mandatory.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest proublem I have with the Authenticator is that it prevents sharing accounts .
I know your not " suposed to " but me and a friend have been sharing our WoW accounts with each other since we started , and we shared our Final Fantasy 11 accounts before that .
Because my friend lives on the other side of America it will be next to impossible to log him on real quick to cut a few gems for me if Authenticators become mandatory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The biggest proublem I have with the Authenticator is that it prevents sharing accounts.
I know your not "suposed to" but me and a friend have been sharing our WoW accounts with each other since we started, and we shared our Final Fantasy 11 accounts before that.
Because my friend lives on the other side of America it will be next to impossible to log him on real quick to cut a few gems for me if Authenticators become mandatory.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30706340</id>
	<title>Re:No thanks</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1263039780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would already be a huge leap ahead if Blizzard didn't use the same logon credentials for their user forum that is used to log into the game. That alone is certainly the source of many stolen accounts, given how easy it is to sniff passwords out of a browser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would already be a huge leap ahead if Blizzard did n't use the same logon credentials for their user forum that is used to log into the game .
That alone is certainly the source of many stolen accounts , given how easy it is to sniff passwords out of a browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would already be a huge leap ahead if Blizzard didn't use the same logon credentials for their user forum that is used to log into the game.
That alone is certainly the source of many stolen accounts, given how easy it is to sniff passwords out of a browser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30708762</id>
	<title>Re:No thanks</title>
	<author>mlts</author>
	<datestamp>1263066840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have two issues with authenticators.  First, what happens if the battery dies?  On PayPal, you can have multiple authenticators to prevent having to send faxes and prove you are you, if one of them gives up the ghost.  IIRC [1], Blizzard only allows one authenticator, and if that one decides to take a dirt nap, it is very difficult to regain control of an account.</p><p>Blizzard's authenticators are OK, they are rebranded VASCO DigiPass Go 6 models (PayPal uses DigiPass Go 3s.)  For the money, they are a great buy.</p><p>My other issue is that the software authentication is for a number of phones and Java based, but none for Windows Mobile, nor Android.  It would be nice to see an Android app that can do this functionality.  Combine this with mobile authentication, and this would be a solid winner with some failsafe-ness built in.  Of course, if someone loses their phone, that could be a problem, but that is why one would have software authentication as well as a device that gets tucked away somewhere safe.</p><p>Best of all worlds would be standard offline authenticator software (OATH compatible, etc) that is built into the iPhone OS, Android, and other phone operating systems.  It would be seeded via a SMS handshake, then the user can just pull up the application, enter a PIN to unlock the app, copy the number showing on the screen either into a window asking for it, or append it to one's password, and have secure, standard offline access regardless of application.</p><p>[1]:  I could be completely wrong, but I didn't find any documentation to state otherwise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have two issues with authenticators .
First , what happens if the battery dies ?
On PayPal , you can have multiple authenticators to prevent having to send faxes and prove you are you , if one of them gives up the ghost .
IIRC [ 1 ] , Blizzard only allows one authenticator , and if that one decides to take a dirt nap , it is very difficult to regain control of an account.Blizzard 's authenticators are OK , they are rebranded VASCO DigiPass Go 6 models ( PayPal uses DigiPass Go 3s .
) For the money , they are a great buy.My other issue is that the software authentication is for a number of phones and Java based , but none for Windows Mobile , nor Android .
It would be nice to see an Android app that can do this functionality .
Combine this with mobile authentication , and this would be a solid winner with some failsafe-ness built in .
Of course , if someone loses their phone , that could be a problem , but that is why one would have software authentication as well as a device that gets tucked away somewhere safe.Best of all worlds would be standard offline authenticator software ( OATH compatible , etc ) that is built into the iPhone OS , Android , and other phone operating systems .
It would be seeded via a SMS handshake , then the user can just pull up the application , enter a PIN to unlock the app , copy the number showing on the screen either into a window asking for it , or append it to one 's password , and have secure , standard offline access regardless of application .
[ 1 ] : I could be completely wrong , but I did n't find any documentation to state otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have two issues with authenticators.
First, what happens if the battery dies?
On PayPal, you can have multiple authenticators to prevent having to send faxes and prove you are you, if one of them gives up the ghost.
IIRC [1], Blizzard only allows one authenticator, and if that one decides to take a dirt nap, it is very difficult to regain control of an account.Blizzard's authenticators are OK, they are rebranded VASCO DigiPass Go 6 models (PayPal uses DigiPass Go 3s.
)  For the money, they are a great buy.My other issue is that the software authentication is for a number of phones and Java based, but none for Windows Mobile, nor Android.
It would be nice to see an Android app that can do this functionality.
Combine this with mobile authentication, and this would be a solid winner with some failsafe-ness built in.
Of course, if someone loses their phone, that could be a problem, but that is why one would have software authentication as well as a device that gets tucked away somewhere safe.Best of all worlds would be standard offline authenticator software (OATH compatible, etc) that is built into the iPhone OS, Android, and other phone operating systems.
It would be seeded via a SMS handshake, then the user can just pull up the application, enter a PIN to unlock the app, copy the number showing on the screen either into a window asking for it, or append it to one's password, and have secure, standard offline access regardless of application.
[1]:  I could be completely wrong, but I didn't find any documentation to state otherwise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30714768</id>
	<title>Dear Lord...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263142500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank god I quit this game when I did.</p><p>Though it is terrifying to see the number of comments here ACTUALLY SUPPORTING this kind of mood.  It really shows the level of obsession that your average MMO player experiences.</p><p>I can't believe people are willing to pay BLIZZARD because BLIZZARD can't keep their account information secure.  They bring in over 150 million MONTHLY on account fees and they can't afford a decent security scheme?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank god I quit this game when I did.Though it is terrifying to see the number of comments here ACTUALLY SUPPORTING this kind of mood .
It really shows the level of obsession that your average MMO player experiences.I ca n't believe people are willing to pay BLIZZARD because BLIZZARD ca n't keep their account information secure .
They bring in over 150 million MONTHLY on account fees and they ca n't afford a decent security scheme ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank god I quit this game when I did.Though it is terrifying to see the number of comments here ACTUALLY SUPPORTING this kind of mood.
It really shows the level of obsession that your average MMO player experiences.I can't believe people are willing to pay BLIZZARD because BLIZZARD can't keep their account information secure.
They bring in over 150 million MONTHLY on account fees and they can't afford a decent security scheme?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30707626</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263056580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, it won't.  I'm currently playing WoW on Linux, with an authenticator -- no problems here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , it wo n't .
I 'm currently playing WoW on Linux , with an authenticator -- no problems here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, it won't.
I'm currently playing WoW on Linux, with an authenticator -- no problems here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30706622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30730160</id>
	<title>Re:No thanks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263209940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's the first clear and concise description I've seen on this whole thread that tells exactly how the authenticator works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the first clear and concise description I 've seen on this whole thread that tells exactly how the authenticator works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the first clear and concise description I've seen on this whole thread that tells exactly how the authenticator works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30708234</id>
	<title>Non-story</title>
	<author>ildon</author>
	<datestamp>1263062340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For those not familiar with wow.com, previously called wowinsider.com, it's basically like a supermarket tabloid for WoW. I mean seriously, an anonymous source says that "serious consideration" is being given to maybe possibly some time in the distant future making authenticators mandatory?</p><p>Anyway, having said that, the easiest way to do this would be to use the Cataclysm expansion purchase to subsidize it. Each purchase would give you a coupon for one free authenticator. Putting an authenticator in the box would just be a waste of money (and wouldn't help the people who purchase it online).</p><p>Their real problem right now seems to be manufacturing them fast enough to keep up with demand. I know people who ordered one around or shortly after Christmas who still haven't received theirs (despite the confirmation email stating "2-3 business days").</p><p>Until they can solve the inventory problem, making them mandatory is still out of the question.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For those not familiar with wow.com , previously called wowinsider.com , it 's basically like a supermarket tabloid for WoW .
I mean seriously , an anonymous source says that " serious consideration " is being given to maybe possibly some time in the distant future making authenticators mandatory ? Anyway , having said that , the easiest way to do this would be to use the Cataclysm expansion purchase to subsidize it .
Each purchase would give you a coupon for one free authenticator .
Putting an authenticator in the box would just be a waste of money ( and would n't help the people who purchase it online ) .Their real problem right now seems to be manufacturing them fast enough to keep up with demand .
I know people who ordered one around or shortly after Christmas who still have n't received theirs ( despite the confirmation email stating " 2-3 business days " ) .Until they can solve the inventory problem , making them mandatory is still out of the question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those not familiar with wow.com, previously called wowinsider.com, it's basically like a supermarket tabloid for WoW.
I mean seriously, an anonymous source says that "serious consideration" is being given to maybe possibly some time in the distant future making authenticators mandatory?Anyway, having said that, the easiest way to do this would be to use the Cataclysm expansion purchase to subsidize it.
Each purchase would give you a coupon for one free authenticator.
Putting an authenticator in the box would just be a waste of money (and wouldn't help the people who purchase it online).Their real problem right now seems to be manufacturing them fast enough to keep up with demand.
I know people who ordered one around or shortly after Christmas who still haven't received theirs (despite the confirmation email stating "2-3 business days").Until they can solve the inventory problem, making them mandatory is still out of the question.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705826</id>
	<title>Re:No thanks</title>
	<author>MajroMax</author>
	<datestamp>1263030840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Also, do they plan on putting them out other ways for free if they try this. When I looked into one you had to buy the thing from Blizzard for like $25 or something.</p></div></blockquote><p>The authenticator is hardly $25.  <a href="http://us.blizzard.com/store/details.xml?id=1100000822" title="blizzard.com">In the US</a> [blizzard.com], it's $6.50 with free shipping, and <a href="http://eu.blizzard.com/store/details.xml?id=221003617" title="blizzard.com">in the EU</a> [blizzard.com] it's EUR6.99 also with free shipping.  The price covers the cost of the physical unit and (obviously) the shipping.  Blizzard's hardly making a killing on these.</p><p>For mobile authenticators, the <a href="http://us.blizzard.com/support/article.xml?locale=en\_US&amp;articleId=26109" title="blizzard.com">Blizzard Website</a> [blizzard.com] has more detail.  The short version is that the Mobile Authenticator is available on a wide range of phones, depending on provider.  Support isn't universal, though.</p><p>That said, the only time Blizzard could make Authenticators mandatory would be at a game-changing event, like the release of the next expansion.  If they go ahead and do that, they'd probably throw Authenticators in the box, to automatically have near-total distribution.  Their biggest concern is probably whether they can source a few million of them.</p><p>The long and short of it is that account theft is a big problem, both for Blizzard and for people who play WoW.  Not everyone has a locked-down system, and phishers are using tactics formerly reserved for actual banks to try to get account info.  Players have to deal with having their account possibly stolen, Blizzard has to deal with perpetual requests (some possibly fraudulent!) to restore characters/items, and the game as a whole suffers from the RMT that goes on.</p><p>I, for one, welcome our Keyfob and Mobile-Authenticating Overlords.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , do they plan on putting them out other ways for free if they try this .
When I looked into one you had to buy the thing from Blizzard for like $ 25 or something.The authenticator is hardly $ 25 .
In the US [ blizzard.com ] , it 's $ 6.50 with free shipping , and in the EU [ blizzard.com ] it 's EUR6.99 also with free shipping .
The price covers the cost of the physical unit and ( obviously ) the shipping .
Blizzard 's hardly making a killing on these.For mobile authenticators , the Blizzard Website [ blizzard.com ] has more detail .
The short version is that the Mobile Authenticator is available on a wide range of phones , depending on provider .
Support is n't universal , though.That said , the only time Blizzard could make Authenticators mandatory would be at a game-changing event , like the release of the next expansion .
If they go ahead and do that , they 'd probably throw Authenticators in the box , to automatically have near-total distribution .
Their biggest concern is probably whether they can source a few million of them.The long and short of it is that account theft is a big problem , both for Blizzard and for people who play WoW .
Not everyone has a locked-down system , and phishers are using tactics formerly reserved for actual banks to try to get account info .
Players have to deal with having their account possibly stolen , Blizzard has to deal with perpetual requests ( some possibly fraudulent !
) to restore characters/items , and the game as a whole suffers from the RMT that goes on.I , for one , welcome our Keyfob and Mobile-Authenticating Overlords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, do they plan on putting them out other ways for free if they try this.
When I looked into one you had to buy the thing from Blizzard for like $25 or something.The authenticator is hardly $25.
In the US [blizzard.com], it's $6.50 with free shipping, and in the EU [blizzard.com] it's EUR6.99 also with free shipping.
The price covers the cost of the physical unit and (obviously) the shipping.
Blizzard's hardly making a killing on these.For mobile authenticators, the Blizzard Website [blizzard.com] has more detail.
The short version is that the Mobile Authenticator is available on a wide range of phones, depending on provider.
Support isn't universal, though.That said, the only time Blizzard could make Authenticators mandatory would be at a game-changing event, like the release of the next expansion.
If they go ahead and do that, they'd probably throw Authenticators in the box, to automatically have near-total distribution.
Their biggest concern is probably whether they can source a few million of them.The long and short of it is that account theft is a big problem, both for Blizzard and for people who play WoW.
Not everyone has a locked-down system, and phishers are using tactics formerly reserved for actual banks to try to get account info.
Players have to deal with having their account possibly stolen, Blizzard has to deal with perpetual requests (some possibly fraudulent!
) to restore characters/items, and the game as a whole suffers from the RMT that goes on.I, for one, welcome our Keyfob and Mobile-Authenticating Overlords.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30707616</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263056460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It won't affect them at all.</p><p>The key fob is a separate hardware device that is never connected to the machine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It wo n't affect them at all.The key fob is a separate hardware device that is never connected to the machine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It won't affect them at all.The key fob is a separate hardware device that is never connected to the machine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30706622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30709746</id>
	<title>If this comes to pass...</title>
	<author>Godskitchen</author>
	<datestamp>1263032460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It will certainly make it easier to identify WOW players in the wild as they will all inevitably wear these proudly attached to their keychains. Still, since the majority of this cohort rarely venture out into "the place with no ceiling," perhaps it will only have a limited relevance as a wow-marker in daily life.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It will certainly make it easier to identify WOW players in the wild as they will all inevitably wear these proudly attached to their keychains .
Still , since the majority of this cohort rarely venture out into " the place with no ceiling , " perhaps it will only have a limited relevance as a wow-marker in daily life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It will certainly make it easier to identify WOW players in the wild as they will all inevitably wear these proudly attached to their keychains.
Still, since the majority of this cohort rarely venture out into "the place with no ceiling," perhaps it will only have a limited relevance as a wow-marker in daily life.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30708982</id>
	<title>When can I put TWO on the SAME account?</title>
	<author>cfalcon</author>
	<datestamp>1263068700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I want two or more authenticators, and I want them both to be recognized as valid.  For instance, if I were to buy an authenticator and then try to log in, it would look at my username, my password, and then do the calculation based on the key-  if it matches, it lets me in.  If not, it does not.  I would like to check my username, my password, and then calculate all the keys I have tied to the account (perhaps there would be a max of five, or ten).  If the input matches ANY of them, it lets me in.</p><p>Currently, I don't have an authenticator because I travel all the time and I normally wherever I go, I at least remember to include my brain.  Currently I could:</p><p>1-  Lose an authenticator.<br>2-  Bash it into a wall while tripping over anything.<br>3-  Fall into a fountain-  probably it wouldn't get too wet in that time, but hey!<br>4-  Have it stolen-  it wouldn't be useful to a thief, but they wouldn't know that.<br>5-  Have the battery be bad or rot.</p><p>I've gone through a few cellphones, and a few days with no cellphone can really be bad.  I would definitely not want to be on travel for two weeks and be unable to use my fancy laptop to play WoW!  Especially given that with a cellphone I can go to any mall and be chatting again in a few hours if it becomes important, but for WoW you have to call up some hotline and identify yourself using whatever secret question I thought would be a great idea 4.5 years ago.  The few times I've tested this hotline (granted, not in the last year), I eventually hang up because I'm bored and I can't talk to a human.  I would sure hate to be doing that dance for real.</p><p>I also don't like the loss of user freedom-  currently I can call any of four RL friends up and give said friend my login info if there's something that needs to happen in game, and a few guildies would also probably work.  A single authenticator would shut that down unless I was on the phone with them.  Blizzard might see this as a feature: according to their extensive ToS, not even your *spouse* is allowed to log into your account.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I want two or more authenticators , and I want them both to be recognized as valid .
For instance , if I were to buy an authenticator and then try to log in , it would look at my username , my password , and then do the calculation based on the key- if it matches , it lets me in .
If not , it does not .
I would like to check my username , my password , and then calculate all the keys I have tied to the account ( perhaps there would be a max of five , or ten ) .
If the input matches ANY of them , it lets me in.Currently , I do n't have an authenticator because I travel all the time and I normally wherever I go , I at least remember to include my brain .
Currently I could : 1- Lose an authenticator.2- Bash it into a wall while tripping over anything.3- Fall into a fountain- probably it would n't get too wet in that time , but hey ! 4- Have it stolen- it would n't be useful to a thief , but they would n't know that.5- Have the battery be bad or rot.I 've gone through a few cellphones , and a few days with no cellphone can really be bad .
I would definitely not want to be on travel for two weeks and be unable to use my fancy laptop to play WoW !
Especially given that with a cellphone I can go to any mall and be chatting again in a few hours if it becomes important , but for WoW you have to call up some hotline and identify yourself using whatever secret question I thought would be a great idea 4.5 years ago .
The few times I 've tested this hotline ( granted , not in the last year ) , I eventually hang up because I 'm bored and I ca n't talk to a human .
I would sure hate to be doing that dance for real.I also do n't like the loss of user freedom- currently I can call any of four RL friends up and give said friend my login info if there 's something that needs to happen in game , and a few guildies would also probably work .
A single authenticator would shut that down unless I was on the phone with them .
Blizzard might see this as a feature : according to their extensive ToS , not even your * spouse * is allowed to log into your account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want two or more authenticators, and I want them both to be recognized as valid.
For instance, if I were to buy an authenticator and then try to log in, it would look at my username, my password, and then do the calculation based on the key-  if it matches, it lets me in.
If not, it does not.
I would like to check my username, my password, and then calculate all the keys I have tied to the account (perhaps there would be a max of five, or ten).
If the input matches ANY of them, it lets me in.Currently, I don't have an authenticator because I travel all the time and I normally wherever I go, I at least remember to include my brain.
Currently I could:1-  Lose an authenticator.2-  Bash it into a wall while tripping over anything.3-  Fall into a fountain-  probably it wouldn't get too wet in that time, but hey!4-  Have it stolen-  it wouldn't be useful to a thief, but they wouldn't know that.5-  Have the battery be bad or rot.I've gone through a few cellphones, and a few days with no cellphone can really be bad.
I would definitely not want to be on travel for two weeks and be unable to use my fancy laptop to play WoW!
Especially given that with a cellphone I can go to any mall and be chatting again in a few hours if it becomes important, but for WoW you have to call up some hotline and identify yourself using whatever secret question I thought would be a great idea 4.5 years ago.
The few times I've tested this hotline (granted, not in the last year), I eventually hang up because I'm bored and I can't talk to a human.
I would sure hate to be doing that dance for real.I also don't like the loss of user freedom-  currently I can call any of four RL friends up and give said friend my login info if there's something that needs to happen in game, and a few guildies would also probably work.
A single authenticator would shut that down unless I was on the phone with them.
Blizzard might see this as a feature: according to their extensive ToS, not even your *spouse* is allowed to log into your account.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30712422</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263056700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not in the slightest as far as I know.  The WOW client runs through WINE and I can't imagine why the authenticator wouldn't work.</p><p>Certainly haven't seen a mention of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not in the slightest as far as I know .
The WOW client runs through WINE and I ca n't imagine why the authenticator would n't work.Certainly have n't seen a mention of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not in the slightest as far as I know.
The WOW client runs through WINE and I can't imagine why the authenticator wouldn't work.Certainly haven't seen a mention of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30706622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705928</id>
	<title>Re:No thanks</title>
	<author>Mr. Freeman</author>
	<datestamp>1263032640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where is "here"?  Your list of codes seems like a large pain in the ass.  These are not USB devices we're talking about, they're things about the size of a pack of gum (the ones with 5 sticks (that's five, not the brand 5)) with an LCD on them.  They display a random number and a little bar that decreases over the course of a minute or so.  Every minute, new code.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where is " here " ?
Your list of codes seems like a large pain in the ass .
These are not USB devices we 're talking about , they 're things about the size of a pack of gum ( the ones with 5 sticks ( that 's five , not the brand 5 ) ) with an LCD on them .
They display a random number and a little bar that decreases over the course of a minute or so .
Every minute , new code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where is "here"?
Your list of codes seems like a large pain in the ass.
These are not USB devices we're talking about, they're things about the size of a pack of gum (the ones with 5 sticks (that's five, not the brand 5)) with an LCD on them.
They display a random number and a little bar that decreases over the course of a minute or so.
Every minute, new code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30709404</id>
	<title>Banks?</title>
	<author>Urza9814</author>
	<datestamp>1263028920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The authenticators function the same as ones provided by most banks</p></div><p>What? What banks? I've \_never\_ heard of a bank using these things. My bank just uses account number, pin, and password...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The authenticators function the same as ones provided by most banksWhat ?
What banks ?
I 've \ _never \ _ heard of a bank using these things .
My bank just uses account number , pin , and password.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The authenticators function the same as ones provided by most banksWhat?
What banks?
I've \_never\_ heard of a bank using these things.
My bank just uses account number, pin, and password...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30707360</id>
	<title>Re:No thanksRe:No thanks</title>
	<author>Snaller</author>
	<datestamp>1263053580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And again, us intelligent people have to suffer because of the morons who play wow - now what would be good if we could get rid of the morons instead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And again , us intelligent people have to suffer because of the morons who play wow - now what would be good if we could get rid of the morons instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And again, us intelligent people have to suffer because of the morons who play wow - now what would be good if we could get rid of the morons instead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30719082</id>
	<title>Re:No, No, and No I will NOT use this</title>
	<author>Macgrrl</author>
	<datestamp>1263134820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can I have your stuff?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can I have your stuff ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can I have your stuff?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30709364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705824</id>
	<title>Re:No thanks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263030840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>but what about if this starts a trend and all online games start to require such?</p></div><p>Maybe secure login will then become a common practice and devices will be standardized and we will live in a bright shiny future where login is no longer done by the most primitive system imaginable.</p><p>I mean seriously, passwords are among the weakest chain when it comes to security today and not something that can be fixed by 'educating the user' (last time I counted I had around 100 password), it wouldn't hurt to replace them with something that is more secure and more comfortable to use, even if it might be a bit painful at first.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but what about if this starts a trend and all online games start to require such ? Maybe secure login will then become a common practice and devices will be standardized and we will live in a bright shiny future where login is no longer done by the most primitive system imaginable.I mean seriously , passwords are among the weakest chain when it comes to security today and not something that can be fixed by 'educating the user ' ( last time I counted I had around 100 password ) , it would n't hurt to replace them with something that is more secure and more comfortable to use , even if it might be a bit painful at first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but what about if this starts a trend and all online games start to require such?Maybe secure login will then become a common practice and devices will be standardized and we will live in a bright shiny future where login is no longer done by the most primitive system imaginable.I mean seriously, passwords are among the weakest chain when it comes to security today and not something that can be fixed by 'educating the user' (last time I counted I had around 100 password), it wouldn't hurt to replace them with something that is more secure and more comfortable to use, even if it might be a bit painful at first.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30707818</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>Volante3192</author>
	<datestamp>1263058440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The authenticator code is punched in after the L/P as part of launcher.exe or wow.exe (i forget which).  If the game works, I don't see why that shouldn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The authenticator code is punched in after the L/P as part of launcher.exe or wow.exe ( i forget which ) .
If the game works , I do n't see why that should n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The authenticator code is punched in after the L/P as part of launcher.exe or wow.exe (i forget which).
If the game works, I don't see why that shouldn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30706622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30707598</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>goodmanj</author>
	<datestamp>1263056220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what, a keychain fob is going to suddenly stop working if it gets near a Linux device?  Open source is a powerful thing, but if it now has an aura that destroys all non-GPL devices in a ten foot radius, I'm really impressed.</p><p>Also, "thousands of you" means there are as many of you as there are level 80 female dwarf subtlety rogues wielding Quel'dalar.  You'd be insignificant even if you *did* all quit the game rather than play on another platform... which you won't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what , a keychain fob is going to suddenly stop working if it gets near a Linux device ?
Open source is a powerful thing , but if it now has an aura that destroys all non-GPL devices in a ten foot radius , I 'm really impressed.Also , " thousands of you " means there are as many of you as there are level 80 female dwarf subtlety rogues wielding Quel'dalar .
You 'd be insignificant even if you * did * all quit the game rather than play on another platform... which you wo n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what, a keychain fob is going to suddenly stop working if it gets near a Linux device?
Open source is a powerful thing, but if it now has an aura that destroys all non-GPL devices in a ten foot radius, I'm really impressed.Also, "thousands of you" means there are as many of you as there are level 80 female dwarf subtlety rogues wielding Quel'dalar.
You'd be insignificant even if you *did* all quit the game rather than play on another platform... which you won't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30706622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30707978</id>
	<title>Re:No thanks</title>
	<author>JoeMerchant</author>
	<datestamp>1263059940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The long and short of it is that account theft is a big problem, both for Blizzard and for people who play WoW.  Not everyone has a locked-down system, and phishers are using tactics formerly reserved for actual banks to try to get account info.  Players have to deal with having their account possibly stolen, Blizzard has to deal with perpetual requests (some possibly fraudulent!) to restore characters/items, and the game as a whole suffers from the RMT that goes on.</p></div><p>I have never had a WOW account, but some nefarious character registered one of my e-mail addresses as owning one - not much of a problem for me, but interesting that they managed to link my address to the account without an authentication reply from me... (and, yes, I have since changed my password.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The long and short of it is that account theft is a big problem , both for Blizzard and for people who play WoW .
Not everyone has a locked-down system , and phishers are using tactics formerly reserved for actual banks to try to get account info .
Players have to deal with having their account possibly stolen , Blizzard has to deal with perpetual requests ( some possibly fraudulent !
) to restore characters/items , and the game as a whole suffers from the RMT that goes on.I have never had a WOW account , but some nefarious character registered one of my e-mail addresses as owning one - not much of a problem for me , but interesting that they managed to link my address to the account without an authentication reply from me... ( and , yes , I have since changed my password .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The long and short of it is that account theft is a big problem, both for Blizzard and for people who play WoW.
Not everyone has a locked-down system, and phishers are using tactics formerly reserved for actual banks to try to get account info.
Players have to deal with having their account possibly stolen, Blizzard has to deal with perpetual requests (some possibly fraudulent!
) to restore characters/items, and the game as a whole suffers from the RMT that goes on.I have never had a WOW account, but some nefarious character registered one of my e-mail addresses as owning one - not much of a problem for me, but interesting that they managed to link my address to the account without an authentication reply from me... (and, yes, I have since changed my password.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30707706</id>
	<title>The real REASON for authenticators</title>
	<author>ukyoCE</author>
	<datestamp>1263057360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's not forget the real reason authenticators are becoming mandatory.  It's because accounts are getting hacked, sure, but <i>why</i> are accounts getting hacked?</p><p>Because there are idiots paying real life $$ for in-game money, which they get by hacking accounts and selling off their stuff.  The customers of these websites are paying these hackers to take over people's accounts, effectively.</p><p>Do away with the monetary incentive, and accounts wouldn't be getting hacked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's not forget the real reason authenticators are becoming mandatory .
It 's because accounts are getting hacked , sure , but why are accounts getting hacked ? Because there are idiots paying real life $ $ for in-game money , which they get by hacking accounts and selling off their stuff .
The customers of these websites are paying these hackers to take over people 's accounts , effectively.Do away with the monetary incentive , and accounts would n't be getting hacked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's not forget the real reason authenticators are becoming mandatory.
It's because accounts are getting hacked, sure, but why are accounts getting hacked?Because there are idiots paying real life $$ for in-game money, which they get by hacking accounts and selling off their stuff.
The customers of these websites are paying these hackers to take over people's accounts, effectively.Do away with the monetary incentive, and accounts wouldn't be getting hacked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30709364</id>
	<title>No, No, and No I will NOT use this</title>
	<author>Ka D'Argo</author>
	<datestamp>1263028620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>As I posted on the WoW forums;
<br> <br>
I will NOT pay for an authenticator because OTHER people cannot keep their shit protected. Use Firefox, use a firewall, don't download suspicious files, don't visit suspicious websites and use a decent anti virus.
<br> <br>
If Blizzard decides to make us ALL pay for the mistakes of a FEW, then when they try to charge me $5 or 6 or whatever, they can cancel my account to at that point.
<br> <br>
I can afford the $6.50, it's a matter of principle and integrity at this point, we shouldn't be punished for the actions of others.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As I posted on the WoW forums ; I will NOT pay for an authenticator because OTHER people can not keep their shit protected .
Use Firefox , use a firewall , do n't download suspicious files , do n't visit suspicious websites and use a decent anti virus .
If Blizzard decides to make us ALL pay for the mistakes of a FEW , then when they try to charge me $ 5 or 6 or whatever , they can cancel my account to at that point .
I can afford the $ 6.50 , it 's a matter of principle and integrity at this point , we should n't be punished for the actions of others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I posted on the WoW forums;
 
I will NOT pay for an authenticator because OTHER people cannot keep their shit protected.
Use Firefox, use a firewall, don't download suspicious files, don't visit suspicious websites and use a decent anti virus.
If Blizzard decides to make us ALL pay for the mistakes of a FEW, then when they try to charge me $5 or 6 or whatever, they can cancel my account to at that point.
I can afford the $6.50, it's a matter of principle and integrity at this point, we shouldn't be punished for the actions of others.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30709354</id>
	<title>Re:No thanks</title>
	<author>pclminion</author>
	<datestamp>1263028560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would you reverse engineer the key fob? If you are in possession of the key fob, just press the fucking button and enter the code. I don't think you understand the "Something You Have" factor of authentication. If somebody gets your key fob, then they have Something You Had. Don't let anybody get your authenticator.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would you reverse engineer the key fob ?
If you are in possession of the key fob , just press the fucking button and enter the code .
I do n't think you understand the " Something You Have " factor of authentication .
If somebody gets your key fob , then they have Something You Had .
Do n't let anybody get your authenticator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would you reverse engineer the key fob?
If you are in possession of the key fob, just press the fucking button and enter the code.
I don't think you understand the "Something You Have" factor of authentication.
If somebody gets your key fob, then they have Something You Had.
Don't let anybody get your authenticator.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30706674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30706350</id>
	<title>Re:No thanks</title>
	<author>Narpak</author>
	<datestamp>1263039840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are a quite a few variations among <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security\_token" title="wikipedia.org">security tokens</a> [wikipedia.org]. The one I have requires me to type in a 4 digit pin code before it gives me a random number that I have to use in combination with a password and birth code.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a quite a few variations among security tokens [ wikipedia.org ] .
The one I have requires me to type in a 4 digit pin code before it gives me a random number that I have to use in combination with a password and birth code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a quite a few variations among security tokens [wikipedia.org].
The one I have requires me to type in a 4 digit pin code before it gives me a random number that I have to use in combination with a password and birth code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30706622</id>
	<title>So...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263044280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How will this affect Linux WoW players?  Don't let Blizzard tell you there aren't any, there are thousands of us.<br>They better make sure they have their shit together first before fucking people over or they'll lose customers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How will this affect Linux WoW players ?
Do n't let Blizzard tell you there are n't any , there are thousands of us.They better make sure they have their shit together first before fucking people over or they 'll lose customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How will this affect Linux WoW players?
Don't let Blizzard tell you there aren't any, there are thousands of us.They better make sure they have their shit together first before fucking people over or they'll lose customers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30714302</id>
	<title>My Concern Would be</title>
	<author>sleeponthemic</author>
	<datestamp>1263136080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That with such quantity, there would likely be now, an introduced percentage of support requests regarding faulty / non working devices.  Furthermore, the emails will cease to be kindly worded requests for account reclamation aid from Blizzard and take on the air of (in some cases) "addict rage" as the realisation that the account is locked until the authentication device arrives X days after.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That with such quantity , there would likely be now , an introduced percentage of support requests regarding faulty / non working devices .
Furthermore , the emails will cease to be kindly worded requests for account reclamation aid from Blizzard and take on the air of ( in some cases ) " addict rage " as the realisation that the account is locked until the authentication device arrives X days after .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That with such quantity, there would likely be now, an introduced percentage of support requests regarding faulty / non working devices.
Furthermore, the emails will cease to be kindly worded requests for account reclamation aid from Blizzard and take on the air of (in some cases) "addict rage" as the realisation that the account is locked until the authentication device arrives X days after.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705958</id>
	<title>Re:No thanks</title>
	<author>Jthon</author>
	<datestamp>1263033120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You seem to have totally misunderstood how the authenticators work. They are decidedly NOT USB dongles.</p><p>An authenticator is a changing key generator, which shows you a one time key when you hit a display button. You then type this key in after entering your username and password to log onto the game. This is very similar to the RSA SecurID token my work requires I use to log onto a our VPN.</p><p>Basically the keyfob contains a psuedo random number generator which generates a new key every few seconds. The authenticating server knows the original seed, and can figure out the currently "valid" number shown on the key. Since each code is only valid for about 30 seconds, this makes is significantly harder to hack the account.</p><p>In fact this system is more secure than any system my bank uses, as very few banks in the US even give you the option of using a system like this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You seem to have totally misunderstood how the authenticators work .
They are decidedly NOT USB dongles.An authenticator is a changing key generator , which shows you a one time key when you hit a display button .
You then type this key in after entering your username and password to log onto the game .
This is very similar to the RSA SecurID token my work requires I use to log onto a our VPN.Basically the keyfob contains a psuedo random number generator which generates a new key every few seconds .
The authenticating server knows the original seed , and can figure out the currently " valid " number shown on the key .
Since each code is only valid for about 30 seconds , this makes is significantly harder to hack the account.In fact this system is more secure than any system my bank uses , as very few banks in the US even give you the option of using a system like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You seem to have totally misunderstood how the authenticators work.
They are decidedly NOT USB dongles.An authenticator is a changing key generator, which shows you a one time key when you hit a display button.
You then type this key in after entering your username and password to log onto the game.
This is very similar to the RSA SecurID token my work requires I use to log onto a our VPN.Basically the keyfob contains a psuedo random number generator which generates a new key every few seconds.
The authenticating server knows the original seed, and can figure out the currently "valid" number shown on the key.
Since each code is only valid for about 30 seconds, this makes is significantly harder to hack the account.In fact this system is more secure than any system my bank uses, as very few banks in the US even give you the option of using a system like this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30706790</id>
	<title>Blizzfail!</title>
	<author>Naaythann</author>
	<datestamp>1263046920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have to admit this is quite funny, in the last few days i had my battlenet/WOW account banned for gold farming. Not played it in about a year, so i went throught the process of trying to establish what happened. Got passwords and so on reset but the git attached the said "Blizzard Activator" to my account and i'm back at square one and locked out of battlenet/WOW.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to admit this is quite funny , in the last few days i had my battlenet/WOW account banned for gold farming .
Not played it in about a year , so i went throught the process of trying to establish what happened .
Got passwords and so on reset but the git attached the said " Blizzard Activator " to my account and i 'm back at square one and locked out of battlenet/WOW .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to admit this is quite funny, in the last few days i had my battlenet/WOW account banned for gold farming.
Not played it in about a year, so i went throught the process of trying to establish what happened.
Got passwords and so on reset but the git attached the said "Blizzard Activator" to my account and i'm back at square one and locked out of battlenet/WOW.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30707448</id>
	<title>Re:No thanks</title>
	<author>Snaller</author>
	<datestamp>1263054360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It also makes it hard for adults to read the fucking small numbers. God I hope blizzard isn't doing this shit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It also makes it hard for adults to read the fucking small numbers .
God I hope blizzard is n't doing this shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It also makes it hard for adults to read the fucking small numbers.
God I hope blizzard isn't doing this shit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30730994</id>
	<title>Re:No thanks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263214020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Don't let anybody get your authenticator.</p></div><p>Sort of like "Don't let anyone get your car keys or credit card".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't let anybody get your authenticator.Sort of like " Do n't let anyone get your car keys or credit card " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't let anybody get your authenticator.Sort of like "Don't let anyone get your car keys or credit card".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30709354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30734448</id>
	<title>Re:No, No, and No I will NOT use this</title>
	<author>Genocaust</author>
	<datestamp>1263288780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can I have your stuff?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can I have your stuff ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can I have your stuff?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30709364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30709372</id>
	<title>Re:No thanks</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1263028680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The user name is not the problem. The password is the problem. That's why we're having this discussion: Blizzard is finding passwords to be a very weak point of failure. Having only one point of failure is not all that great if the point fails easily. Two-factor authentication is the obvious solution, but like the guy who started this thread, most people are not going to be thrilled about owning a token card for each and every login they use.</p><p>Besides, it's very unlikely that Blizzard (or anybody else that has to support logins on multiple servers) has each server do authentication locally. That would be an administrative nightmare. Much better to have a central corporate server. So the only thing that would change would be switching from the internal server to a server run by an external service provider.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The user name is not the problem .
The password is the problem .
That 's why we 're having this discussion : Blizzard is finding passwords to be a very weak point of failure .
Having only one point of failure is not all that great if the point fails easily .
Two-factor authentication is the obvious solution , but like the guy who started this thread , most people are not going to be thrilled about owning a token card for each and every login they use.Besides , it 's very unlikely that Blizzard ( or anybody else that has to support logins on multiple servers ) has each server do authentication locally .
That would be an administrative nightmare .
Much better to have a central corporate server .
So the only thing that would change would be switching from the internal server to a server run by an external service provider .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The user name is not the problem.
The password is the problem.
That's why we're having this discussion: Blizzard is finding passwords to be a very weak point of failure.
Having only one point of failure is not all that great if the point fails easily.
Two-factor authentication is the obvious solution, but like the guy who started this thread, most people are not going to be thrilled about owning a token card for each and every login they use.Besides, it's very unlikely that Blizzard (or anybody else that has to support logins on multiple servers) has each server do authentication locally.
That would be an administrative nightmare.
Much better to have a central corporate server.
So the only thing that would change would be switching from the internal server to a server run by an external service provider.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30708306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30706674</id>
	<title>Re:No thanks</title>
	<author>AlXtreme</author>
	<datestamp>1263045060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Basically the keyfob contains a psuedo random number generator which generates a new key every few seconds. The authenticating server knows the original seed, and can figure out the currently "valid" number shown on the key.</p></div></blockquote><p>Wouldn't reverse-engineering the keyfob (or even computing an X number of keys and some background on the algorithm used) reveal the original seed and make the whole process useless?</p><p>One of the banks I use provide a cardreader where you have to enter your PIN to generate a key for every login / transfer. Even though I've been using it for many years I've always wondered if it really is more secure than a username / password + one-time SMS codes or the like.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically the keyfob contains a psuedo random number generator which generates a new key every few seconds .
The authenticating server knows the original seed , and can figure out the currently " valid " number shown on the key.Would n't reverse-engineering the keyfob ( or even computing an X number of keys and some background on the algorithm used ) reveal the original seed and make the whole process useless ? One of the banks I use provide a cardreader where you have to enter your PIN to generate a key for every login / transfer .
Even though I 've been using it for many years I 've always wondered if it really is more secure than a username / password + one-time SMS codes or the like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically the keyfob contains a psuedo random number generator which generates a new key every few seconds.
The authenticating server knows the original seed, and can figure out the currently "valid" number shown on the key.Wouldn't reverse-engineering the keyfob (or even computing an X number of keys and some background on the algorithm used) reveal the original seed and make the whole process useless?One of the banks I use provide a cardreader where you have to enter your PIN to generate a key for every login / transfer.
Even though I've been using it for many years I've always wondered if it really is more secure than a username / password + one-time SMS codes or the like.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30708178</id>
	<title>Re:No thanks</title>
	<author>Snaller</author>
	<datestamp>1263061800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"This business of every application requiring its own password is a problem in itself. (I've got 400 passwords in my Roboform archive!) That's why so many sites are adopting OpenId."</p><p>And the hackers than you - now they only need one password to hack all your sites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" This business of every application requiring its own password is a problem in itself .
( I 've got 400 passwords in my Roboform archive !
) That 's why so many sites are adopting OpenId .
" And the hackers than you - now they only need one password to hack all your sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"This business of every application requiring its own password is a problem in itself.
(I've got 400 passwords in my Roboform archive!
) That's why so many sites are adopting OpenId.
"And the hackers than you - now they only need one password to hack all your sites.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30708168</id>
	<title>Re:No thanks</title>
	<author>murpium</author>
	<datestamp>1263061620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That said, the only time Blizzard could make Authenticators mandatory would be at a game-changing event</p></div><p>They could make the authenticators free. If Blizzard ate the cost of the authenticators and then refused (or made it really hard) to restore accounts that didn't purchase an authenticator, they'd probably save enough money on support to pay for the authenticators.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That said , the only time Blizzard could make Authenticators mandatory would be at a game-changing eventThey could make the authenticators free .
If Blizzard ate the cost of the authenticators and then refused ( or made it really hard ) to restore accounts that did n't purchase an authenticator , they 'd probably save enough money on support to pay for the authenticators .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That said, the only time Blizzard could make Authenticators mandatory would be at a game-changing eventThey could make the authenticators free.
If Blizzard ate the cost of the authenticators and then refused (or made it really hard) to restore accounts that didn't purchase an authenticator, they'd probably save enough money on support to pay for the authenticators.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705732</id>
	<title>Re:No thanks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263029700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed. Also, do they plan on putting them out other ways for free if they try this. When I looked into one you had to buy the thing from Blizzard for like $25 or something. I know there is a free Iphone app but what if you don't have an Iphone? Anyone know if they have other authentictor apps for other platforms.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
Also , do they plan on putting them out other ways for free if they try this .
When I looked into one you had to buy the thing from Blizzard for like $ 25 or something .
I know there is a free Iphone app but what if you do n't have an Iphone ?
Anyone know if they have other authentictor apps for other platforms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
Also, do they plan on putting them out other ways for free if they try this.
When I looked into one you had to buy the thing from Blizzard for like $25 or something.
I know there is a free Iphone app but what if you don't have an Iphone?
Anyone know if they have other authentictor apps for other platforms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30708306</id>
	<title>Re:No thanks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263063000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>That's why so many sites are adopting OpenId.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
I'm not sure why people are adopting OpenID. It requires all this extra overhead of going to and from an additional authentication server. It's a complicated protocol and complexity breads insecurity.
</p><p>
If I use OpenID I've gone from one point of failure (the compromise of my computer) to two points of failure (compromise of the OpenID provider and compromise of my computer). There's actually a third potential point of failure in that the OpenID protocol could be flawed in some way, which compromises all OpenID providers.
</p><p>
What's wrong with entering a entering a username, the site replying with a challenge token? I then sign the token with my PGP key and access is granted. You could make this extremely painless by making a browser plugin that handle most of the leg work.
</p><p>
Now I'm back to a single point of failure and the security of the login authentication has been substantially improved. With OpenID I've created a separate point of failure and I'm still stuck using crappy password authentication.
</p><p> OpenID is a pretty crap solution to this problem. </p><p>Simon</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why so many sites are adopting OpenId .
I 'm not sure why people are adopting OpenID .
It requires all this extra overhead of going to and from an additional authentication server .
It 's a complicated protocol and complexity breads insecurity .
If I use OpenID I 've gone from one point of failure ( the compromise of my computer ) to two points of failure ( compromise of the OpenID provider and compromise of my computer ) .
There 's actually a third potential point of failure in that the OpenID protocol could be flawed in some way , which compromises all OpenID providers .
What 's wrong with entering a entering a username , the site replying with a challenge token ?
I then sign the token with my PGP key and access is granted .
You could make this extremely painless by making a browser plugin that handle most of the leg work .
Now I 'm back to a single point of failure and the security of the login authentication has been substantially improved .
With OpenID I 've created a separate point of failure and I 'm still stuck using crappy password authentication .
OpenID is a pretty crap solution to this problem .
Simon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why so many sites are adopting OpenId.
I'm not sure why people are adopting OpenID.
It requires all this extra overhead of going to and from an additional authentication server.
It's a complicated protocol and complexity breads insecurity.
If I use OpenID I've gone from one point of failure (the compromise of my computer) to two points of failure (compromise of the OpenID provider and compromise of my computer).
There's actually a third potential point of failure in that the OpenID protocol could be flawed in some way, which compromises all OpenID providers.
What's wrong with entering a entering a username, the site replying with a challenge token?
I then sign the token with my PGP key and access is granted.
You could make this extremely painless by making a browser plugin that handle most of the leg work.
Now I'm back to a single point of failure and the security of the login authentication has been substantially improved.
With OpenID I've created a separate point of failure and I'm still stuck using crappy password authentication.
OpenID is a pretty crap solution to this problem.
Simon
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705692</id>
	<title>No thanks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263029280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure it might work with just one game, but what about if this starts a trend and all online games start to require such? No thank you.</p><p>We do not use such USB devices with banks here btw, instead everyone has an account number and running list of one-time codes, with a second list of confirm codes. It's a little pain but incredibly secure. However, it's not something to use with games.</p><p>Instead of mandatory, please <i>at most</i> make it only the default option so those who want to can turn it off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure it might work with just one game , but what about if this starts a trend and all online games start to require such ?
No thank you.We do not use such USB devices with banks here btw , instead everyone has an account number and running list of one-time codes , with a second list of confirm codes .
It 's a little pain but incredibly secure .
However , it 's not something to use with games.Instead of mandatory , please at most make it only the default option so those who want to can turn it off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure it might work with just one game, but what about if this starts a trend and all online games start to require such?
No thank you.We do not use such USB devices with banks here btw, instead everyone has an account number and running list of one-time codes, with a second list of confirm codes.
It's a little pain but incredibly secure.
However, it's not something to use with games.Instead of mandatory, please at most make it only the default option so those who want to can turn it off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30721082</id>
	<title>Re:No thanks</title>
	<author>RivenAleem</author>
	<datestamp>1263206220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That said, the only time Blizzard could make Authenticators mandatory would be at a game-changing event, like the release of the next expansion.  If they go ahead and do that, they'd probably throw Authenticators in the box, to automatically have near-total distribution.  Their biggest concern is probably whether they can source a few million of them.</p></div><p>Many people already have it. They probably wouldn't ship millions of them in the expansion box, but more likely in collector edition, or at the time, ship them to the stores where the kind teller asks "Would you like an Authenticator with that".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That said , the only time Blizzard could make Authenticators mandatory would be at a game-changing event , like the release of the next expansion .
If they go ahead and do that , they 'd probably throw Authenticators in the box , to automatically have near-total distribution .
Their biggest concern is probably whether they can source a few million of them.Many people already have it .
They probably would n't ship millions of them in the expansion box , but more likely in collector edition , or at the time , ship them to the stores where the kind teller asks " Would you like an Authenticator with that " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That said, the only time Blizzard could make Authenticators mandatory would be at a game-changing event, like the release of the next expansion.
If they go ahead and do that, they'd probably throw Authenticators in the box, to automatically have near-total distribution.
Their biggest concern is probably whether they can source a few million of them.Many people already have it.
They probably wouldn't ship millions of them in the expansion box, but more likely in collector edition, or at the time, ship them to the stores where the kind teller asks "Would you like an Authenticator with that".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705790</id>
	<title>Re:No thanks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263030420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not sure about the WoW tags (which presumably will go for all of Blizzard's upcoming games, Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2 included), but S-E's FFXI/FFXIV/Front Mission Online/assorted minigames all rely on a single RSA-style tag that hashes a unique salt and the current time and displays a 6-digit key to be checked on the server. This makes it more than convenient enough for game use.<br>I'd say that having a whole keychain full of these could be inconvenient and overkill, but it's not like you need to carry them in public, and I really doubt even most hardcore gamers would need more than three or four at one time (Steam, Blizzard, Live, PSN?) Likewise, the cost could get annoying, but a one-time $10 charge (including delivery) with an in-game kickback isn't too bad at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure about the WoW tags ( which presumably will go for all of Blizzard 's upcoming games , Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2 included ) , but S-E 's FFXI/FFXIV/Front Mission Online/assorted minigames all rely on a single RSA-style tag that hashes a unique salt and the current time and displays a 6-digit key to be checked on the server .
This makes it more than convenient enough for game use.I 'd say that having a whole keychain full of these could be inconvenient and overkill , but it 's not like you need to carry them in public , and I really doubt even most hardcore gamers would need more than three or four at one time ( Steam , Blizzard , Live , PSN ?
) Likewise , the cost could get annoying , but a one-time $ 10 charge ( including delivery ) with an in-game kickback is n't too bad at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sure about the WoW tags (which presumably will go for all of Blizzard's upcoming games, Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2 included), but S-E's FFXI/FFXIV/Front Mission Online/assorted minigames all rely on a single RSA-style tag that hashes a unique salt and the current time and displays a 6-digit key to be checked on the server.
This makes it more than convenient enough for game use.I'd say that having a whole keychain full of these could be inconvenient and overkill, but it's not like you need to carry them in public, and I really doubt even most hardcore gamers would need more than three or four at one time (Steam, Blizzard, Live, PSN?
) Likewise, the cost could get annoying, but a one-time $10 charge (including delivery) with an in-game kickback isn't too bad at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30707732</id>
	<title>Yeah but they were over $80 at one point...</title>
	<author>Mashiki</author>
	<datestamp>1263057600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They were ~$80($6.50+shipping and taxes on top) in Canada at one point.  That left a very sour and bitter taste in my mouth, I have no want, need or desire to get one when they cost that much.  I don't care that they're $6.50 now, if they want me to use one then they can give it to me with the next expansion.  My cousin says they're still up over $20(somewhere around $25, aka $6.50+shipping+taxes), still don't care.</p><p>And if you live outside of any of those normal shipping zones you can still get them through 3rd parties.  Or Ebay, at 400-4000\% the markup.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They were ~ $ 80 ( $ 6.50 + shipping and taxes on top ) in Canada at one point .
That left a very sour and bitter taste in my mouth , I have no want , need or desire to get one when they cost that much .
I do n't care that they 're $ 6.50 now , if they want me to use one then they can give it to me with the next expansion .
My cousin says they 're still up over $ 20 ( somewhere around $ 25 , aka $ 6.50 + shipping + taxes ) , still do n't care.And if you live outside of any of those normal shipping zones you can still get them through 3rd parties .
Or Ebay , at 400-4000 \ % the markup .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They were ~$80($6.50+shipping and taxes on top) in Canada at one point.
That left a very sour and bitter taste in my mouth, I have no want, need or desire to get one when they cost that much.
I don't care that they're $6.50 now, if they want me to use one then they can give it to me with the next expansion.
My cousin says they're still up over $20(somewhere around $25, aka $6.50+shipping+taxes), still don't care.And if you live outside of any of those normal shipping zones you can still get them through 3rd parties.
Or Ebay, at 400-4000\% the markup.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705826</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0424230_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30712422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30706622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0424230_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30707360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0424230_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30708168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0424230_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30707720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0424230_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30707978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0424230_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30707732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0424230_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0424230_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30707818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30706622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0424230_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30707448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0424230_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30730160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0424230_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30713458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30707706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0424230_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30730994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30709354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30706674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0424230_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30708762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0424230_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30706350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0424230_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30709010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0424230_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30712498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30708306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0424230_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30708178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0424230_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30707626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30706622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0424230_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30706378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0424230_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30707944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0424230_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30707616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30706622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0424230_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0424230_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30721082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0424230_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30708472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0424230_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30706340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0424230_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30709724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30707598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30706622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0424230_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30734448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30709364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0424230_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30719082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30709364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0424230_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30708690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30706622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0424230_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30709372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30708306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0424230_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30709726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0424230_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30707388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_0424230.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30709364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30719082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30734448
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_0424230.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30706886
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_0424230.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30713974
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_0424230.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30709278
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_0424230.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30714768
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_0424230.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705824
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30707388
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30709726
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30707720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705732
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705826
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30707360
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30709010
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30707732
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30708762
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30706378
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30708168
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30708472
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30721082
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30706340
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30707978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705856
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30707944
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30708306
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30709372
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30712498
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30708178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705958
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30706350
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30706674
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30709354
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30730994
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30730160
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30707448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30705928
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_0424230.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30708260
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_0424230.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30707706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30713458
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_0424230.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30706622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30707818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30708690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30707616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30712422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30707598
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30709724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0424230.30707626
</commentlist>
</conversation>
