• NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    It was never a security feature. It’s an anti-fraud measure.

    It only comes up when you dispute a charge, otherwise there’s generally no reason to inspect the signatures.

    There is value to always signing in a consistent and identifiable way, because then if you dispute a charge and the signature is substantially different from how you normally sign, that supports your dispute claim.

    It’s actually a good idea to do something more distinctive than just your name in cursive, as that’s likely what someone using your card for fraud would sign with.

    • Zarobi@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      And now in 2026 every really important document uses something like DocuSign where you can’t actually use a proper signature unless you have a drawing tablet or want to use a mouse. By default it just stamps your name in cursive font. Hooray

    • unwarlikeExtortion@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      It’s actually a good idea to do something more distinctive than just your name in cursive

      While i don’t nexessarily disagree with that, just signing your full name in cursive may actually be better than something overimplified. The longer it is, the easier to interpret the handwriting (and harder to fake).

      I’d wager that going into something gimmicky like including heart or a bird in your signature would only make it less foolproof. When, say, a bank teller checks their clients’ signature against the one on file, they’re more likely to focus more on the gimmick and less on the habdwriting. And if you shorten your signature as well, that’s an even larger issue.

      The same problem applies even if you report something and an analyst is called. You just made the analyst’s job harder and the imposter’s job easier.