Technology
Your smartwatch can reveal your ATM PIN
New York: Cyber criminals can easily exploit wearable devices such as smartwatches and fitness trackers to steal sensitive information like your ATM PIN or passwords for electronic door locks, warns a new study.
 
"Wearable devices can be exploited. Attackers can reproduce the trajectories of the user's hand and recover secret key entries to ATM cash machines, electronic door locks and keypad-controlled enterprise servers," said Yan Wang from Binghamton University in the US.
 
The researchers combined data from embedded sensors in wearable technologies such as smartwatches and fitness trackers, along with a computer algorithm to crack private PINs and passwords with 80 per cent accuracy on the first try and more than 90 per cent accuracy after three efforts.
 
The team conducted 5,000 key-entry tests on three key-based security systems, including an ATM, with 20 adults wearing a variety of technologies over 11 months. 
 
They were able to record millimetre-level information of fine-grained hand movements from accelerometers, gyroscopes and magnetometres inside the wearable technologies regardless of a hand's pose. 
 
Those measurements lead to distance and direction estimations between consecutive keystrokes, which the team's "Backward PIN-sequence Inference Algorithm" used to break codes with alarming accuracy without context clues about the keypad.
 
"The threat is real, although the approach is sophisticated," Wang said in the paper presented at the "11th ACM on Asia Conference on Computer and Communications Security" conference in China recently.
 
The researchers did not give a solution for the problem but suggest that developers "inject a certain type of noise to data so it cannot be used to derive fine-grained hand movements, while still being effective for fitness tracking purposes such as activity recognition or step counts".
 
Wang co-authored the study along with Chen Wang from the Stevens Institute of Technology in New Jersey. .
 
Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced from IANS and do not reflect views of Moneylife and hence Moneylife is not responsible or liable for the same. As a source and news provider, IANS is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.

User

Pound hovers around 31-year low
London: The pound sterling on Thursday continued to hover around 31-year lows in Asian trading as more UK property funds suspended withdrawals in the wake of Britain voting to exit the European Union (EU).
 
However, the Japanese yen was rising for a third day against the dollar as investors bought into the currency, seen as a safe haven for their money, BBC reported.
 
It has strengthened by nearly 5 per cent since the UK voted to exit the EU on June 24.
 
The renewed jitters over the fallout from the Brexit vote have also extended a rally in gold prices.
 
The precious metal is trading near its highest price in more than two years.
 
On Wednesday, UK and European stock markets fell sharply and the pound hit a fresh 31-year low as Brexit fears rattled markets.
 
Another three UK property funds said they were suspending trade after a surge in withdrawals following the UK's vote to leave the EU.
 
In Thursday's Asian trade the pound remained lower against the dollar, trading at around $1.2918.
 
Asian stock markets are trading mixed after the latest Federal Reserve minutes showing that prospects of an interest rate hike have diminished.
 
Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced from IANS and do not reflect views of Moneylife and hence Moneylife is not responsible or liable for the same. As a source and news provider, IANS is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.

User

Shocking! Unitech depositors asked to pursue other remedies by Tribunal
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), the new avatar of Company Law Board (CLB), while dismissing petition filed by Unitech Ltd, has asked "depositors to pursue their remedies as per the law". The NCLT also suggested the concerned Registrar of Companies (RoC) to take appropriate action against the company under section 74(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. Action under this section includes fine of at least Rs1 crore (maximum Rs10 crore) and imprisonment for up to seven years for company official or a fine between Rs25 lakh to Rs2 crore. However, as per section 47 of the Company Law Board Regulations, 1991, the Bench is deemed as a Court or lawful authority for prosecution or punishment of a person who wilfully disobeys any direction or order of such Bench. Therefore, the question here is why the Bench did not use its powers to act against Unitech.
 
In an order on 4 July 2016, BSV Prakash Kumar, Member (Judicial) of the NCLT said, "When this petitioner company could not repay Rs30 crore of money in the time given by this Bench as asked by the company on 11 January 2016, it could not be possible for the company to clear Rs550 crore dues payable to the depositors in near future."
 
"Seeing the developments so far taken place in this case, this Bench is of the opinion that this company could not be in a position to repay the depositors even if further time is extended; therefore this Bench, for having the company defaulted complying with the order dated 11 March 2016, dismissed the petition (CP (T) 10/18/2015) leaving it open to the depositors to pursue their remedies as per law. Accordingly, this Bench hereby suggests RoC concerned to take appropriate action against the company u/s 74(3) of the Companies Act, 2013," the Bench added.
 
Earlier on 11 March 2016, the NCLT had passed an order directing Unitech to repay Rs30 crore of depositor's money on or before 30 June 2016 in three instalments. The company's managing director (MD) had given an undertaking through an affidavit, to repay Rs30 crore between 1st February to 30 September 2016 to depositors who have invested up to Rs25,000, Rs50,000 and Rs1 lakh and whose deposits have matured up to 31 March 2016 as per the original date of maturity. However, the Bench did not agree with the proposal.
 
The MD of Unitech then filed another affidavit on 11 March 2016 undertaking to repay Rs30 crore in three monthly instalments till 30 June 2016. But Unitech did not pay any money.
 
Since 14 May 2015, the Bench said, it has given several adjournments in this matter hoping that the company wold repay money to the depositors at least as per the undertaking given by the company. "But, till date, no undertaking has been complied with. In the past, this Bench even appointed a Sale Committee on 15 July 2015 to generate funds by selling the properties of the company, but no progress has taken place in selling the properties of the company," the Bench noted.
 
It then dismissed the petition filed by Unitech and asked depositors to pursue other legal remedies to recover their invested money. The Bench also suggested the RoC to take appropriate action against Unitech under section 74(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. 
 
Here is what section 74(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 says...
 
Section 74- Repayment of deposits, etc., accepted before commencement of this Act. 
(3) If a company fails to repay the deposit or part thereof or any interest thereon within the time specified in sub-section (1) or such further time as may be allowed by the Tribunal under sub-section (2), the company shall, in addition to the payment of the amount of deposit or part thereof and the interest due, be punishable with fine which shall not be less than Rs1 crore rupees but which may extend to Rs10 crore and every officer of the company, who is in default, shall be punishable with imprisonment, which may extend to seven years or with fine which shall not be less than Rs25 lakh but which may extend to Rs2 crore, or with both.
 
What depositors of Unitech can do now
As per Section 10F of the Companies Act, any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the Company Law Board may file an appeal to the High Court within sixty days from the date of communication of the decision or order of the Company Law Board to him on any question of law arising out of such order.
 
Depositors can request the concerned RoC to initiate action against Unitech under section 74(3) of the Companies Act, 2013.

User

COMMENTS

Sriram Ranganathan

2 months ago

We all know how the Directors & officers of MICRO TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, Mahape, Navi Mumbai quickly latched on to a winding up petition filed by Bank of New York Mellon and ensured that the company was wound up quickly. The only small solace left is the company is now to be investigated by the SFIO. All companies are following this beaten track of voluntary or compulsory winding up and taking the "patli gali" route to cheat the depositors and other small lenders. This should STOP and that is possible only if the courts get proactive and first refer these cases to an investigation by EOW / SFIO with a stipulated time frame for completing the investigation first. There are lawyers and other sharks who facilitate the company directors for a fat fee in this process and this also needs to be plugged at the earliest possible.

Sriram Ranganathan

2 months ago

Look at the manner in which one CLB member (now NCLT member) has connived with Unitech Limited and helped them buy time for over 1 year and finally the above stated order is passed. He constituted a "Sale Committee" for the land and ensured that the members of that Committee are paid "fees" and this included a former CLB Chairman. Finally Sale Committee says no sale of land is possible. Does it take >1 year to figure this out? Open connivance and corruption. This needs to be investigated by going through the "sham" orders passed by this member of CLB hearing after hearing. If B K Bansal had not got caught, Elder Pharma too would have taken a similar route. All this is happening under the very nose of the various investigating agencies. Sad state of affairs! Atleast Anuj Saxena of Elder Pharma should be brought to book and monies realised from the assets of the actor and of the company and this needs to be done quickly!!

Dipakkumar J Shah

4 months ago

My one Application for FDR interest paid late is pending Before Company law Board Northern Region against Jindal Steel & Power Limited. Notice had been served to Company. More than 6 years had been passed but nothing ??? Even all mails ids of MCA officers are given on web of MCA are not working at all. Disc Data is full always bounce back.They do not have time to see our mails and disposs of the same. How much Disc Data is given not known? Like Mr ... recent case , like they must be using for taking money from Company nothing else. They might use e mail id for this purpose. In the name of corruption this is going on. There are more Black Money in Offices , Officers of MCA. See the case of M A Kuvadia. When he caught in Ahmedabad as OL in Calico Mills case , he had beennot removed from the post but, I think and belive that he had been promoted to!!!!!

din.neer

4 months ago

The controlling authorities in India are weak and fragile. There is no government body that can assure you that you wont be cheated by any company or individual, and if so, severe consequences will follow. The NCLT has surrendered in a way. I had uploaded the "Investor Complaint Form" on the website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, but all went in vain. There is no action, neither any response on the issue lodged. I don't know whether approaching consumer court will work in this case or not. All the companies are looting the consumers: Unitech, Pearl, Sahara, JayPee, .... Some people say that this had happened due to a certain change in government rules of accepting deposits, which has barred some non-rating companies from taking deposits. If this is the case, government should ensure before making such rules that deposits of millions of investors don't get sunk.

Dipakkumar J Shah

5 months ago

Governemnt should Inquire about Ethical, Moral Standards, Jurisprudence, Law Iquity and Justice Calibre of the Judge who gave Judgement in this case????? It is need oif the hour when we talked about Corruption. Corruption I mean, my own dictionary meaning "Not to take any actoin amounts to corruption. I have doubts about any reasoning giving verdict against depositors. The word It self is self explanatory?? God save us from all these.I have one experience of Justice Mukhopadhyay in Gujarat High Court ??!!! If he has given the Judgment without any reasoning. Proper inquiry should be made by Government immediately.This also reminds my own case in 58 A with C L B Norther Region against Jindal Steel And Power Limited. Notice is served to the company. Company has never filed reply to petition. No Judgment for last more than 5 to 6 years by C L B Northern Region.??

Ashok Sachdeva

5 months ago

Forget this Bajaj Capital and others. They are hand in gloves with unitech. The only remedy is file claim now. I am doing this for and on behalf of fd holders, here in Delhi. Pl. get in touch. 9953850777 and my postal address is C4H/79 Janak Puri New Delhi [email protected]

tani49

5 months ago

I am also a party to defaulted company's who has not paid my maturity amount since July 2014 and Bajaj Capital is asking on Rs 100 special power of attorney,which seems to me that it is waste of time,The companies are M/SPlethico Pharma and Elder Pharma,I do not know where should I approach.It is better that all should make a Club and collectively fight with the defaulted company. One has to take a lead,I can join as a member.

tani49

5 months ago

I am also a party to defaulted company's who has not paid my maturity amount since July 2014 and Bajaj Capital is asking on Rs 100 special power of attorney,which seems to me that it is waste of time,The companies are M/SPlethico Pharma and Elder Pharma,I do not know where should I approach.It is better that all should make a Club and collectively fight with the defaulted company. One has to take a lead,I can join as a member.

Jagdish Gulrajani

5 months ago

What options investor has now?

REPLY

Ashok Sachdeva

In Reply to Jagdish Gulrajani 5 months ago

Sir, as i explained in previous post, the only option with fd holder is to file claim in NCLT DELHI u/73(4) of the Act, including damages as described in earlier post. ROC action is a criminal proceeding in parallel to this civil proceeding. Rest of all actions are foul play. In fact unitech and bajaj capital have intruded all groups to mislead fd holders to gain time and to put holders on wrong path. The only system in our country is to file claim and if payer defy further, proceed for decree order and get all bank accounts and assets freezed . There is your payment within the earliest possible time. A call on anybody expert in law to prove me wrong. But expert not these laymen or misleaders. You do that by yourself, through advocate, C.A. , company Secratary or any person you rely. This law permits. Pl. take out copy of my post, show to any expert, if wrong, come on line and declare any punishment to me, i shall comply. My sole purpose is to see you all move on right path and law of land prevails. And misleader should not succeed. Regards Ashok Sachdeva 9953850777 [email protected] C4H/79 Janak Puri New Delhi

Ashok Sachdeva

5 months ago

Dear all
I was personally present there in court and attended many proceedings.
A person said here in one post that depositor may invoke OTHER remedy is wrong and misleading. In fact the order suggest THEIR remedies against OTHER remedy.
The only remedy is filing their claim along with damages as incurred by depositor, which includes legal cost too, is section 73(4) of the Act and the only competent court is NCLT DELHI. Any suggestion to approach High Court is also misleading. In fact Appellate Court is NCLAT.
Any group of depositors initiating other action shall waste its time, energy and money. Ultimately the jurisdiction of this Court. Any claim elsewhere shall ultimately be transffered to this court. Same thing has happened in past also when High Court transffered the case to CLB.
Further a call from Bajaj Capital for asking authority on 100 rs paper is also misleading. Bajaj Capital is hand in gloves with unitech. Ethically also it can not file a case against its valued client.
Fd holders has made deposits within the provisions of Act. Certainly they will claim their repayment within the scope of that Act only i.e. section 73(4). Please do not waste your time and file claims.
Me is Ashok Sachdeva General Secratary of Universal Proutist Labour Federation (1027) C4H/79 Janak Puri New Delhi ph. 9953850777
Please note, i am not a fd holder but a volunteer to serve depositors for their rights. My sole purpose is to ensure the rule of law and justice to innocent people. I know most of the investors are aged people, wbich has invested their hard earned retirement benefits in this company to ensure their day to day expenses and to meet urgencies. All are free to get in touch. Advice is free of cost and representation is expenses based . Regards Ashok Sachdeva

Sumon Mukhopadhyay

5 months ago

....as usual the matter will now be taken up in the high court and Unitech Ltd for the time being, is likely to get some respite in paying, immediately.

However, Unitech Ltd could gain from the recent RBI's move to segregate viable and unviable debt.

It has 300 million sq.ft of land bank but it seems it does not want to sell them at distress price; that is why probably why these kinds of things are arising.

However, Unitech Ltd's MD Sanjay Chandra after the Q4FY16 result, said. "The company's focus during the year has been primarily on completing the ongoing projects. Balance expected receipts from these ongoing projects combined are sufficient not only to meet the remaining construction expense but to also to service the debt, if any, against these projects".

‚ÄčTherefore, we can look forward for some positive developments in the coming days, especially when the sector outlook has changed and the NDA government is likely to pursue a loose monetary policy, post, REXIT.

Prashant Gangadhar Tayshete

5 months ago

where is the report of sale committee and hardship committee

REPLY

Nikhil S Girme

In Reply to Prashant Gangadhar Tayshete 5 months ago

The whole system is corrupt, non accountable and Govt is useless ..It has wasted so much of time on developing NCLT and is supposed to have powers like High Court but not acting on it

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
  Loading...
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email

BUY NOW

The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Magazine and Lion Stockletter)