Skip to main content

‘We lost £120,000 in an email scam but the banks won’t help get it back’ | Money | The Guardian

xxx

the regulations that govern this area. These state that a bank has to “have made clear to their customer how a Chaps payment will be processed” and that the bank “will make a payment solely on the basis of a unique identifier and will not execute it on the basis of the intended recipient’s name”.

From ‘We lost £120,000 in an email scam but the banks won’t help get it back’ | Money | The Guardian

xxx

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

We could fix mobile security, you know. We don't, but we could

Earlier in the week I blogged about mobile banking security , and I said that in design terms it is best to assume that the internet is in the hands of your enemies. In case you think I was exaggerating… The thieves also provided “free” wireless connections in public places to secretly mine users’ personal information. From Gone in minutes: Chinese cybertheft gangs mine smartphones for bank card data | South China Morning Post Personally, I always use an SSL VPN when connected by wifi (even at home!) but I doubt that most people would ever go to this trouble or take the time to configure a VPN and such like. Anyway, the point is that the internet isn’t secure. And actually SMS isn’t much better, which is why it shouldn’t really be used for securing anything as important as home banking. The report also described how gangs stole mobile security codes – which banks automatically send to card holders’ registered mobile phones to verify online transactions – by using either a Trojan...
Post a Comment
Read more