Skip to main content

Will new UK rules reduce the harm of push-payment fraud? – Bentham’s Gaze

xxx

Our research has found that security instructions described in terms and conditions of banks are inconsistent, confusing and far exceed what customers do in practice and what they can achieve with realistic effort. Therefore failing to take appropriate care should not be defined in terms of non-compliance to such documents. Banks should present evidence that their authentication systems will lead customers to act in a way that would allow them to readily prevent fraudulent transactions.

From Will new UK rules reduce the harm of push-payment fraud? – Bentham’s Gaze.

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