this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2024
1019 points (98.8% liked)

linuxmemes

20839 readers
869 users here now

I use Arch btw


Sister communities:

Community rules

  1. Follow the site-wide rules and code of conduct
  2. Be civil
  3. Post Linux-related content
  4. No recent reposts

Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] johannesvanderwhales 11 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I take your point, and I'm sure you're right about the banks' rationale, but in my own view it does not seem like it should be the banks' decision to make.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

As soon as a bank offers any sort of fraud protection, though, security becomes a bank issue (in addition to a "you" issue).

Not at all saying I agree with the banks on this, but I think that may be part of the thinking.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

This is a good point. The bank needs to do as much as they can to reduce fraud risk, and they've probably found some correlation between rooted phones and a higher likelihood of fraudulent transactions. Some banks block VPNs for a similar reason - when logging in from a VPN, it's harder for them to tell that it's actually you vs if it's an attacker that uses the same VPN service as you.

[–] markstos 1 points 5 months ago

Your risk exposure is that you could lose your bank account balance. The banks risk exposure is that they could lose every bank account balance exploited by the same rooted phone vulnerability. So they evaluate risk differently than you do.