Reply to post: Re: Refunds hide fundamentally insecure system

Met police commissioner: Fraud victims should not be refunded by banks

Anonymous Coward
Anonymous Coward

Re: Refunds hide fundamentally insecure system

Magstripes suck. Moving to chips can only improve the situation. Contactless as it is still a bit young. Thing is, it's rather limited (a handful of payments without entering a PIN, up to a low ceiling - yes, there were initial bugs with those, they've been ironed out a while ago).

So all in all, right now, it seems that even if fraud *could* work easily on contactless, it's unlikely it *would*, as it couldn't provide much ROI to the fraudster before being noticed.

They seem to be turning now to direct attacks on online bank accounts, accessed via phishing, dataleaks, and others.

The reason why banks are okay with paying? Because it's cheaper. Devising an unbreakable scheme would cost a lot, first in development and deployment, then in lost business. "Unbreakable" rarely goes together with "easy to use", and customers would just start using shiny beads and seashells rather than be subject to a DNA test before buying a beer.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019