Online Banking preference.

[lacksey]

Some have managed to work out how to keep track of what unusual is happening on the other side of the world, even if you are too stupid to be able to do that yourself.

[Chris Green]

Not very secure though is it if it happens automatically! :-)

[David Paste]

Well from recent experience that's almost a month away.

[lacksey]

Just as secure as if you receive the SMS and have to type the numbers into the field in the app yourself.

[Chris Green]

No, because you check whether the transaction is one that you want to validate. ... and, as I said, I don't "type the numbers" I use copy and paste.

[Tim+]

You still have to tap a button to validate, it?s just that the field has been filled in for you.

Tim

[lacksey]

Fraid so.

You only get an SMS with a code on the same phone that the transaction was initiated on.

[David Wade]

The alternative may require more steps. You can and of course should register more than one finger. I know that is not totally resilient but if you do one from each hand..

[David Wade]

Whilst the iPad may be "more secure" all its browsers use the same Apple mandated rendering engine so all have the same down-level HTML support and so don't work with some banking web sites.

From time to time this results in my wife being unable to log into some banking sites.

It also means if there is a security bug on iPad it usually affects all browsers, switching to chrome for example leaves you using much of the same code underneath.

Dave

[Chris Green]

Ay? Not true, you get the SMS with a code on the mobile (usually) number that you nominate in your bank account settings. Otherwise it might be a bit difficult doing transactions from a laptop or whathever. My SMS validations arrive on a pseudo-mobile number provided by a VOIP server, there's no way I can run an app on that!

[Chris Green]

Yes, "The alternative may require more steps" but there *is* an alternative, that's the point I was making. You *can* authenticate by fingerprint or face but you don't have to so I don't see how it makes anything more secure. It's less secure if anything because there's more than one way to authenticate.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Probably Ubuntu, on the grounds that no one is that interested in hacking the rather fewer numbers of Linux desktops (as opposed to web servers).

I use Mint and have only had compatibility issues with banking websites, not security issues.

Its very hard to install a virus on Linux desktops behind NAT routers.

The modern trend seems to be towards software geared for fondleSlabs and stupidPhones tho.

[The Natural Philosopher]

yeah, right, I was sitting at the airport looking for a wifi point and up popped 'Mandys i-phone'

really secure.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Amen to all that.

[The Natural Philosopher]

How odd. I get SMS codes on transactions I haven't even used a phone in

[The Natural Philosopher]

You couldn't bullshit your way out of a paper bag, rodders

[lacksey]

Yeah, I do that anyway, mainly so I can unlock the phone when driving with the hand I don't normally use when not driving, and it is the thumb in both cases, mainly so when doing an apple pay transaction at a checkout, I can take it out of the pocket with my thumb on the sensor and just wave the phone at the terminal in one clean sweep.

[lacksey]

That's fixed by using the apps instead of the browser.

And that allows the use of a fingerprint or facial recognition instead of the much more clumsy and much less secure password.

I don't find that at all.

[lacksey]

Fraid so with the situation being discussed, where the SMS code is automatically copied into the field where it goes in the app.

But with those, it obviously can't be automatically copied to the field in the app.

So there is no lack of security, as you claimed.

[lacksey]

It is much more secure because the fingerprint or facial recognition can't be hacked with the best fingerprint and facial recognition systems.

Even sillier.