- there are millions of customers who hate having to use their brains (or get their phone to receive a 2FA code);
- a kilometer of requirements from whatever Central Bank, local policies and ad-hoc decisions;
- (too) limited budget to build and run whatever service (cost of SMS 2FA for millions .vs. cost of some limited fraud);
- very, very bad dev education, and general disdain for security. We do have a guide for them (the "secure development handbook"), and all our code audits reveal that it wasn't followed in all places;
- outdated perception of security issues (screengrabbers are still a threat to tackle, according to some).
If "the PC" or "the IP address" was not contractually agreed to be an authentication factor (that you thus should protect from unauthorized use), it's a terrible idea to use them for authentication, while also (presumably) putting all liability on the customer.
So basically, they can't put liability on the customer unless 2FA is used. The second factor is usually the credit card PIN.
Banks have to maintain a balance between convenience and risk of fraud.
And what is the standard of evidence for that?
> So basically, they can't put liability on the customer unless 2FA is used. The second factor is usually the credit card PIN.
That doesn't sound like a second factor? Or are you talking about POS transactions?
> Banks have to maintain a balance between convenience and risk of fraud.
Really, they don't. The bank should never decide to take on risks for me. There is nothing wrong with offering a feature where the customer can select to allow certain transactions without 2FA. There is everything wrong with forcing that feature on customers.
I'm very interested in your bank and how they do it, I'll see if voice 2FA is something feasible at my place. Could you share the bank's name though? Management likes to have solid evidence that someone else is already doing it when the security team proposes "weird solutions".
[0] https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/payment-services-psd-2-directi... , https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/LSU/?uri=CELEX:32...
I might be one of those "some". Why do you say that screengrabbers are not a threat to consider? There are hundreds of cases that I can think of where they can be a security issue.
And even if the character subset is quite small (26 lower case, 26 upper case, 10 digits), it's still good enough if it's completely random and never leaked once. Just max out the password length (start at 32 char) and back track from there.
[0] https://www.paypal.com/us/smarthelp/article/Tips-for-creatin...
I'd say most if not all of this code is probably running on some IBM mainframe from the 1980s or 90s - possibly later - and likely in some kind of emulation or backwards compatibility mode (so something from the 80s/90s would likely allow for running S/360 stuff, and so forth).
The actual hardware, though, has either been scrapped or is in a museum somewhere. There are very, very few instances of organizations still running "ancient" hardware (though the few that are tend to be known by the mainframe collecting community from what I understand).