Hsbc new secure key - i hate it !!!

black_taxi_2

its a PAIN

---

spent an hour trying to get logged on---still cant do it

black_taxi_2

foook-me

i was putting my own security code in ---instead of HSBC generated number---guy on phone HSBC must of thought im an idiot

grizzly1911

I have the Barclays version of this and have had it for more years than I can remember.

Personally I like it and once used to it no problems at all.

I believe they do offer a lower servicing standard e.g. no third party payments if you want to dispense with it or need to see your accounts on the move.

Secure ID for VPN/Server access was an administrative headache when I help managed a service.

Like all Security Verification processes there will always be flaws, practical issues that need to be accepted if you are trying to make it usable en-mass.

That is one of the reasons I was so against ID cards as they were a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Mass bureaucracy that could easily by sidestepped by anybody who was that way inclined.

At the end of they day the Banks know that all systems can be broken if people are bent on doing it. By placing hurdles in the way they make a judgement that the residual risk is one that they are prepared to accept. One of the risks they would also have taken on board is customer satisfaction/or lack of it, in introducing this. system.

I am sure that most customers will accept in the spirit it has been introduced.

I have several different accounts and I find MBNA one of the weirdest - but that is just my logic perhaps.

black_taxi_2

why cant they do HSBC computerised generated number on-line instead of having to carry a flimsy plastic devise with you?

grizzly1911

black_taxi wrote: »

why cant they do HSBC computerised generated number on-line instead of having to carry a flimsy plastic devise with you?

If you can log in to get at this "specific number" to you to then log into your account this would make the whole exercise pointless.

The reason you have to have a remote "device" is so you can be verified against a "synchronised" one held by your bank.

Orinoko

I dont know who they surveyed but I dont think its the general consensus that these are helpful devices, I understand the need for security but how about 1. Opting for text authorisations (or the device if you havnt got a mobile) and 2. Make it for transfers/modifying your account info only? a lot of other banks do this and it makes much more sense.

I have changed banks after being with HSBC for 18 years so their loss I guess, after a request for another device and a written complaint, all they did was send me a 3 letter document on security, treating me like an idot - well bye HSBC!

mentalworx

jjlandlord wrote: »

I find it extraordinary that people who know nothing about anything on the matter think they can pass judgement on bank security.
I'm pretty sure the same persons would equally coomplain about lax security should their account be compromised.

I strongly suspect that all banks will have similar hardware security measures sooner than later, so people leaving HSBC for this reason might find themselves doubly disappointed.

I don't think anybody here is passing judgement on bank security, they are merely pointing out (and I agree) that the encumbrance us HSBC customers have to take on is a significant inconvenience, and seems a rather blunt tool in this otherwise golden age of convenience. Perhaps to avoid bank robberies in the past, they should have kept the front door locked and we pass money in and out through the letterbox.

grizzly1911

mentalworx wrote: »

I don't think anybody here is passing judgement on bank security, they are merely pointing out (and I agree) that the encumbrance us HSBC customers have to take on is a significant inconvenience, and seems a rather blunt tool in this otherwise golden age of convenience. Perhaps to avoid bank robberies in the past, they should have kept the front door locked and we pass money in and out through the letterbox.

It was easier to catch men running around with stockings on their head and sawnoff shotguns than cyber criminals perhaps??

Oh and the amounts and frequency were a lot less. Don't recall Banks being turned over 100 times a day.

Perhaps banks should offer a contractual waiver - no device no payout whatsoever in the event of "fraud".

MPH80

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Perhaps banks should offer a contractual waiver - no device no payout whatsoever in the event of "fraud".

And you can then wait about 5 seconds for the first post on here:

"I didn't read what I signed ... and it's not my fault I clicked on that link the email ... and I just didn't like the device ... they are stealing my money ... it's such a scam ... so they should definitely give me my money back".

grizzly1911

MPH80 wrote: »

And you can then wait about 5 seconds for the first post on here:

"I didn't read what I signed ... and it's not my fault I clicked on that link the email ... and I just didn't like the device ... they are stealing my money ... it's such a scam ... so they should definitely give me my money back".

Easy - make it a form to be signed and independently witnessed and posted back before they activate Internet Banking for you.
Could be attached to the set up documentation sent anyway.

I am sure there would still be complaints, there always is, but it would a least give the Banks a shield if they so wanted.

Me - I would prefer to have the option of a device but I can understand the Luddites CBA attitude.