Tesco Bank customers money disappeared & fraud messages

jimjames

I heard on the radio earlier than the accounts that had been affected was 30% of their customers. Really surprised if that is the case as it would imply that they only have 120,000 customers. I'd have expected it to be much higher than that given the rates they're paying.

ColdIron

I read today that Tesco have 136,000 current account customers so the 40,000 customers affected number stands up

regprentice

jimjames wrote: »

I heard on the radio earlier than the accounts that had been affected was 30% of their customers. Really surprised if that is the case as it would imply that they only have 120,000 customers. I'd have expected it to be much higher than that given the rates they're paying.

According t the press tesco bank has 7Million customer accounts but only 136000 of these are current accounts.

jimjames

ColdIron wrote: »

I read today that Tesco have 136,000 current account customers so the 40,000 customers affected number stands up

It did seem very low but obviously not too many have taken out the 3% offer. Hopefully means it will be around for a while longer.

Pincher

So who is going trust the story they eventually put out?

Banks have traditionally tried to keep it quiet when they have security breaches. If they were well and truly hacked, will they admit it?

If one bank can be hacked, so can the others.
Imagine the panic if they come clean.

2010

Once again it proves that banks are putting profits before security.

If they put all the money they waste on advertising and switching bribes towards security their banks might be safer.

If hackers can crack their way in,they must be smarter than the bank own security teams.
Poacher turned gamekeeper springs to mind regarding security.

No matter how big the Tesco loss is, the customer will have to pay for it one way or another.
Expect the 3% to be cut next year on the current account.

Pincher

2010 wrote: »

If hackers can crack their way in,they must be smarter than the bank own security teams.

I think you have no idea how vulnerable we all are.

If you have something worth stealing, they will make the effort.

My insurance broker told me about a safe buried in concrete, so heavy that one man cannot lift it, but was taken anyway, after my own modest safe in a cabinet was ripped out. Just for the damage, the insurance paid out ~£5,000, plus they sent carpenters and locksmiths which was at least another £1,000 worth, on other broken bits.

If you can grab £17million, you could bribe an insider to help you hack Tesco. The movie plot where you kidnap his family is not just fiction, plenty of real people out there in the world are kidnapped for less.

You don't attack where the security is good, you find weak points, and the human factor is always dodgy.

Rollinghome

teddysmum wrote: »

Surely ,if a number of accounts have fraudulent payments pending, the bank can trace the requests to source accounts ?

I’d assume the banks will know where the money went initially but it would then have been moved on (and on and on). That’s likely to be the riskiest part of the operation for the thieves.

bigfreddiel wrote: »

On radio 5 live this afternoon an expert said it was likely to have been a state sponsored cyber attack, where a huge number of requests were made on Tesco via the 'card holder not present' type of transaction.

Mr A N Expert seems to be popping up all over the place. The zanier the idea, the more likely it is to be reported.

2010 wrote: »

Once again it proves that banks are putting profits before security.

They are though they would probably put it that they are putting customer needs before security. They could cut down on fraud massively if they stopped allowing instant transfers, faster payments, pin-less on-line transactions, contactless payments and all the other things we’d be upset about if they now stopped.

Just as shoplifting could be completely eliminated but the necessary restrictions would mean we wouldn’t enjoy shopping nearly as much.

For the banks fraud is accepted as just the cost of providing what their customers want and would cost far more to eliminate completely that to just accept and try to limit it. This week it was Tesco, next time it will likely be another bank and another scam. As you say, we as customers inevitably pay for it.

Rollinghome

Pincher wrote: »

If you have something worth stealing, they will make the effort.

Just down the road there's a house with high walls and electric gates, alarms everywhere, locks and steel grills at the windows.

When their home was burgled recently they found the thieves had just come through the brick walls - through the back of the fireplace where the walls were thinest. If you have something they want then the baddies will try to find a way to get it.

greenglide

... and, of course, if security is evident (the house with high walls, alarms etc) the thieves will be attracted by it won't they? There must be something to steal.