upvote

points

by julianlam23 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby T-RN-R23 hours ago|
next
[-]
99.999% of people don’t root and install custom operating systems on consumer hardware. The bank derives immense security value by enforcing this, at the expense of your hobby installation.
reply
upvoteby verelo23 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I don't think this is as unusual are you're implying it might be.

I've moved funds ranging from 10k to $1m between banks in Canada much more than once, and every single time, I go to one and get a draft and drive that draft over to the destination bank. It's just easier...and its absurd.

reply
upvoteby dcrazy21 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
When you show up to get a cashier’s check, the teller has very strong proof that you’re not a scammer sitting in Malaysia. And you’re presumably OK with waiting the 1-3 days for the cashier’s check to clear.

This might be true in Canada too: the real estate industry down here is entirely dependent on wire transfers, and yet they are absolutely terrified of wire scams. Maybe if FedNow had existed when I bought my place, I could have gotten a draft slip from my bank and driven it over to the title company.

reply
upvoteby bawolff21 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
While i agree it is uncommon - i disagree that banks get much security value from this. Most banks let you do etransfers from a desktop computer just normally. I dont really see what attacks banning rooted phones stop when you can just use your normal linux desktop.
reply
upvoteby thomasjeff111 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Exactly my thoughts and why I said what I said here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50436011
reply
upvoteby switchbak23 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Yeah what did you need that freedom for anyway?
reply
upvoteby dcrazy23 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
The utility is preventing malware bundled with pirated apps from transferring away your personal savings in a hard-to-reverse instant transfer.

You, as a technically savvy user, could choose to use a dedicated device with an acceptable security posture for your electronic transfers.

reply
upvoteby Marsymars22 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> You, as a technically savvy user, could choose to use a dedicated device with an acceptable security posture for your electronic transfers.

Not really, I'm forced to use e.g. RBC because that's where my employer sends their matched retirement savings funds.

reply
upvoteby ifwinterco22 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
They mean use an old, vanilla non rooted phone that doesn't set off every alarm in the building for this kind of stuff
reply
upvoteby Marsymars21 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Oh that makes more sense, I somehow read "device" as "service".
reply
upvoteby gpm23 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Weird... I've never had problems using eTransfer from a browser (firefox) on my computer (linux)... which has got to be as untrustworthy a device as there is.
reply
upvoteby MrDOS23 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
For the last several months, eTransfers initiated from my desktop browser (Firefox on Linux, same as you) have required confirmation via the RBC app on my iPhone. Definitely seems like they have multiple scales of trustworthiness for people/devices/activity. Kind of wish they'd be more transparent about what they are, but I guess that sort of transparency can easily become a vulnerability.
reply
upvoteby NathanielK22 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
My phone app isn't verified, so it just sends an RCS message to my phone number. Works for now, but who knows what'll happen.
reply
upvoteby Marsymars19 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
These are also obnoxious - RBC has checked whatever box makes Google's RCS web app refuse to render them, so if I'm am my computer, now I have to get up and go find my phone so that I can manually input the code.
reply
upvoteby b11222 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Create a separate firefox profile, all defaults, no addons, and use that only for RBC/banking.

This can easily be launched from the command line via args, when needed.

Unless you let all the tracking scripts, and auth scripts load, it thinks you're evil.

reply
upvoteby abdullahkhalids23 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Similar experience. No real problems. However, RBC limits the amount I can transfer to 2k per day from browser and like 5k per day from the app.

I don't send anything from TD, but if I buy anything online half the time it forces a 2FA which requires signing into the app and confirming the transaction. I imagine signing into the app might not work nicely if I was on LineageOS.

reply
upvoteby Marsymars22 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I've never used the TD app, but the TD website seems to be designed to be as inconvenient as possible, down to disabling pasting on 2FA input fields.
reply
upvoteby julianlam22 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Used to be the case, yes. However even web-initiated EMTs trigger device confirmation. RBC seems to have made this mandatory for at least my account as of this summer.
reply
upvoteby kevin_nisbet23 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Unless I'm missing something I'd expect Payments Canada to have similar issues for you, since it'll still be the banks that you interact with. What changes is the settlement and messaging system between the banks.
reply
upvoteby fl4regun23 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
can't you just use the web interface?
reply
upvoteby tamimio22 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Interesting, did you try other apps if they work on grapheneos/lineageos like koho or wealthsimple? If they do, maybe you can use it as an intermediate tool.
reply
upvoteby metalman23 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Bieng in a similar situation, my back up plan has been to keep a phone that is used exclusivly for personal banking and pull the sim and shut it off when not in use. Currently I have a much fiddled with android phone and a browser that will interact with the banks web sites for banking. I get a lot of paper cheques and convert to cash for much of my personal spending, and my hope is that the new system will facilitate timely clearance of paper cheques and actualy make them more atractive.
reply