Safety on the NET, is it possible?

Rather than typing some political diatribe, this morning I was listening to a financial discussion. In particular about the amount of money paid back by the banks on account of cyber crime. That is to say the crimes like criminals impersonating banks or service industries like the power companies, and those are not the only ones! Billions of pounds are lost every year. Well, that might be so, but again despite hundreds of warnings, people generally do not seem to be aware of the danger. I too get the occasional phone call from the bank and almost immediately know it is not the bank. The person calling, a nice lady, sounds far too friendly and starts by saying ‘Am I speaking to Mr ???’. Well, my bank does not speak like that, I can tell you. And that’s the way I like it. Although phonecalls are not often received, one can easily receive an official looking letter, again you have to ask yourself ‘What is it, why do I get this?’ If you are not sure, phone the bank on their official telephone number or if you can, go to a branch in person. To be fair, this advice is not just mine, it is already well advertised and discussed all over the place. Yet people still fall for the calls and letters. The other thing happening more and more is criminals are using the social media. X, WhatsApp, Instagram and such. Do you want an investment opportunity, plenty to choose from but far too many are fraudulent. If you need such an investment opportunity go to or contact a registered financial adviser. Another proverb we have to remember is this – Is it really too good to be true? It most likely is not true and the beginning of a fraud!

Well, are there any solutions? Perhaps the banks need to strengthen their methods. 2-Factor authorisation seems to be absolutely necessary. Yes, I know you also preferably need a mobile because you need to reply with your acceptance or use a security device like a Yubi key. The banks would send a code number which needs to be typed for the account to be available. So, what if you lose your mobile or are too old to have one? That’s not easy to solve because presently you would have to go to a branch but as we know branches are being closed more and more. At the moment there is no easy answer.

However, it is still eminently possible, even for competent computer users, mobile phone users and similar to fall foul of a well orchestrated criminal campaign. You think you might have an un-crackable password but most people have family names or the dog’s name as their password, even the (in)famous 12345678 is widely used. Google is now in the process of ditching passwords in favour of face recognition or fingerprint. Newer mobiles can include this already, I use this technology. Also I have used a Yubi key for those companies that allow it and have made access for this technology. If you still have to use passwords, it is imperative to use a good safe password manager. Bitwarden is one of them and free, it can use 2-Factor authorisation and can be used with Windows, Linux and MAC systems.

So, what if you receive this bank’s letter to tell you need to refresh your contact details because apparently they had a computer problem and lost some of their client’s details? It looks very genuine, no spelling errors or strange use of English words. So you click on the link as asked, WRONG! Banks do not approach in this way. They might write but tell you to contact their office, you should already know their number. Also look at the URL (Uniform Resource Locator) it is the web address of the company contacting you. Check if that is the correct one. For instance Lloyds Bank is always ‘https://lloydsbank.com’ and not ‘https://reply:lloydsbank.com’. But be aware other strange addresses could be used, like ‘https://lloydsbank-online.uk’. All fake and link to criminal gangs. Ignore it and if necessary, just ring the bank on their registered proper phone number.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Where are the aliens?

Is there such a thing as mind-control?

Is humanity performing euthanasia on itself?