4 ms·

My one complaint, and the thing which forces me to use a competitor instead, is that there's no pin protection on entering the app, which I find quite unbelieva

by hanoz 8y ago

My one complaint, and the thing which forces me to use a competitor instead, is that there's no pin protection on entering the app, which I find quite unbelievable.

Jmcdd 8y ago
Weird. They have fingerprint authentication to access the app on Android but not pin.
stedaniels 8y ago
It's a configurable setting. For some, I imagine, having to unlock the phone, then the app with the same fingerprint credential seems pointless.
matthewmacleod 8y ago
You can certainly turn on Face ID (and thus I assume Touch ID and passcode authentication too). Personally I love that this is optional; I already authenticate securely with my phone, so it seems weird to mandatorily require an additional authentication step.
- hanoz 8y ago
  Optional is fine, I'm not looking to force anything on anyone else, but as an Android user without a fingerprint reader, there's no option.
  - matthewmacleod 8y ago
    Oh right, sorry. I didn’t consider that use case! Definitely seems like that option should be available.
  - baby 8y ago
    It sucks. Just to provide a bit of background on these kind of decisions: usually it's quite hard to support a plenitude of platforms, so what happens is that you end up supporting the most recent ones first: the ones that have strong authentication baked into the OS.
- emdowling 8y ago
  I can speak from experience about user perception of security, having previously run security product for a major UK fintech (which works with Monzo). A large proportion of users would complain that biometrics and/or PIN was not mandatory when opening the app. Many people share devices, especially iPads, or have family members that know their device passcode (or have a registered fingerprint or face). Making it mandatory (or strongly pushing it) greatly increases the level of trust people have in your company. The data suggests it is a worthwhile convenience trade-off.

by hanoz 8y ago

My one complaint, and the thing which forces me to use a competitor instead, is that there's no pin protection on entering the app, which I find quite unbelievable.

Jmcdd 8y ago

Weird. They have fingerprint authentication to access the app on Android but not pin.

stedaniels 8y ago

It's a configurable setting. For some, I imagine, having to unlock the phone, then the app with the same fingerprint credential seems pointless.

matthewmacleod 8y ago

You can certainly turn on Face ID (and thus I assume Touch ID and passcode authentication too). Personally I love that this is optional; I already authenticate securely with my phone, so it seems weird to mandatorily require an additional authentication step.

hanoz 8y ago
Optional is fine, I'm not looking to force anything on anyone else, but as an Android user without a fingerprint reader, there's no option.
- matthewmacleod 8y ago
  Oh right, sorry. I didn’t consider that use case! Definitely seems like that option should be available.
- baby 8y ago
  It sucks. Just to provide a bit of background on these kind of decisions: usually it's quite hard to support a plenitude of platforms, so what happens is that you end up supporting the most recent ones first: the ones that have strong authentication baked into the OS.
emdowling 8y ago
I can speak from experience about user perception of security, having previously run security product for a major UK fintech (which works with Monzo). A large proportion of users would complain that biometrics and/or PIN was not mandatory when opening the app. Many people share devices, especially iPads, or have family members that know their device passcode (or have a registered fingerprint or face). Making it mandatory (or strongly pushing it) greatly increases the level of trust people have in your company. The data suggests it is a worthwhile convenience trade-off.