111–120 of 148 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disgruntled former Monzo customer here too. Froze my account after I cashed out some bitcoin on Coinbase, held on to all my money for over a year and refused to answer support requests. Only got my money back off them when I brought the financial ombudsmen into it. Don't touch them with a ten foot pole.
They explicitly tell you that Cypto is banned tbf.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Happy Monzo customer here with it as my primary account for the last 2 years. Haven’t had any issues, and neither have any of my friends. It’s the best possible banking experience imo. I’m happy they are proactive about suspicious activity.
Sounds like a paid “amazon” review. lul
I've also had great experiences with Monzo, so will also back them up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s definitely their anti money laundering (AML) detection system kicking in. However it’s clearly getting false positives and their internal AML team is getting hit with a high amount of them thus causing the delays in resolving them. This is why you don’t build your own solutions to well solved problems.
I wonder if their system, by virtue of being modern, is too good and catches a lot of fraud that would otherwise remain undetected by legacy banks' systems? Not to mention, opening a Monzo account is much easier and can be done remotely, thus it could be attracting a lot of malicious activity that just wouldn't even reach the legacy banks because the laborious account opening process would filter those out?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect this is more to do with the financial regulation & the bodies that investigate these things, rather than Monzo.
So if we pick any UK bank we will see the exact same issues?
Disgruntled former Monzo customer here. Do they still have a haywire fraud detection system that randomly freezes innocent people's accounts? It's happened to countless users and the customer experience when they do it ("we refuse to tell you why" and in some cases holding onto their money for months) is a kafkaesque nightmare. https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvg7n3/monzo-freezing-closin... https://www.reddit.com/r/U…
Happy Monzo customer here with it as my primary account for the last 2 years. Haven’t had any issues, and neither have any of my friends. It’s the best possible banking experience imo. I’m happy they are proactive about suspicious activity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No UK bank will ever tell you why your account is frozen, and this is why: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/money-laundering-offen... . Source: used to work on Monzo's financial crime team.
The link doesn't really clarify much for me, can you elaborate? Are you saying the GP laundered money?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Containers are really a kind of process-isolation - you still share a kernel. You can find a lot of people saying that containers aren’t enough for running untrusted user code. If you run a fully virtualised instance you get your own kernel and aren’t relying on process isolation. Would you be happy if your cloud provider was running your containers on the same virtual I stance as someone else’s? Most people wouldn’t…
The only meaningful difference between breaking out of a process-isolated "container" and a full-blown VM is what's waiting for you outside once you've broken out. Whether it's kernel/OS or a bare metal hypervisor isn't really all that meaningful: exploits and vulnerabilities exist for either. There should be proper hardware-level isolation here, depending on the scenario. Most cloud companies can't afford that thoug…
This is just not true, or at least it's extremely disingenuous.
Container isolation relies on the Linux kernel. Other than seccomp-denied syscalls (which aren't a thing in k8s by default) any program in the container has full access to the kernel. The Linux kernel has massive attack surface, especially to root users.
VM isolation like Firecracker is much safer. The attack surface is considerably lower. For one thing, you can isolate the process in the guest just as well as you could outside, further limiting attack surface. But more importantly, an attacker either has to attack:
1. Firecracker
2. KVM
Both are very small codebases.
Firecracker is:
1. Written in Rust.
2. Sandboxed aggressively.
KVM has basically never had a public guest to host breakout. You can read about one here, https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2021/06/an-epyc-escap...
So, to recap, we have "security boundary relies on a fully exposed Linux kernel" and "security boundary relies on hardened, tiny, security-driven programs".
It is not even close.
> There should be proper hardware-level isolation here, depending on the scenario. Most cloud companies can't afford that though, because they're not rolling out their own hardware.
Hence hardware building hypervisor support in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No UK bank will ever tell you why your account is frozen, and this is why: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/money-laundering-offen... . Source: used to work on Monzo's financial crime team.
I'd love to read a thread where you and OP try to see maybe what happened, theoretically, in Minecraft of course.
Should banking really be on a cloud platform? I do believe AWS is likely far more secure than any DIY computing environment but even so, should banking be on cloud infrastructure? I'm not saying I think this is a bad idea but it came to mind when I read this. Also, is it really a good idea for a bank to be talking openly about its security strategy? Isn't an important part of security not to let on anything that migh…