DBS adds to mobile wallet security features
In an effort to combat the rise of mobile wallet phishing, DBS Bank will launch a new 'Mobile wallets' feature within DBS/POSB digibank app's Payment Controls, preventing scammers from adding phished card details to their mobile wallets.
0
This content is provided by an external author without editing by Finextra. It expresses the views and opinions of the author.
Payment Controls – located within the DBS/POSB digibank app – allows customers to self-manage their card transaction limits in real-time. Customers can use these controls to protect themselves from unauthorised transactions when their card is misplaced, stolen or misused. This includes disabling e-commerce or cash advance transactions, locking the card, among others.
From mid-May 2025, customers will not be able to add DBS/POSB cards to their mobile wallets until they turn on the new 'Mobile wallets' toggle in Payment Controls. The 'Mobile wallets' feature is turned off by default and customers will need to first turn on the 'Mobile wallets' toggle before adding their cards. Using the 'Mobile wallets' in-app control introduces a deliberate pause in the transaction process, allowing users to verify their intention to add their card to a mobile wallet.
The new 'Mobile wallets' feature is the latest addition to the bank's suite of self-managed security control features in the DBS/POSB digibank app. DBS was the first bank in Singapore to introduce the most comprehensive set of payment controls and has continued to maintain that leading position since 2021. To date, over 1.5 million users have adopted DBS' self-managed security tools that also include DBS' money lock feature (digiVault) and security checkup.
Calvin Ong, DBS Head of Consumer Banking Singapore said, 'Along with the Singapore Police Force (SPF), the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore (CSA) and the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), DBS has also observed a rise in mobile wallet phishing incidents, where scammers target customers' cards to add to their mobile wallet for subsequent unauthorised transactions. As part of the industry's initiative to address this issue, DBS has introduced a new 'Mobile wallets' feature to verify our customers' intention to add their card to a mobile wallet. By introducing the deliberate pause, we enable customers to be alert when performing transactions.'
Customers should add only their own cards to their mobile wallets. If they are unfamiliar with mobile wallets, they should consult their family or call the ScamShield Helpline (1799) for assistance.
'Joint vigilance with our customers is essential to combating scams and we will continue to expand our suite of self-managed security features, as well as anti-scam educational resources and community events, to empower our customers to take control of their security,' added Ong.
SPF, CSA and MAS have been working with banks, mobile wallet providers, and card service providers to combat this trend. According to the Singapore Police Force, there were over 650 reports of phished card credentials being added to mobile wallets in the last three months of 2024, resulting in at least SGD 1.2 million in losses from transactions made on scammers' mobile wallets.
The 'Mobile wallets' feature in Payment Controls is turned off by default to ensure customers' cards cannot be added to mobile wallets. Customers who wish to add their DBS/POSB card must first turn on the 'Mobile wallets' toggle in Payment Controls within the DBS/POSB digibank app. To further protect users, this 'Mobile wallets' feature will be automatically turned off if the card is not added to any mobile wallet within 10 minutes.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
3 hours ago
- The Sun
Britain will pay with blood of its people if it doesn't wake up now – world must fear us, Penny Mordaunt warns
BRITAIN will pay with the blood of its people if more money isn't spent to bolster the UK's defence, Penny Mordaunt has warned. The ex-defence secretary has urged the government to "wake up" and fund the UK 's security properly before it's too late. 5 5 5 Former Navy reservist Mordaunt argued that Britain is "emboldening our enemies" if we fail to invest in other forms of deterrence. She warned the consequences with be "incalculably grave" if the government does not open up the treasury purse. Ms Mordaunt told The Sun: "I'm confident that if you prepare for war, you invest in it, you train for it, then conflicts don't start. "Because your foes know it is not worth them doing that. They're going to lose. "The consequences of retaliation against them are too great." Ms Mordaunt's call was echoed by Sir Liam Fox - defence secretary from 2010 to 2011 - who warned the greatest threat to the UK right now comes from Russia. "Frankly, Putin is not going to be deterred by ambition," he told The Sun. "He's deterred by hard power." It comes as the government this month released its much-anticipated Defence Review, which provided a catalogue of recommendations on how to respond to external threats. The review - led by ex-Nato chief Lord Robertson - urges the UK to move to a position of "war-readiness". Britain is our enemy number one, Russians say as new poll puts UK above even Ukraine as Moscow's top foe This could be achieved through numerous commitments to scale up defence capabilities - including a £1.5 billion investment in an "always on" pipeline for munitions, the review said. But the Spending Review this week failed to fulfil the suggestions made by Lord Robertson - including to agree to Nato calls to ramp up investment to 3.5 per cent of GDP. US president Donald Trump previously demanded the UK boost defence spending to five per cent of GDP. It comes after Keir Starmer last week vowed to make Britain "battle-ready" and insisted the threat from Russia could not be ignored. Ms Mordaunt said: "The US President pressed us to go further. The Prime Minister said we needed to deliver on all fronts to keep Britian's people safe and their interests secure. "Not to do so would be a dereliction of his first duty. I was hopeful. "This week we discovered that, behind Treasury smoke and mirrors, defence will received nothing. "No extra funds, no plan to reach Nato's ask, no assurance to unlock industrial investment, no reassurance to donor allies like the US, or recipient allies such as Ukraine, that we are a serious partner. "The consequences of this are incalculably grave. "If the Prime minister believed what he told us about the threats we face then government must alter its plans." It comes as threats to the UK's security loom large from rogue nations such as Russia. And meanwhile the Middle East sits on the brink of war, with Starmer moving military assets in after Israel and Iran fiercely clashed. Vladimir Putin continues to throw soldiers into his meatgrinder war in Ukraine which shows no sign of stopping after more than three years. The bloodthirsty tyrant has repeatedly threatened Western nations - including Britain - over their support of Kyiv. A series of suspicious incidents including undersea cables being cut in suspected sabotage attacks are also a real cause for concern. And this week, Britain was declared as Russia's enemy number one - even above Ukraine and the United States. Ms Mordaunt warned: "We need to wake up Europe and we need to wake up in Britain. "If we don't start funding these foundational capabilities, we are going to end up having to spend more money in the future. "And it won't just be money we're spending. It will be the blood of our own citizens because we'll be in a conflict somewhere." 5 5 Sir Fox - who praised Lord Robertson's "sensible" defence review - insisted defence is the "number one" job of the government. He added: "The problem is the same problem we've had for a long time, which is that the governments like to make a lot of noise about defence - but the treasuries don't open the cheque books. "There's a real problem in European governments in particular, which includes outs, that we enjoyed the peace dividend after the Cold War and thought it would last forever. "And therefore we could increase our domestic spending on welfare and everything else. And that's fine because the defence budget could stay much lower. "Well, defence is not a discretionary spend. "If they were useless at anything else, the one thing they have to be good at is protecting British citizens from outside threats. "And that means they have to spend whatever is necessary in response to that threat, not what they would like to spend in a perfect world." Putin's Ukraine war toll tops 1MILLION by Patrick Harrington and Sayan Bose PUTIN's battlefield casualties have soared past the bloody one million milestone after 40 months of a war he expected to win within days. Ukraine's fierce resistance has ensured Russia has paid a mighty toll for every inch of land it has taken, and its advances remain painfully slow. The staggering milestone includes troops who have been killed or wounded so severely that they cannot fight on. According to the Ukrainian General Staff, one million Russian military troops have been put out of action since February 24, 2022, with 628,000 of those casualties occurring in the last six months. Burning through a million troops has won Putin just 20 per cent of Ukraine's total territory - mainly in southern and eastern areas - which is a humiliating conversion rate. Despite the devastating losses which have already ripped a scar in Russian society, experts fear that Putin is likely unaffected by the numbers, because mass sacrifice is ingrained in his battle plan.
Telegraph
5 hours ago
- Telegraph
British firms are being stifled by excessive regulation and bureaucracy
The all-party House of Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee which I chair has just completed a year-long inquiry into how effective the regulators are at fulfilling their duties to boost competitiveness and growth. It's a sad tale of a deeply entrenched culture of risk aversion, of disproportionately high costs of compliance, and of a complex regulatory landscape driven by expansion and overlap in the regulators' remits and by the volume and scope of regulatory activity. There is no doubt that operational inefficiencies and suffocating bureaucracy are damaging growth and place the UK at a competitive international disadvantage. Despite the regulators' growth mandate, the firms which gave evidence to the year-long inquiry say the system is slow and inflexible. Firms complain of being buried under regulatory paperwork and of facing a never-ending barrage of information requests from both the FCA and PRA. The CEO of Nationwide told the inquiry she received 4,519 pieces of direct correspondence in 12 months. Santander responded to more than 300 regulatory requests and managed 400 regular regulatory reports equating to over 2,500 submissions a year. One firm told us it employed 78 compliance officers for its UK operations compared with a total of 73 to cover the other 40 countries it operated in. We were dismayed by the evidence we received which highlighted long-standing issues that limit investment and the ability of financial firms to grow, innovate and compete. The lack of proportionality in the regulators' approach was evident in the FCA's failure to distinguish between wholesale and retail markets and the PRAs approach to capital requirements. The vagueness surrounding the Consumer Duty and the Financial Ombudsman's evolution into a quasi-regulator has created uncertainty and a worrying perception of a regulatory penalty for investment in UK businesses. It is essential for the FCA and FOS to be aligned on redress and interpretation. The FCA and the PRA alone employ around 6,500 staff at a cost of £1.1 billion. This results in an ever-rolling stream of consultation documents, regulatory changes and compliance advice which firms are expected to follow, communicated sometimes informally through speeches by senior regulators and letters to CEOs. My committee receives notice of these every week and it is frankly overwhelming. The regulators lack clear focus and appear to be still haunted by the 2008 financial crisis. This leads to excessive caution, sluggish approvals, high compliance costs and endless red tape. There is an urgent need for the FCA and PRA senior leadership to drive cultural change. This change should emphasise a more tailored and proportional approach to the risks posed by regulated firms, a culture of continual operational improvement and innovation, and a more transparent and trusting relationship with the businesses they regulate. An approach is needed which embraces technology and streamlines compliance for fintech and AI-driven firms. The skills and quality of staff are vitally important and that means addressing remuneration. A revolving door sees regulators losing some of their most talented people, recruited to advise the companies they once regulated at substantially higher salaries. We were surprised by the difference in candour between the evidence we received from the industry in public and the views expressed to us privately. We were obliged to take evidence in private in order to get many firms to share their concerns. At one meeting I attended, a CEO read out his brief from his compliance department which said that if Lord Forsyth invited him to give evidence to his committee under no circumstances should he agree to do so. This is not a healthy situation and there needs to be a much more open and trusting relationship between the regulators and the firms they regulate. In a competitive market, speed matters. Yet firms say UK regulators are lagging behind international rivals when it comes to authorising new products, people and operations. While official stats suggest improvements, they take too long and many say those numbers are misleading: they exclude the time regulators 'stop the clock' to request more data. If launching a new fintech product takes six months longer in London than in Singapore, investors and innovators will simply go elsewhere. We heard many positive reports of the success of the concierge approach of the Singapore regulator, which involved helping firms to grow and comply with regulatory provisions. Our regulators have much to learn from this approach. The Chancellor has placed a great deal of faith in the regulators stimulating economic growth. Our report makes one thing clear: the regulators can't do this alone. The Government must step up. That means clearer economic goals, better use of statutory guidance and more robust performance tracking. Right now, metrics are focused on operational inputs, not outcomes. Without stronger leadership from HM Treasury and without aligning regulators, industry and Parliament, the growth and competitiveness objectives will be little more than political window dressing.
Reuters
6 hours ago
- Reuters
Exclusive: US-China trade truce leaves military-use rare earth issue unresolved, sources say
BEIJING/SINGAPORE, June 15 (Reuters) - The renewed U.S.-China trade truce struck in London left a key area of export restrictions tied to national security untouched, an unresolved conflict that threatens a more comprehensive deal, two people briefed on detailed outcomes of the talks told Reuters. Beijing has not committed to grant export clearance for some specialized rare-earth magnets that U.S. military suppliers need for fighter jets and missile systems, the people said. The United States maintains export curbs on China's purchases of advanced artificial intelligence chips out of concern that they also have military applications. At talks in London last week, China's negotiators appeared to link progress in lifting export controls on military-use rare earth magnets with the longstanding U.S. curbs on exports of the most advanced AI chips to China. That marked a new twist in trade talks that began with opioid trafficking, tariff rates and China's trade surplus, but have since shifted to focus on export controls. In addition, U.S. officials also signalled they are looking to extend existing tariffs on China for a further 90 days beyond the August 10 deadline agreed in Geneva last month, both sources said, suggesting a more permanent trade deal between the world's two largest economies is unlikely before then. The two people who spoke to Reuters about the London talks requested not to be named because both sides have tightly controlled disclosure. The White House, State Department and Department of Commerce did not immediately respond to requests for comment. China's Foreign and Commerce ministries did not respond to faxed requests for comment. President Donald Trump said on Wednesday the handshake deal reached in London between American and Chinese negotiators was a "great deal," adding, "we have everything we need, and we're going to do very well with it. And hopefully they are too." And U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said there would be no "quid pro quo" on easing curbs on exports of AI chips to China in exchange for access to rare earths. But China's chokehold on the rare earth magnets needed for weapons systems remains a potential flashpoint. China dominates global production of rare earths and holds a virtual monopoly on refining and processing. A deal reached in Geneva last month to reduce bilateral tariffs from crushing triple-digit levels had faltered over Beijing's restrictions on critical minerals exports that took shape in April. That prompted the Trump administration to respond with export controls preventing shipments of semiconductor design software, jet engines for Chinese-made planes and other goods to China. At the London talks, China promised to fast-track approval of rare-earth export applications from non-military U.S. manufacturers out of the tens of thousands currently pending, one of the sources said. Those licenses will have a six-month term. Beijing also offered to set up a "green channel" for expediting license approvals from trusted U.S. companies. Initial signals were positive, with Chinese rare-earths magnet producer JL MAG Rare-Earth ( opens new tab, saying on Wednesday it had obtained export licences that included the United States, while China's Commerce Ministry confirmed it had approved some "compliant applications" for export licences. But China has not budged on specialized rare earths, including samarium, which are needed for military applications and are outside the fast-track agreed in London, the two people said. Automakers and other manufacturers largely need other rare earth magnets, including dysprosium and terbium. The rushed trade meeting in London followed a call last week between Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping. Trump said U.S. tariffs would be set at 55% for China, while China had agreed to 10% from the United States. Trump initially imposed tariffs on China as punishment for its massive trade surplus to the United States and over what he says is Beijing's failure to stem the flow of the powerful opioid fentanyl into the U.S. Chinese analysts are pessimistic about the likelihood of further breakthroughs before the August 10 deadline agreed in Geneva. "Temporary mutual accommodation of some concerns is possible but the fundamental issue of the trade imbalance cannot be resolved within this timeframe, and possibly during Trump's remaining term," said Liu Weidong, a U.S.-China expert at the Institute of American Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. An extension of the August deadline could allow the Trump administration more time to establish an alternative legal claim for setting higher tariffs on China under the Section 301 authority of the USTR in case Trump loses the ongoing legal challenge to the tariffs in U.S. court, one of the people with knowledge of the London talks said. The unresolved issues underscore the difficulty the Trump administration faces in pushing its trade agenda with China because of Beijing's control of rare earths and its willingness to use that as leverage with Washington, said Ryan Hass, director of the John L. Thornton China Center at the Brookings Institution. "It has taken the Trump team a few punches in the nose to recognise that they will no longer be able to secure another trade agreement with China that disproportionately addresses Trump's priorities," Hass said.
