Note how this says nothing about root lockout.

The fact that no root lockout means "inadequate protection" is something you projected onto this statement and that's the part I'm addressing in my comment.

No one actually got fined for root protection specifically.

▲

mike_hearn a day ago | parent [-]

Regulators love vague standards like "inadequate protection" because it means they can implement a ratchet effect without needing to understand anything or constantly rewrite the laws. If someone gets hurt they just look around at whatever the competition is doing, pick the most extreme thing, and declare that any other standard is inadequate.

So sure, if you want to not use security tactics your competitors are using and then try to lawyer out of it by arguing, "it didn't specifically say we had to do that" in front of the EU Commission, go ahead. But don't blame the banks that are more realistic about how this works.

	▲	izacus 20 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah, so you admit there's no real legal basis for those kind of restrictions. Which anyone of us who worked with banks, mobile, banking security and their legal already knew. They're a source of greatest security hits like "let's use SMS for only auth for web banking" after all. But what's really hiding behind all your fluff is something else: Abusing users with root lockouts is EASY for the programmers at banks. The auditors have a checkbox "root lockout" and they tick the box. Legal ticks the box. CISO ticks the box. All happy, who cares about user. That's what this is all about. The insulting thing is trying to sell it like some kind of security feature.