Isn't that what happens in Europe with most rooted phones and banks too?
At least I can remember my banking apps stopped working.
If someone steals the secrets from a rooted phone and steals customer's money the bank is on the hook, so banks do everything they can to minimize this risk.
There is no way to store customer's secrets in a PC browser securely, so all the "dangerous" transactions were outright prohibited in the web app or made available only via temporary QR login.
All this is just is a negative side effect of customer protection laws.
Do peope get defrauded using online banking? Sure. But usually not in a way that would be stopped by secure attestation.
For the past 20 or so years, every bank I've been with in Belgium has provided me with one of three types of hardware token:
1. An OTP token that's just a screen that displays a new 6 digit token every couple of seconds (haven't seen one of these in a few years now). This was used to supplement username/password on login and to verify every bank transfer.
2. A token with a screen and a display, which generates OTPs based on input. E.g. for a payment the bank would tell me to enter the amount + the last N digits of the bank account, the token then generates an OTP, which I can use to confirm the payment. That's what 2 of my 3 banks currently use. They have separate modes for logging in, for signing bank transfers, for signing 3D Secure online payments, etc.
3. A card reader where where I just slot in my card. I can then log in or sign payments using the card's chip & pin. This is what my third bank uses. There are a couple of variants on this, such as models which connect with USB and models which can read QR codes from your screen so you don't have to tap in anything except for your PIN.
Now that's just not true now, is it? Sure the lawyers told you that (the ones that get paid to tell you that), but nowhere in EU was a bank actually fined for not root checking a device.
They were plenty fined by being utterly incompetent with security practices and doing them poorly - like trying to inject wierd .SOs to do the root detection you're defending.
"Payment service providers (PSPs) operating in the EU will have to cover customers’ losses from fraud if their fraud protection regimes are inadequate or poorly implemented under new EU rules."
Other places like the UK had such rules already.
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.
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.
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.
If you really think this is all just fluff, by all means, go get yourself employed inside a bank's security team and convince them to turn all this stuff off. Let us know how it goes.
In some jurisdictions if bank can prove that transaction was made with customer's key then customer can not demand their money back. That's the best case, but there are only few of such jurisdictions and even there the burden of proof is on the bank and it costs a lot.
In other jurisdictions bank must reverse a transaction even if it was proven that the transaction was signed with a legitimate key, but the key _may_ have been stolen.
In some jurisdictions (i.e U.S.) banks are required to reverse a transaction at a customer’s request, even if the customer does not dispute having made the transaction.
In any case dealing with all this is too expensive and risky.
[Citation needed]
How much does it cost? How risky?
For many European banks the math is even more brutal.
There's no way to assess the security of a rom from an app and it's about time that banks learn this reality.
Software on mobile is even more fragmented and less standardized than on desktop