SC.com/sg or standardchartered,com.sg ?

[Calander]

https://www.sc.com/sg/ or https://ibank.standardchartered.com.sg/

in view of all the online scams and randsonware, standard chartered bank's website seems not so legit.

 

[limster]

If you are saying that www.sc.com is not a legit site, you should expect to get a lawyers letter soon.

 

[Prof Goh]

Both are legit. You can check the ssl certificate too.

 

[Shion]

I see no issues with the links

 

[V_for_Vanilla]

If you are saying that www.sc.com is not a legit site, you should expect to get a lawyers letter soon.

Only those who have something to hide are quick to employ legal means.

 

[koja6049]

inconsistent domain name, I think it is sloppy website maintenance on their part. standardchartered.com.sg does reroute back to sc.com/sg

 

[chuanz]

they were standardchartered.com.sg before switching to sc.com/sg from 30 Nov 2013... have to keep the old domain alive as well lah for compatibility reasons.

From 30 November, Standard Chartered is changing to a shortened website address - sc.com/sg. The move to a two-alphabet URL is part of our continued commitment to make banking more convenient. Shorter is better, and this move adds up to a better way to bank.

 

[ska13a]

inconsistent domain name, I think it is sloppy website maintenance on their part. standardchartered.com.sg does reroute back to sc.com/sg

i do not think its sloppy.

think at user level and management level, consistent domain maintenance instead.
sc.com is non singapore link, just a sublink for singapore products via /sg

similar way boc is maintain too
http://www.bankofchina.com/sg/

while ibanking is the crux of where data is connected to is using singapore link.

 

[Mecisteus]

https://www.sc.com/sg/ or https://ibank.standardchartered.com.sg/

in view of all the online scams and randsonware, standard chartered bank's website seems not so legit.

Legit or not, phisers cannot siphon your money away without your token.

If you do a search for Standard Chartered Singapore in Google, the 1st result will be the legit one. Google won't point you to some dangerous links.

 

[koja6049]

i do not think its sloppy.

think at user level and management level, consistent domain maintenance instead.
sc.com is non singapore link, just a sublink for singapore products via /sg

similar way boc is maintain too
http://www.bankofchina.com/sg/

while ibanking is the crux of where data is connected to is using singapore link.

lol u cite boc as an example, the most sloppiest ibanking out there.

Want to compare, compare to citibank la

 

[Mecisteus]

lol u cite boc as an example, the most sloppiest ibanking out there.

Want to compare, compare to citibank la

Citibank is using the sg domain. In other words, they need to maintain and pay more domain names. Imagine if they have banks in so many countries? 1 country for 1 domain?

/sg is the cheapest to maintain. 1 domain for all countries.

Anyway, I agree the link has nothing to do with sloppiness. They are all different implementations.

 

[koja6049]

Citibank is using the sg domain. In other words, they need to maintain and pay more domain names. Imagine if they have banks in so many countries? 1 country for 1 domain?

/sg is the cheapest to maintain. 1 domain for all countries.

Anyway, I agree the link has nothing to do with sloppiness. They are all different implementations.

of course 1 country 1 domain, for security purposes. These sloppy implementation compromises security, in the end banks lose more. penny wise pound foolish

 

[Calander]

If you are saying that www.sc.com is not a legit site, you should expect to get a lawyers letter soon.

whether legit or not, how is questioning if it's genuine will be expecting the lawyer's letter?

 

[anfielder]

Citibank is using the sg domain. In other words, they need to maintain and pay more domain names. Imagine if they have banks in so many countries? 1 country for 1 domain?

/sg is the cheapest to maintain. 1 domain for all countries.

Anyway, I agree the link has nothing to do with sloppiness. They are all different implementations.

I think SC still owns the previous domain name, as it redirects to the new one. So it's not really about cost of domain names.

FWIW, the organisation where I work carried out an exercise to reduce the number of front-facing websites to enhance security. So who knows.. maybe it's more secure this way.

 

[Mecisteus]

I think SC still owns the previous domain name, as it redirects to the new one. So it's not really about cost of domain names.

FWIW, the organisation where I work carried out an exercise to reduce the number of front-facing websites to enhance security. So who knows.. maybe it's more secure this way.

Yeah there is a redirect. To me the domain name is a non-issue.

Just access from the correct link. Can search from Google to be safe. Usually, if it is a phising website, browsers can warn.