Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
11/07/2026 8:29 pm
TL;DR: Indonesia’s push toward financial inclusion is being slowed by onboarding friction and fraud, with nearly one in three applicants abandoning bank or card applications and 23% of consumers reporting losses to real-time payment scams, according to Oz Forensics. The governance issue is not just speed versus security, but whether identity verification can create trust at the first interaction without weakening fraud controls.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Oz Forensics: Secure Onboarding: Key to Financial Inclusion in Indonesia
By the numbers:
- Nearly one-third will quit if the process takes over 10 minutes.
- 23%, in four, 23%, consumers reports losing money to real-time payment scams.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should financial institutions secure remote onboarding without creating too much friction?
A: Use layered identity proofing that combines document checks, liveness detection, and risk-based escalation.
Q: Why do onboarding journeys fail when identity assurance is too heavy?
A: Applicants abandon flows when the process signals distrust through repeated questions, long wait times, or multiple retries.
Q: What do security teams get wrong about biometric verification?
A: They often treat biometric match accuracy as the whole control.
Practitioner guidance
- Separate proofing from matching Assess whether your onboarding flow includes both face comparison and live-person assurance.
- Track abandonment as a security metric Measure application drop-off at each onboarding step, especially when forms exceed 10 questions or take longer than 10 minutes.
- Validate liveness under real attack conditions Test the onboarding stack against replayed images, screen captures, and generated faces, not only clean sample data.
What's in the full article
Oz Forensics' full article covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- How the biometric onboarding flow is positioned to reduce abandonment in remote application journeys.
- The specific performance claims behind the two-second capture and first-attempt success rate mentioned in the article.
- The anti-fraud rationale for face liveness detection when applicants use photos, videos, or deep fakes.
- The broader business argument for tying identity verification to financial inclusion outcomes.
👉 Read Oz Forensics' analysis of secure onboarding and financial inclusion in Indonesia →
Secure onboarding in Indonesia: what IAM teams need to fix?
Explore further
11/07/2026 8:58 pm
Human identity proofing has become a trust gate, not a formality: When onboarding is the first real security interaction, it determines whether the institution can scale inclusion without importing fraud at the front door. The article shows that speed and assurance are no longer separate design goals. Practitioners should treat onboarding as a governance control with measurable abandonment and fraud outcomes.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 90% of IT leaders say properly managing NHIs is essential for a successful zero-trust implementation, according to the Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- 91.6% of secrets remain valid five days after the targeted organisation is notified, showing a critical gap in remediation procedures.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who is accountable when onboarding controls block legitimate users or let fraud through?
A: Accountability usually sits with the identity, fraud, and customer operations owners together, because onboarding is a shared control point. If the process excludes legitimate applicants, the business pays in lost conversion. If it admits synthetic or spoofed identities, the organisation absorbs fraud loss and trust damage.
👉 Read our full editorial: Secure onboarding in Indonesia depends on digital trust
