5 ms·

Why wouldn't they use SFTP?

by ohiovr 6y ago

sodality2 6y ago
Meet the US government... Triple DES is still used for backwards compatibility in banking
- dragontamer 6y ago
  The Fed is a private entity actually. The Treasury is US Government. But the Fed is owned by the member banks. The US kinda coopted a seat at their table and Congress + President appoints the Fed head. But otherwise, the rest of the board is made up by private companies.
  - Meekro 6y ago
    Calling the Fed a private entity is really misleading. It was created by an act of Congress and its highest ranking officials, the Board of Governors, are all appointed by the President. Yes, it shares some power with the banks it regulates (who can elect representatives), but the US government didn't "coopt a seat at the table." It built the table and had most of the seats from the start. And it's true that member banks own stock in the Fed, but it's a super-funky kind of stock ownership. That stock can't be sold or traded, and doesn't grant the kind of voting rights one normally associates with stock ownership. It only entitles the stockholder to their share of the dividends the Fed pays every year. The Fed actually returns nearly all of its profits (something like 95%) to the US Treasury, and pays the rest as dividends to shareholder banks.
    - jerry1979 6y ago
      Correct me if I'm wrong, but people constructed a cleavage between the Fed and the US Govt because they thought we shouldn't trust democracy with money creation.
      - dragontamer 6y ago
        The proper role of the US Government and Money has been under debate ever since Hamilton was appointed Treasury Secretary under George Washington. (EDIT: actually, even earlier than that, but the country didn't exist yet...) Jefferson wanted one system, Hamilton wanted another. And the two sides have been arguing for the past 200+ years. Sometimes, the central bank appears, sometimes it disappears. Then silver+gold, then removal of the silver standard (gold-only standard), then etc. etc. etc. The Revolutionary War required money and bonds. Immediately upon the end of that war came the question of how to organize and pay those loans. Should it be held by the states? Or by the national government? Should a central bank even exist, or is a loose collection of banks good enough? Should there be a national currency, or should the States make their own currency? The Continental Congress's dollar was hit severely by inflation: losing 99% of its value in just a decade or so. Not a big deal: most Americans used Spanish Pesos back then due to their reliable silver weight. The money issue was front-and-center at the birth of this country. Lots of debate and discussion (and duels!!) occurred over the issue. Arguing about money (literally to death) is a proud American tradition.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        > The proper role of the US Government and Money has been under debate ever since Hamilton was appointed Treasury Secretary under George Washington. (EDIT: actually, even earlier than that, but the country didn't exist yet...) In regard to the parenthetical, the country existed either from the First Continental Congress, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, or the surrender at Yorktown, but in any case before the adoption of the Constitution, much less Hamilton's appointment under it as the first Secretary of the Treasury, which is a really odd point to chose as the starting point of the nation.
      - Meekro 6y ago
        You're right-- the Fed Board of Governors members are appointed by the President for 14-year terms, which is supposed to make them more independent. I'd say that what you're describing isn't limited to just fears about money creation, though. It's part of the broader notion in most Western democracies that permanent (or semi-permanent) bureaucrats are more trustworthy than elected officials. It's not just the Fed: Presidents who tamper with the Department of Justice too much, for example, are often criticized for intruding on its "independence." This notion has both practical problems-- who can fire an "independent" bureaucrat run amok?-- and constitutional problems-- the Constitution says "the Executive power is vested in the President" and makes no allowances for any Executive power to be wielded outside the President's control. The Supreme Court has been known to remind everyone of this fact when it's forgotten. For example, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has a director who is appointed by the President for a 5 year term, and can only be fired for a narrow list of reasons. The Supreme Court struck down that restriction and said, roughly, that any inquiry into why the President is firing a particular bureaucrat would infringe on the Executive power that is vested in the President alone. Nonetheless, this idea that some power is "too dangerous to be wielded by elected officials" is alive and well, like with the Federal Reserve. It just can't be wielded too far from the President-- and yes, the President can remove members of the Fed Board of Governors, though it isn't commonly done.
    - natchy 6y ago
      Yes created by an act of Congress but is not under the jurisdiction of congress or the president, apart from appointments.
      - Meekro 6y ago
        The Fed is completely under the US government's control. Congress created it by passing a law, and could pass another law to restructure it if they ever wanted to. The President fills the Board of Governors who run it with his chosen nominees, and can remove and replace them at will. How much more "jurisdiction" do you want?
        kemofo 6y ago
        The government has passed laws against insider trading, speeding, and murder, and I wouldn't say these things are "completely under the US government's control". The fed does what it wants, congress is powerless to stop it, even though there are pieces of paper with laws written on them.
  - smitty1e 6y ago
    >The Fed is a private entity actually. The idea of the Federal Reserve urinates all over the Constitutional principle that people weilding power stand for election. Doom on us for permitting such.
lrem 6y ago
Don't touch if it isn't broken? From what I've seen in other countries, you don't update protocols for this. You introduce better ones and kill the old ones once nobody used them for a while. Which might take longer than expected, because "free instant transfers" might be seen as cannibalizing the "slightly less slow expensive transfers" any given bank might have on offer.
- xtracto 6y ago
  I deal with the ACH network on a daily basis and let me tell you it IS broken. The fact that you only receive negative ack when a transaction fails, otherwise you have to pray your transaction went through is so bad it sounds like a joke. For comparison, the third world underdeveloped country where I live has an electronic cash transfer system allowing me to send ANY amount of money in 10 minutes at most for $0.5 usd.
  - throwaway20875 6y ago
    I worked in fintech in NYC for a bit. The technology driving most critical financial infrastructure in the US is astoundingly antiquated. It is only sustained through the sheer amount of bodies and ingenuity thrown at it.
gruez 6y ago
It's probably VPNed and/or FTP over TLS (aka FTPS).
- xtracto 6y ago
  No, these things use SFTP which is mainly ssh over 22
  - gruez 6y ago
    anecdotal counter-evidence: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7647166 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7647166 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7638063 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7638063 This is probably because people often conflate SFTP (ssh-based protocol) with FTPS (FTP over TLS) eg. royal bank which says "secure ftp" (which suggests SFTP), but also mentions SSL (which suggests FTPS). https://www.rbcroyalbank.com/ach/cid-212563.html https://www.rbcroyalbank.com/ach/cid-212563.html

Why wouldn't they use SFTP?

by ohiovr 6y ago

Why wouldn't they use SFTP?

sodality2 6y ago

Meet the US government... Triple DES is still used for backwards compatibility in banking

dragontamer 6y ago
The Fed is a private entity actually. The Treasury is US Government. But the Fed is owned by the member banks. The US kinda coopted a seat at their table and Congress + President appoints the Fed head. But otherwise, the rest of the board is made up by private companies.
- Meekro 6y ago
  Calling the Fed a private entity is really misleading. It was created by an act of Congress and its highest ranking officials, the Board of Governors, are all appointed by the President. Yes, it shares some power with the banks it regulates (who can elect representatives), but the US government didn't "coopt a seat at the table." It built the table and had most of the seats from the start. And it's true that member banks own stock in the Fed, but it's a super-funky kind of stock ownership. That stock can't be sold or traded, and doesn't grant the kind of voting rights one normally associates with stock ownership. It only entitles the stockholder to their share of the dividends the Fed pays every year. The Fed actually returns nearly all of its profits (something like 95%) to the US Treasury, and pays the rest as dividends to shareholder banks.
  - jerry1979 6y ago
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but people constructed a cleavage between the Fed and the US Govt because they thought we shouldn't trust democracy with money creation.
    - dragontamer 6y ago
      The proper role of the US Government and Money has been under debate ever since Hamilton was appointed Treasury Secretary under George Washington. (EDIT: actually, even earlier than that, but the country didn't exist yet...) Jefferson wanted one system, Hamilton wanted another. And the two sides have been arguing for the past 200+ years. Sometimes, the central bank appears, sometimes it disappears. Then silver+gold, then removal of the silver standard (gold-only standard), then etc. etc. etc. The Revolutionary War required money and bonds. Immediately upon the end of that war came the question of how to organize and pay those loans. Should it be held by the states? Or by the national government? Should a central bank even exist, or is a loose collection of banks good enough? Should there be a national currency, or should the States make their own currency? The Continental Congress's dollar was hit severely by inflation: losing 99% of its value in just a decade or so. Not a big deal: most Americans used Spanish Pesos back then due to their reliable silver weight. The money issue was front-and-center at the birth of this country. Lots of debate and discussion (and duels!!) occurred over the issue. Arguing about money (literally to death) is a proud American tradition.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > The proper role of the US Government and Money has been under debate ever since Hamilton was appointed Treasury Secretary under George Washington. (EDIT: actually, even earlier than that, but the country didn't exist yet...) In regard to the parenthetical, the country existed either from the First Continental Congress, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, or the surrender at Yorktown, but in any case before the adoption of the Constitution, much less Hamilton's appointment under it as the first Secretary of the Treasury, which is a really odd point to chose as the starting point of the nation.
    - Meekro 6y ago
      You're right-- the Fed Board of Governors members are appointed by the President for 14-year terms, which is supposed to make them more independent. I'd say that what you're describing isn't limited to just fears about money creation, though. It's part of the broader notion in most Western democracies that permanent (or semi-permanent) bureaucrats are more trustworthy than elected officials. It's not just the Fed: Presidents who tamper with the Department of Justice too much, for example, are often criticized for intruding on its "independence." This notion has both practical problems-- who can fire an "independent" bureaucrat run amok?-- and constitutional problems-- the Constitution says "the Executive power is vested in the President" and makes no allowances for any Executive power to be wielded outside the President's control. The Supreme Court has been known to remind everyone of this fact when it's forgotten. For example, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has a director who is appointed by the President for a 5 year term, and can only be fired for a narrow list of reasons. The Supreme Court struck down that restriction and said, roughly, that any inquiry into why the President is firing a particular bureaucrat would infringe on the Executive power that is vested in the President alone. Nonetheless, this idea that some power is "too dangerous to be wielded by elected officials" is alive and well, like with the Federal Reserve. It just can't be wielded too far from the President-- and yes, the President can remove members of the Fed Board of Governors, though it isn't commonly done.
  - natchy 6y ago
    Yes created by an act of Congress but is not under the jurisdiction of congress or the president, apart from appointments.
    - Meekro 6y ago
      The Fed is completely under the US government's control. Congress created it by passing a law, and could pass another law to restructure it if they ever wanted to. The President fills the Board of Governors who run it with his chosen nominees, and can remove and replace them at will. How much more "jurisdiction" do you want?
      - kemofo 6y ago
        The government has passed laws against insider trading, speeding, and murder, and I wouldn't say these things are "completely under the US government's control". The fed does what it wants, congress is powerless to stop it, even though there are pieces of paper with laws written on them.
- smitty1e 6y ago
  >The Fed is a private entity actually. The idea of the Federal Reserve urinates all over the Constitutional principle that people weilding power stand for election. Doom on us for permitting such.

lrem 6y ago

Don't touch if it isn't broken? From what I've seen in other countries, you don't update protocols for this. You introduce better ones and kill the old ones once nobody used them for a while. Which might take longer than expected, because "free instant transfers" might be seen as cannibalizing the "slightly less slow expensive transfers" any given bank might have on offer.

xtracto 6y ago
I deal with the ACH network on a daily basis and let me tell you it IS broken. The fact that you only receive negative ack when a transaction fails, otherwise you have to pray your transaction went through is so bad it sounds like a joke. For comparison, the third world underdeveloped country where I live has an electronic cash transfer system allowing me to send ANY amount of money in 10 minutes at most for $0.5 usd.
- throwaway20875 6y ago
  I worked in fintech in NYC for a bit. The technology driving most critical financial infrastructure in the US is astoundingly antiquated. It is only sustained through the sheer amount of bodies and ingenuity thrown at it.

gruez 6y ago

It's probably VPNed and/or FTP over TLS (aka FTPS).

xtracto 6y ago
No, these things use SFTP which is mainly ssh over 22
- gruez 6y ago
  anecdotal counter-evidence: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7647166 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7647166 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7638063 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7638063 This is probably because people often conflate SFTP (ssh-based protocol) with FTPS (FTP over TLS) eg. royal bank which says "secure ftp" (which suggests SFTP), but also mentions SSL (which suggests FTPS). https://www.rbcroyalbank.com/ach/cid-212563.html https://www.rbcroyalbank.com/ach/cid-212563.html