3 ms·
I agree. I nodded along to the part about not assuming it's the victim's fault, and then this "expert" falls for an extremely basic, obvious attack. "Wells Farg
by feoren 5y ago
I agree. I nodded along to the part about not assuming it's the victim's fault, and then this "expert" falls for an extremely basic, obvious attack. "Wells Fargo will not contact you by phone or text to request this code." -- maybe that should have been bigger and bolder, but it was there. This guy should not be allowed to call himself a "scam prevention expert" anymore.
- mort96 5y agoThere's a lot of text in that e-mail. The text you're referring to is perfectly positioned to be almost invisible -- it's in the last paragraph intermingled with the standard "if you have any questions, call us on blah blah blah" text. My brain skipped the rest of that paragraph the first 5 times I skimmed the e-mail.
- mdavis6890 5y agoDoes a "scam prevention expert" really need to read that fine print to know not to provide a one-time code to an inbound caller?
- woojoo666 5y agoThe author mentioned that (1) they have had many poor experiences with Wells Fargo and (2) they don't have much experience with Apple but the experiences they have had weren't positive. I personally have had to deal with my fair share of janky and badly designed support systems (especially in health and banking), sometimes they are worse than startups. So it's not outside the realm of possibility that giving the support rep the auth code was simply the best solution they could find given whatever poor and legacy systems they had in their backend.
- mort96 5y agoListen, I responded to a particular part of my parent comment. Whether the author's given explanation for why she in the moment read the code over the phone is reasonable or if it proves that she's a fundamentally terrible scam prevention expert is a much bigger topic which my comment didn't touch on.