5 ms·
Hackers and technical folks and just the kind of people who hang out here on HN tend to be very inflexible and on the side of being "technically correct" over b
by bpatrianakos 14y ago
Hackers and technical folks and just the kind of people who hang out here on HN tend to be very inflexible and on the side of being "technically correct" over being "right".
From a security perspective, this should never happen. The author is absolutely, positively, without a doubt correct in his stance on this. Being called in such a way and having very little and/or weak security protocols as described is not only a security breach waiting to happen but it really is, as the author points out, training people to get phished.
But there's a bigger picture here. And that's the picture of Vanguard as a company having years of experience in talking to, working with, dealing with, and learning about their customers. Just like the manager says in the post, they need to balance security with service (no they're not mutually exclusive but they're not one and the same either).
In the end I think this okay. It's not technically correct but it seems like its the right thing to do. Now the reason for this call is never described (which gives some credence to the theories here that this actually never happened along with a lack of other details) but assuming here for the sake of argument that the call was just to talk about something that isn't of super high significance (let's say it was a sales call to upsell something) then a couple of security questions should suffice. If it's to talk about a 10 million dollar bank transfer to some off-shore account then maybe we should be in an uproar here.
Another point to consider is who is responsible for security? Obviously the company that hold your data should be reponsible for the safety of that data and should have measures in place to prevent fraudulent access to it. But then there's also the responsibility of the customer who needs to take care of their account credentials and make sure that if someone accesses one of their private accounts somewhere that there isn't a domino effect. I don't think it's Vanguard's responsibility to make sure that all of their customers use different, long, and random passwords on their Gmail and Facebook and what have you so that one day someone can access one of those and get into their Vanguard account. I mean, that's certainly a nice-to-have but customers have a responsibility to secure their data just the same as companies do. We want to be educating regular folks about security all the time but the moment it comes time for them to apply what we're teaching them we turn around and act like they're off the hook for being ignorant of security best practices. It's a double standard if you ask me.
I know we all like some good old fashioned manufactured outrage but before we get the pitchforks out let's look at the big picture, and not just one aspect of the issue here.
- bjpless 14y agoThe purpose of the original call was to get a change of address (for sending forms). I probably should have clarified that but it seems like a pretty generic request. No need to believe me about the "truthfulness of the claims". Just call Vanguard yourself and ask if they handle cases this way. They will confirm. You ask about security responsibility. I absolutely agree with you that customers have to take on a lot of it (Vanguard is not responsible for creating a 20 char password on your behalf). I do think, though, that you have to draw the line before training your users to accept phishing attempts. That is what is happening here. My biggest reason for pitchforking Vanguard here is that, for many people, they hold more assets than commercial Banks. Their security protocols should have HIGHER standards.
- atwebb 14y agoI'm with you on this one and it has bothered me tremendously for years, but this is hardly limited to Vanguard, I know for a fact that many, many other institutions do this and will immediately ask for your secret password, or divulge too much information if I wasn't actually the intended recipient. Thanks for bringing more attention to this. Personally, I think it is a fairly big deal and a responsibility that Vanguard should shoulder more of. They aren't providing free checking, or free email, or anything of that nature. They are taking money (pretty good money) for a financial service. Their web presence has improved by leaps and bounds and I'm surprised that this hasn't changed.
- davidcuddeback 14y agoI agree with both of you that Vanguard has a responsibility to keep their customer's money secure. Vanguard holds a large chunk of my money (much more than any single bank), and I'd like to know that it's secure. bpatrianakos is also right. Security has to be balanced with service. I think Vanguard's call would be okay if the security questions they ask are compartmentalized. What I mean by that is that they have separate security questions that they ask in a low-security environment (like an outgoing phone call) that they will never trust for high-security actions, such as withdrawals or password resets. Those actions should require a further level of authentication and should never be done via outgoing correspondence. We should at least confirm that the security questions aren't compartmentalized before we break out the pitchforks. However, given that Vanguard limits passwords to 10 characters with limited support for punctuation, I don't have much faith that they have any sort of compartmentalized security.