3 ms·

Even for something so old and outdated? Because I have done consultancy work for some banks and have seen things (mostly incorrect data to be fair) changed in u

Even for something so old and outdated? Because I have done consultancy work for some banks and have seen things (mostly incorrect data to be fair) changed in under half an hour once pointed out.

300bps 13y ago
There are three types of people at my bank: 1. Business users. So unbelievably locked down it's ridiculous. Anytime they ask for access rights it's "can't, because of audit". 2. Application IT users. As locked down as possible while still allowing them to somewhat do their job. 3. Infrastructure IT users. Domain admin rights with their standard user login. Ability to bypass any proxy server restriction by default. It's basically the worst of all worlds. The business users and application IT people can't do anything in the name of following "security best practices" while the infrastructure IT people (including the business analysts and non-technical people in that group) have carte blanche because "they couldn't do their job without it". They don't even follow basic security practices like using a non-privileged account for everyday use and having an elevated account for when they need to do something. It's a complete mess. So thinking about it more - the infrastructure IT people make instant changes all the time.
- InTheSwiss 13y ago
  Yup that is pretty much my experience of a dozen blue chips and banks. It is either all or nothing. A lot of this is Microsoft's fault due to how crap things were done back in the XP and earlier days and while we have moved on a lot of places stick to how they used to do things rather than re-evaluate how things can and should be done now. Sucks but that is the way the corporate world is it seems.
- Touche 13y ago
  Banks should be resistant to change, changes have the potential for million dollar mistakes. It would be expensive for them to have 1 procedure for the important money-touching systems and another for the less important website infrastructure.

Even for something so old and outdated? Because I have done consultancy work for some banks and have seen things (mostly incorrect data to be fair) changed in under half an hour once pointed out.

300bps 13y ago

There are three types of people at my bank: 1. Business users. So unbelievably locked down it's ridiculous. Anytime they ask for access rights it's "can't, because of audit". 2. Application IT users. As locked down as possible while still allowing them to somewhat do their job. 3. Infrastructure IT users. Domain admin rights with their standard user login. Ability to bypass any proxy server restriction by default. It's basically the worst of all worlds. The business users and application IT people can't do anything in the name of following "security best practices" while the infrastructure IT people (including the business analysts and non-technical people in that group) have carte blanche because "they couldn't do their job without it". They don't even follow basic security practices like using a non-privileged account for everyday use and having an elevated account for when they need to do something. It's a complete mess. So thinking about it more - the infrastructure IT people make instant changes all the time.

InTheSwiss 13y ago
Yup that is pretty much my experience of a dozen blue chips and banks. It is either all or nothing. A lot of this is Microsoft's fault due to how crap things were done back in the XP and earlier days and while we have moved on a lot of places stick to how they used to do things rather than re-evaluate how things can and should be done now. Sucks but that is the way the corporate world is it seems.
Touche 13y ago
Banks should be resistant to change, changes have the potential for million dollar mistakes. It would be expensive for them to have 1 procedure for the important money-touching systems and another for the less important website infrastructure.