Go read the article (or the first 2 paragraphs even), then come back and read the comment. The point of the article was that Schwab's login security is so brok

Go read the article (or the first 2 paragraphs even), then come back and read the comment. The point of the article was that Schwab's login security is so broken, even when you do all of the right things yourself, Schwab's implementation of passwords and 2-factor auth may make you think that everything worked when it didn't. It is my opinion that someone who had read the article, had a Schwab account, and who had enabled 2-factor auth for that account would have responded to or added to the experiences expressed by Jeremy Tunnell. But there are no words in acconrad's post that leads me to believe that they read the article before posting, as it basically amounts to, "When I contacted them about crappy password security, I ended up with a 2-factor fob. You should get one too." ... which is great advice for any system offering 2-factor auth, but it basically ignores the whole purpose of the article, which was to point out how utterly broken the entire process is. Could I be wrong and acconrad actually read the article first? Sure. But I asked a question which embodied my opinion on the matter, based on what I read up until that point. And so far, I've not seen any evidence to the contrary to change my belief that acconrad commented without reading the article (your reply doesn't contain information/evidence that is applicable to the question that I asked, as I have at no point offered an opinion that you are responding to). But I've spent entirely too long replying, and won't be following up further. Good day.