×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

After Six Days of Outages, BofA Claims It Hasn't Been Hacked

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the it's-just-a-flesh-wound dept.

Security 315

Lucas123 writes "After six days of spotty service and outages with its online and mobile sites, Bank of America today said it has not been the victim of a denial of service attack, hacking or malware. Yet, the bank has set up a new homepage that it says will help customers navigate to the proper online service. Internet monitoring service Keynote said the outage is unprecedented in banking. 'I don't think we've seen as significant and as long an outage with any bank. And I've been with Keynote for 16 years now,' said Shawn White, vice president of operations for web monitoring service Keynote Systems. In the meantime, a BofA spokeswoman continued to divulge what might be happening, saying 'We're not going to get into the technical details. We're not going to comment on the technicalities of what we do.' Speculation among experts has been that the site is under attack."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

315 comments

Its true... (0)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 2 years ago | (#37617482)

DDoS isnt technically hacking persay....

Re:Its true... (1)

ynot_reprise (2433716) | more than 2 years ago | (#37617660)

Bank of America today said it has not been the victim of a denial of service attack, hacking or malware.

Read between the commas and you will understand the OP was not saying DDoS is a form of hacking

Re:Its true... (1)

jimpop (27817) | more than 2 years ago | (#37617850)

Traffic is traffic. 6 days, to scale-up a financial infrastructure, is actually pretty good.

Re:Its true... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37618098)

per se

Mistake in submission (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37617496)

'a BofA spokeswoman continued to divulge what might be happening'

Divulging is the opposite of what they're doing.

Re:Mistake in submission (0)

Lucas123 (935744) | more than 2 years ago | (#37617632)

Welcome to the world of typos. It happens. Move along and comment on the content of the article.

Re:Mistake in submission (1)

The Good Reverend (84440) | more than 2 years ago | (#37617820)

A typo is a mistaken letter, typed on accident that may or may not change the meaning of the intended word.

This is just the wrong word used.

Re:Mistake in submission (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37617844)

Aww. Why so butthurt?

Re:Mistake in submission (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37617930)

anyone with mod points, mod this retard down into oblivion.

People like this are why slashdot is a steaming pile.

If they weren't hacked... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37617520)

that would be even scarier. Six days of spotty service for no good reason?

Re:If they weren't hacked... (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 2 years ago | (#37618190)

Even worse, those six days are right at the beginning of the month, when many folks pay rent, bills, etc.

That has got to suck.

Re:If they weren't hacked... (1)

krotkruton (967718) | more than 2 years ago | (#37618306)

There ya go. I mean, it's not like BofA doesn't have plenty of PR people and that those PR people decided that denying it was a hack was the best course of action. So, what could have happened that would be worse for their image than admitting to getting hacked for 6 days?

Divulging (4, Insightful)

ShaunC (203807) | more than 2 years ago | (#37617528)

a BofA spokeswoman continued to divulge what might be happening

I don't think that word means what you think it means...

Re:Divulging (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37617832)

Inconceivable!

Re:Divulging (1)

PIBM (588930) | more than 2 years ago | (#37618132)

I guess they were going for the archaic version:

Definition of DIVULGE
transitive verb
1
archaic : to make public : proclaim

Re:Divulging (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37618394)

Substituting your "archaic" definition:

In the meantime, a BofA spokeswoman continued to make public what might be happening, saying 'We're not going to get into the technical details. We're not going to comment on the technicalities of what we do.'

So, they're still explaining the event by refusing to comment on the details? Maybe it "continued" that gave the author problems.

Re:Divulging (2, Informative)

need4mospd (1146215) | more than 2 years ago | (#37618214)

For all intensive purposes, I think it's perfectly cromulent.

Re:Divulging (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37618308)

INTENTS and PURPOSES

not intensive

Re:Divulging (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37618368)

Whoosh!

...because the use of the word, "cromulent," in that same sentence wasn't enough of a hint.

(...you oaf.)

Their lack of disclosure is very worrysome (2)

shaidom (1520423) | more than 2 years ago | (#37617542)

I think we should all have an accoutn wioth a 2nd back - becuase what if your primary bank is taken down technologically and you need to pay bills... all my bills are electronic I get NO paperbills at this point....

Re:Their lack of disclosure is very worrysome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37617592)

Right... Because its so easy to have TWO bank accounts with balances good enough to pay the mortgage.

Re:Their lack of disclosure is very worrysome (0)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#37617728)

If you have less than one months cash in savings, you're financially on your deathbed anyway.

Re:Their lack of disclosure is very worrysome (1)

ynot_reprise (2433716) | more than 2 years ago | (#37618174)

If you have less than one months cash in savings, you're financially on your deathbed anyway.

Thank you, Suzie Orman. Now someone please call a medic!

Re:Their lack of disclosure is very worrysome (4, Insightful)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#37617910)

Why not just bank with a better institution. I just read earlier today that BofA is going to institute a $5/month fee for the "privilege" of using your debit card (which of course is on top of the 3% fee they charge to the merchant). Why does anyone still have an account with this company? It's not like there's a shortage of banks in this country to do your banking with. There's also thousands of credit unions.

At this point, it seems like anyone that still has an account with BofA must be a moron.

Re:Their lack of disclosure is very worrysome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37618130)

I second that - I have already penciled in a visit to a local bank this weekend and intend to set up an account with them and transfer out of BoA.

Re:Their lack of disclosure is very worrysome (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 2 years ago | (#37618148)

Why not just bank with a better institution. I just read earlier today that BofA is going to institute a $5/month fee for the "privilege" of using your debit card (which of course is on top of the 3% fee they charge to the merchant).

At least some speculation in the media has been that some or all of BofA's system problems may be due to self-inflicted system load increase in the form of large number of online account inquiries and cancellations prompted by the debit card service fee.

Re:Their lack of disclosure is very worrysome (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 2 years ago | (#37618314)

Took care of that last year, when I was bitten by their nasty habit of processing debits before credits (one emergency purchase later, in spite of getting paid the night before they processed the check)...

Much happier at the local credit union. Now, they pay me 7% on my checking account balance, and I get reimbursed for any ATM fees I incur. TBH, I wish I would have done this years ago.

Re:Their lack of disclosure is very worrysome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37618488)

Actually the $5 monthly charge is in response to the U.S. Congress slashing the allowed fees the card associations (Visa, MasterCard, etc.) can can charge the merchant. Previously the rates would vary anywhere from 2%-5% depending on the brand, card type, etc. They are now capped at 21 cents plus 0.05% (in other words, 5 one thousandths) of the overall transaction amount.

The banks have to make money somewhere -- how do you think they could afford to offer free checking accounts with no minimum monthly balance? On the flip side, do you think merchants will suddenly reduce their prices 3 percent? I'd be willing to bet most of them will just pocket the difference.

I'm not saying BofA is a saint in all this, the fee may be exhorbitant, or it could have implemented better, but if your theory is this is all due to corporate greed, all they're doing is replacing taking bank revenue and giving it to the WalMarts and Targets of the world.

Back on the subject of the original article, it doesn't matter to me if it's hacking, DDoS, or just system failure, an outage this long is unacceptable.

****Disclaimer: I work for a credit card company****

They're hacking themselves (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37617550)

BofA is hacking their own website to add in the ability for users to pay using their credit cards or PayPal to use the site.

Good sources from within the bank (who shall remain anonymous because they're not authorized to speak for the bank) tell me that BofA's website will be going to be to a per minute model -- just like some porn sites in Europe and the 976 numbers of yesteryear.

New Coke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37617586)

Not hacked. Just getting to roll out the "new banking". After seeing the success of New Coke, Netflix, Google's extra scripts, and well... pretty much every script intensive website redesign from the past 10 years, they decided that was what they needed to revive their struggling company and bring customers back into the fold.

Oh, did I mention that the "coke" was freebased and smoked?

Like the alternative is so much better (5, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | more than 2 years ago | (#37617594)

"We're not being attacked, we just are totally incompetent and can't keep our site up under normal conditions"

Re:Like the alternative is so much better (1)

bryan1945 (301828) | more than 2 years ago | (#37617684)

Makes you wonder what would make customers more uncomfortable- bad security or total incompetence? Though I would feel oh so much better with the statement "We're not going to comment on the technicalities of what we do." That just warms the cockles.

Re:Like the alternative is so much better (3)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 2 years ago | (#37617942)

Sack a signficant portion of your workforce because you have to cut costs because your institution bought snake oil, and this is just the tip of the iceberg of what you get. I work for a bank (not BofA), and we're already seeing massive brain drain, and the bank I work for was just caught in the maelstrom. Definitely not saying to feel sorry for anyone, just don't be surprised, and start planning to deal with crap like this as the banks begin to become head cases.

Re:Like the alternative is so much better (1)

tmosley (996283) | more than 2 years ago | (#37618300)

What, we can't have both?

Throw up your cake and lose it too.

Re:Like the alternative is so much better (1)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 2 years ago | (#37618402)

"We're not going to comment on the technicalities of what we do."

Translation: "We don't have a f***ing clue."

Re:Like the alternative is so much better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37617724)

"We're not being attacked, we just are totally incompetent and can't keep our site up under normal conditions"

And we can't understand why! After all, we used the cheapest offshore labor around!

Re:Like the alternative is so much better (1)

Altus (1034) | more than 2 years ago | (#37618102)

bitch slapped by the invisible hand... ouch!

Re:Like the alternative is so much better (1)

tmosley (996283) | more than 2 years ago | (#37618344)

Actually, bitchslapped by the very visible hand of the government. Wrap everything in red tape to the point that it costs ten times more to have the same standard of living as even the highly corrupt India, then complain when marginal jobs move overseas, and finally blame it all on the free market.

The reason you can see the hand in those comics is because it is the hand of fascism, not the invisible hand of the free market. America gave up any claim to having a free market when they implemented a central bank.

Re:Like the alternative is so much better (1)

tysonedwards (969693) | more than 2 years ago | (#37617742)

Could be that they simply didn't take adequate protections against hardware failure.

The whole situation seems very much like "our SAN went down as we didn't replace a couple failed disks, and now our entire array is offline and we need to restore from tape".

One time, one of our data centers had it's halon system go off and the significant change in pressure killed whole NetApp Drive Trays. Even though there were redundant heads and 4 spares per tray, duplicated to tape nightly and off-sited, it still took days to get back up and running, including the time to get replacement hardware, recall tapes and get tapes restored.

Bottom line is that sometimes, it is difficult to justify two concurrent mirrored data centers.

Re:Like the alternative is so much better (1)

kenrblan (1388237) | more than 2 years ago | (#37618138)

I have a hard time believing that BoA wouldn't have a geographically dispersed and replicated SAN. I work for a large regional bank that has this capability, and we test it frequently as part of SOX compliance. I'm not ruling that out, but it could explain the slowness in site response if they are running on secondary site hardware that isn't designed for the scale of the primary site.

Re:Like the alternative is so much better (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#37617800)

What are the chances this is intentional stalling to make it difficult for their customers to cancel accounts after their new debit card fees?

Re:Like the alternative is so much better (1)

rbarreira (836272) | more than 2 years ago | (#37617822)

"We're not being attacked, we just are totally incompetent and can't keep our site up under normal conditions"

Well, it is much better than admitting everyone is trying to get their money out due to the new debit card fees.

Re:Like the alternative is so much better (3)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 2 years ago | (#37617998)

"We're not being attacked, we just are totally incompetent and can't keep our site up under normal conditions"

It's not a normal conditions, they can't keep up with the throngs of angry customers closing their bank accounts. [time.com]

Re:Like the alternative is so much better (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#37618164)

I am beginning to think I believe this. Apparently, with the public recognition of people leaving BofA, it encourages more customers to leave as well. This is the kind of invisible hand I like seeing in action.

And as we can see, the invisible hand is something of a myth as the bank has not decided to back down on its new fees... well it has backed down for people who maintain more than $5k in their accounts. But you know, I would never keep that much money in a checking account. I keep whatever I can afford to lose in a checking account. And if I don't spend it that month, I move a portion into savings and keep only "monthly budget + miscellaneous" amounts in checking. Needless to say, I don't spend over $5000 a month.

Well, I bank with better institutions than BofA anyway. I still get interest on my checking accounts where I bank.

Re:Like the alternative is so much better (1)

tmosley (996283) | more than 2 years ago | (#37618390)

What does congress shutting off sources of bank funds, resulting in new fees have to do with the free market?

What does banking in general have to do with the free market? In a free market, all the big banks would have failed, and the invisible hand would have redistributed their resources to other financial institutions that did a better job of risk management.

Learn the difference between fascism and free market economic systems. Knowing the difference might just save your life one day.

Re:Like the alternative is so much better (1)

internerdj (1319281) | more than 2 years ago | (#37618022)

As a BAC mortgage customer, (because my mortgage was sold to Countrywide which was then bought out by BAC) that is an entirely believable statement with past corraborating evidence. Although not this long term, the BAC website is regularly degraded or unresponsive altogether. If it didn't cost me 1%-2% of my mortgage in fees to change lenders I would.

Re:Like the alternative is so much better (3, Insightful)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#37618084)

There should be a law that allows you to choose your lender, i.e., your mortgage can't be sold unless you approve the transfer. When you first buy a house, you have a choice in who you borrow money from: it's the institution that you go to to apply for your mortgage. But after that, if it gets sold, you have no control over who it gets sold to. That's not right. You signed on to be indebted to company X, not company Y or Z that wants to buy your debt.

Would you willingly borrow money from Vinnie the Loanshark? Probably not, unless you're really desperate. Why not? Because you don't like the way he treats his customers. So you borrow money from someplace that treats their customers/debtors better. But what if you got a loan from ABC Financial Services, and then they sold the loan to Vinnie, who then threatened to break your kneecaps? You never signed up for that kind of treatment. ABC should never have been allowed to sell that loan.

Same goes for mortgage loans. You should be able to pick your lender, and if they want to sell your loan to someone else, you should have the option to refuse. If they don't like this, they can just not loan money, or just hang onto the loans they have. They have no need to sell their loans.

Re:Like the alternative is so much better (1)

internerdj (1319281) | more than 2 years ago | (#37618204)

Shame on you for wanting to impose restrictive regulations on the free market ... so that you can freely choose your service provider like you should be able to in a free market.

Re:Like the alternative is so much better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37618468)

Anyone they sell the mortgage to would have to honor the contract, so your circumstances have not changed. What do you hope to gain??

Re:Like the alternative is so much better (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 2 years ago | (#37618492)

There are plenty of lenders that won't resell your mortgage, they just tend to have higher rates and higher credit standards. I chose to go through a broker both on my purchase and refinance because I could get ~1/4% better rates through them even though I knew they wouldn't be servicing my mortgage (Wells Fargo picked mine up both times and I've had zero problem with their monthly ACH transactions though they can't seem to figure out the right rate for my escrow this time around).

Re:Like the alternative is so much better (1)

Princeofcups (150855) | more than 2 years ago | (#37618398)

"We're not being attacked, we just are totally incompetent and can't keep our site up under normal conditions"

I know someone who used to be a tech manager in their web hosting infrastructure, and that's pretty accurate.

All Anonymous and Lulzsec have to do now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37617602)

All Anonymous and Lulzsec have to do now is claim that they are the ones who have been 'attacking' the site, and Bank of America then looks like they are trying to cover up protests against their decision (to charge $5 a month) and they get even more negative publicity.

This along with the protests on Wall Street getting more coverage might be a good brew.

Re:All Anonymous and Lulzsec have to do now... (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 2 years ago | (#37617696)

I'm curious what is this new decision to charge 5$ a month? is this per person? per account? per card? to use the site?

Re:All Anonymous and Lulzsec have to do now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37617788)

They will be charging every customer $5 a month for using their debit card.

Re:All Anonymous and Lulzsec have to do now... (1)

GIL_Dude (850471) | more than 2 years ago | (#37617804)

Basically, now that congress limited the amount that banks can charge merchants to 21 cents per transaction for debit card use, the banks are looking for ways to keep their revenue. Some were charging about 44 cents per debit transaction to the merchant. So now, BofA will charge $5 per month per account for each month in which a debit card is used (except at an ATM).

Re:All Anonymous and Lulzsec have to do now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37617958)

Basically, now that congress limited the amount that banks can charge merchants to 21 cents per transaction for debit card use, the banks are looking for ways to keep their revenue. Some were charging about 44 cents per debit transaction to the merchant. So now, BofA will charge $5 per month per account for each month in which a debit card is used (except at an ATM).

BoA was charging the merchants 75 cents per transaction, which Congress cut to 22 cents. BoA believes that $5 per debit card will equal out to the 53 cents per transaction they lost (given that not everyone that has a debit card uses it).

Re:All Anonymous and Lulzsec have to do now... (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#37618178)

Maybe if BOA realized that customers are leaving in droves because of the BS they would not have to put in these transaction fees. Smaller banks have become very popular in the past few years and BOA does mathmatical research in keeping people in debt and ripping everyone off to benefit them the most, forgetting it is a 2 way street in the marketplace. Once people pay off their BOA credit cards they will take their money elsewhere.

Re:All Anonymous and Lulzsec have to do now... (1)

tmosley (996283) | more than 2 years ago | (#37618410)

They don't care because they are too big to fail.

Fascism, in MY country?

Re:All Anonymous and Lulzsec have to do now... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37617726)

Yes, I'm glad that all the protesters on Wall Street are able to liveblog their protests of giant corporations using the latest iPhones, MacBooks, and iPads. And I think it's great that they can tweet all those photos of themselves wearing nice brand-name clothing and $400 eyewear.

It comforts me to know that hipsters haven't lost their delicious sense of irony over holding signs that claim they're part of the "99%" in between bong hits financed by mommy and daddy's trust funds.

Re:All Anonymous and Lulzsec have to do now... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37617944)

That whole comment was completely unnecessary and false. You make it seem like all the protesters are hipsters, when they aren't. And then you go on about hipsters as if that gives the protests (which has no relation to hipsters) no value or worth.

Just because someone has a product made by Apple doesn't make them a hipster.

It makes them a general consumer. And 99% of the people who own iPads, are in that 99%, so those made up claims from hipsters that you typed, even if those were real claims, they would be true.

I don't know what position you find yourself in, but most of us are in that 99%.

And if that 1% would give over just half of that money that they will never use, all of our lives will be better off.

Re:All Anonymous and Lulzsec have to do now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37617854)

too bad all the lulzsec homos are in jail now

Re:All Anonymous and Lulzsec have to do now... (3, Insightful)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#37617980)

Why does anyone still have an account with this company? It's not like there's a shortage of banks in this country to do your banking with. There's also thousands of credit unions.

At this point, it seems like anyone that still has an account with BofA must be a moron.

Re:All Anonymous and Lulzsec have to do now... (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#37618120)

I don't know.

Credit cards. Home mortgages, car loans, payments to relatives who only have accounts on it etc. BOA are assholes to small businesses that need to process checks from them. They will only process like $50 and will charge you to cash out a customers check, unless of course you have an account with BOA too ... wink wink. Citigroup I heard is doing the same thing forcing businesses to have accounts with these aweful people agaisnt their will so the banks can invest and and collect interest off of their money. Crooks

I am paying off as much debt as I can so I can give these assholes the finger. I plan to do that by the end of the month. When I lived in Alaska, most of the banking there were credit unions. They were awesome! AlaskaUSA credit union was the best union out there and I plan to move my money in one. Not all credit unions are great though so you have to shop around. Here in Florida I do not like them but any of them are better in bank of America. I would love to see them die a slow horrible death.

If corruption were not so rampant there would be laws agaisnt the rules of cashing others checks and BOA will die. Many simply are stuck and can't leave. I view my relationship with my bank as that of an abused wife. Save up for years to plan to leave and never go back. Pretty soon BOA will be shocked and dumbfounded when they have no customers left. This time hopefully a tea party president will let them die a horrible death. They do not deserve to be in business

Re:All Anonymous and Lulzsec have to do now... (2)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#37618342)

Credit cards. Home mortgages, car loans,

None of these involve checking accounts with debit cards. And with home mortgages, you have zero control over who your lender is, but again, you won't be charged a $5/month fee for using a debit card if all you have with BofA is a home loan. You have to willingly go there and set up a checking account to get that kind of "service".

No one's forcing you to get a credit card or car loan with BofA.

payments to relatives who only have accounts on it etc

Huh? Please explain. If you need to send money to people, there's this thing called a "check" (or "cheque" for our non-American readers). You put it in an envelope and send it to the recipient. There's also money orders, cashier's checks, wire transfers, and of course Paypal. And don't forget good ol' cash. All with different fees and levels of security and convenience.

BOA are assholes to small businesses that need to process checks from them.

So why do any small businesses bother doing business with them, instead of simply going to one of the dozens or hundreds of other banks or credit unions in their locality?

They will only process like $50 and will charge you to cash out a customers check, unless of course you have an account with BOA too ... wink wink.

Huh? If your customer has a BofA account (which immediately makes their intelligence rather suspect; maybe you should look for another customer), and gives you a check from that account, it's simple: you take it to your own bank, and deposit it. Your bank will get the money transferred from BofA for no fee. Of course, this won't let you avoid alerting the IRS to any large transactions, but that's the price you pay for evading taxes.

Citigroup I heard is doing the same thing forcing businesses to have accounts with these aweful people agaisnt their will so the banks can invest and and collect interest off of their money. Crooks

Again, you're not making much sense. No bank can "force" you to have an account with them, and checks have been a no-fee way of transferring money for at least 100 years now (unless you're one of these morons that goes to a check-cashing store).

When I lived in Alaska, most of the banking there were credit unions. They were awesome! AlaskaUSA credit union was the best union out there and I plan to move my money in one. Not all credit unions are great though so you have to shop around. Here in Florida I do not like them but any of them are better in bank of America.

I live in Arizona, formerly on the east coast, and I've been using credit unions in both places since 1994. They're located pretty much everywhere to my knowledge, people just ignore them because they're smaller and a lot of people for some dumb reason think they need to always patronize the biggest corporation they can find. I did have to change accounts from one here in AZ recently, however, called AZFCU. They got too involved in the mortgage mess I suppose, and as a result of their bad decisions they had to close a lot of branches, including the ones that were convenient to me. So I moved to another CU that had better branch locations and didn't seem to be having hard times, and everything's been good with them so far.

If corruption were not so rampant there would be laws agaisnt the rules of cashing others checks and BOA will die.

What rules are you talking about? Maybe I'm really missing something here (quite possible), but I thought cashing checks was a pretty simple affair. I've cashed/deposited business checks with my personal account and never had any problems (or fees) (different banks of course).

This time hopefully a tea party president will let them die a horrible death.

A TP President would give them a giant bail-out, just like Obama. If you think the TP politicians are any different from any other politicians, you're sadly mistaken. The only difference is the rhetoric they spew; their actions are all the same.

Re:All Anonymous and Lulzsec have to do now... (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 2 years ago | (#37618478)

Oh, it gets even worse than that... try cashing a corporate or business check drawn against a BoA account. They will happily charge *you* $6 for the privilege, unless you have an account there yourself.

Re:All Anonymous and Lulzsec have to do now... (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#37618240)

Morons are far more common than you want to believe. But, as the loss of customers of BofA is in the news, it will encourage other BofA customers to leave. There's a whole lot of "me too"-ism in those moronic masses.

But yeah, I haven't banked with a typical consumer bank for a very long time. I don't see the point. If I want to punish myself, I'll hire a hooker to beat me or something. Probably cheaper that way anyway.

Re:All Anonymous and Lulzsec have to do now... (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#37618400)

Morons are far more common than you want to believe. But, as the loss of customers of BofA is in the news, it will encourage other BofA customers to leave. There's a whole lot of "me too"-ism in those moronic masses.

Actually, me-too-ism can be an intelligent way to act, as long as you look at why others are doing something and then copy it if it's right for you. If you see a lot of people all doing the same thing, it can be very smart to look at why they're doing it, because there might be a very good reason that you missed before: there's a big storm coming, for instance.

When you see all the animals moving to high ground, and tsunami alarms going off and all the people evacuating, and you stubbornly refuse to leave your beachfront home, then it's you who's the moron, not the masses.

Bank Run (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37617614)

It's probably all the people trying to transfer their money out of BoA, they are getting overwhelmed.

Hmm. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37617628)

Huh. I called the other day because I couldn't check my balance via Web or Android app, and their representative told me that it was due to their merging with some credit card company and needing to integrate the ability for those acquired customers into the system.

Oddly, they told me to disregard rumours of a hack before launching into their explanation with little prompting from me. I just said my app had been flaky lately.

they should not used the lowest bid for outsourced (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#37617658)

they should not used the lowest bid for outsourced team that redid the web page.

Re:they should not used the lowest bid for outsour (1)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 2 years ago | (#37617836)

they should not used the lowest bid for...

Lowest bidder = default action = "best practice"

Not saying it's right, just saying...and let's not act like every other corporation not in the media today doesn't do the exact same thing.

Re:they should not used the lowest bid for outsour (1)

tmosley (996283) | more than 2 years ago | (#37618456)

Supposed to be "lowest bidder to hit the spec". But who knows with these TBTF zombies.

Bank run? (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#37617704)

Is a bank run technically a physical financial "denial of service attack"?

After BOFH demands met BofA back online. (2)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 2 years ago | (#37617710)

It's amazing what can be done with a tape vault, bulk eraser, and access to certain PIN numbers.

I don't know about unprecidented. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37617798)

While there are no current details, Chase used to regularly be unavailable right around the end of a month until the second week of the following month. I thought it was a conspiracy to induce more late charges from customers trying to pay bills at the time.

final straw (2)

rish87 (2460742) | more than 2 years ago | (#37617864)

Every time I have a complaint against a company, I know my best recourse is to go elsewhere. Many people think/say this, but reality is that the convenience (or in most cases the lack of inconvenience) of staying with some company goes a looong way to keep us from putting our money where our mouth is. My BofA accounts are my oldest because I was a naive 16 year old boy who didn't know anything about banking, so I went with the most convenient. Many years have passed and I have multiple credit union accounts with most of my money. The problem is, these credit unions don't have very good ATM/physical locations, especially outside of where I live. For this reason I have kept my BofA account, because there is one everywhere. FYI: Nobody, NOBODY should be using BofA savings/cd etc and thinking you're doing good with your money. They have the most abysmal APY of any bank I have ever seen. Get a credit union account, please. Their customer service is horrible, I have spent almost an hour on hold before. I have had problems with my debit card randomly being declined places, and magically working again (not a strip error or anything). I have had problems with their automatic shutoff protection flagging my accounts when I'm spending the exact same amounts of money at the exact same places I do every week, forcing me to call them and turn my accounts back on. They even bait-and-switched me on a credit card. They advertised some no maintenance fee card, I wanted a low limit card 'just in case', so I signed up for it. At the end of the year, I get charged a service fee on it. I called them up, asking why my no-fee card was charged one, and they said "details of the card can differ between the advertisement and the agreement you actually signed." So i check my the papers I signed, and sure enough, in the details there is a fee (which I skipped over because the advertisement for this exact card said otherwise, no stipulation) Shame on me for not being more careful, but a dirty trick regardless. Even through all that I have kept my old accounts for the 'convenience'. Now with the debit card fees and this recent outage, I am done. It has taken a long time, but they have tried their best to completely drive me off. So I ask all of you, stop and REALLY think if shitty service (from any company!) is worth their 'convenience'. I think if more people realy started voting with their wallets, we would stop getting abused so much by large corporations. Just take your business elsewhere.

Re:final straw (1)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | more than 2 years ago | (#37617966)

I've had my BoA accounts for a long time as well, however that is because I started with an account with BayBank, who was bought by Bank Boston, who merged with Fleet, who was bought by Bank of America. Not my fault.

I haven't closed my account, but what I DID do was to move out everything but the minimum to avoid fees to a local credit union. So basically BoA is stuck with a tiny savings account, a credit card that never earns interest, and a checking account that never generates overdraft fees. I think that's even worse for them than losing a customer.

Re:final straw (1)

internerdj (1319281) | more than 2 years ago | (#37618046)

Try having a mortage with them, I didn't even choose them as a lender and I have to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket to switch to another lender. On top of that I have no guarantee if I choose another lender they won't sell my mortgage back into BAC.

Credit unions FTW! (1)

ganjadude (952775) | more than 2 years ago | (#37618058)

I have to agree with you on that point. Credit unions tend to treat their customers the best (at least their low end customers, under 200K cant speak for higher income levels) I have used probably 15 different institutions over the past 20 years now, and of them all, the credit unions have always been the most helpful. I used BoA and had them do the same with the acct. freezing, but with my local credit union, i have 24/7 video teller service, 24/7 online banking, not a lot of ATMs, which it the downfall, but higher rates than all the major banks on savings, i get paid for having a checking acct, granted around .9% but most banks charge for a checking, but i digress. If you are getting screwed, take your business elsewhere, its the only way to change things.

Re:final straw (1)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 2 years ago | (#37618286)

If you have the credit union opportunity and can get away from BoA, you should consider doing it. They rip you off in fees. Price compare. It isn't hard to see the difference and changing a bank account isn't that difficult. You'll thank yourself in the long run.

The only way they hear you is if you leave.

It may just be a normal internal SNAFU (1)

Ted Stoner (648616) | more than 2 years ago | (#37617984)

Another major bank that shall remain nameless had a four-day outage in recent years. It was due to internal problems (messed up backups, bad SQL causing corrupted database, etc.). So it can happen although 6 days is really stretching it. I have also worked for a bank and seen systems hard down for close to a day (forcing me to fly across the country) due to a hardware failure that begat a human failure that begat a second hardware failure that begat a second human failure (lost backup media). So shit can happen even without hackers.

Mortgage (1)

Vrtigo1 (1303147) | more than 2 years ago | (#37618028)

It just so happened that the trouble started right at the end of the month, when lots of people are trying to make mortgage payments. My mortgage with BofA specifies that I have to make my payments online, I am charged a service fee if I try to walk into a banking center and pay it. Luckily I was able to get in after about 10 minutes of trying, but I wonder if they've got the stones to try and charge folks service fees if they went to the bank because they couldn't log in online...

Re:Mortgage (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#37618082)

Go into the bank, sit down with someone who isnt jsut a teller and explain the situation. They will accept your payment without a fee just to get you out of there.

I'm quitting my Job, but before I go (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37618218)

what we are seeing is the first online bank run.
B of A has delayed reports, and have 'ignored ' that last few day in reporting to the feds.

We are going down.

Anyone need a software programmer with extensive financial background?

BOA is broke. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37618230)

http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NYSE:BAC

5 year shows them down from $50/share to $5. (90% value loss)
3 month shows them down from from $11 to $5. (50% value loss over 3 months)
1 Month Shows them down from 7.5 to $5. (33% value loss)

I'm going to make a guess here; their stock isn't worth my belly button lint and the market is asking for their cash back before bankruptcy wipes them out completely.

Infrastructure of BoA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37618252)

They outsource their data centers to a two letter company that starts with H and ends with P. I don't think they have but maybe two small ones left that they own. However, that two letter company doesn't manage their Arbor Networks DDoS mitigation equipment, or their WAFs, they do...which is probably where the issue comes in to play. One of the guys who works on their NetScalers used to be a BA for CountryWide. Don't get me wrong, he is smart, but not in the ways he needs to be in order to create rules to mitigate sql injection/XSS issues with their site. I wouldn't be surprised if his work isn't what caused the issues they are having. SUPER non-standard configuration, creating rules that take inordinate amounts of time to process, memory leaks in the NetScalers, and I could go on for days. The same goes for their IPS, Firewalls and most other things. They hire anyone with "Security" stamped somewhere on their resume, get them a laptop and send them back to their house to work on all that shit from home. All this with little to no introduction to the way they do things or giving any ideas on how the network is setup. They have reached new levels of stupid as shit there from an IT perspective. I feel bad for HP having to deal with the dipshitz they have there who are labeled "VP" or above.

I have inside information (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37618386)

And without giving up my sources, the possibilities are as follows in decreasing order:

1. Most likely they are just incompetent and unable to configure their equipment.
2. It's possible, although unlikely, that they are under attack but don't know about it because they haven't discovered it.
3. There is almost no possibility that they were attacked, detected the attack, and then denied it. They're just not that good.

It's not down, you wackos (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37618412)

WTF are you people on about? It's working fine for me. I just checked. I was able to pay my BoA mortgage this weekend, and my other bank says the payment's been debited just fine.

Zombie Bank is Comatose (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37618490)

Yes, not under attack like they are not a 'zombie bank'....everyone in the US should move to a public bank or a credit union. You have to ask yourself what value does BoA bring to your life.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...