> The bug led to random user data being exposed to the wrong user when accessing our user interfaces. It is important to note that the access to data has been entirely random and not showing any data containing card or bank details (obfuscated data was visible). This means that it has been impossible to access a specific user’s data.
This is not the experience of the user in the OP: https://twitter.com/esraefe/status/1397843949985931265
However, showing the card issuer/bank + the final 4 or 5 digits of an account or card number is still extremely distressing. There are some services and vectors out there that can be engineered with just that information for sure.
Combine that with possibly exposed address, telephone number, and you are in very dangerous territory.
However, to the layperson, "bank details" definitely includes name of bank and last 4 digits of account number. It does come across as deceptive to use that terminology to respond to customer complaints.
Does this mean the bug affected .1% of accounts or that only .1% logged in during the 31 minute window when the bug was present?
I would not want to be that "human" atm
> Boss - "Why do you think you are here, Jack?"
> JW - "I expect I am here so you can fire me"
> Boss - "I just spent a million dollars on your education - why would I fire you now?"
http://www.nickmilton.com/2016/03/jack-welch-on-learning-fro...
"A somewhat tongue-in-cheek but surprisingly useful maxim of high finance is that it is good for your career if you lose a billion dollars. I mean, if you lose a billion dollars for your employer you will probably be fired, though that depends on who your employer is and how much money you started with and what you did to lose it. But lots of other employers will be excited to hire you, once they learn that you lost a billion dollars for someone else."
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-05-26/exxon-...
Human error doesn't mean blame the human, it's better to look at the overall processes and system to figure out how to prevent human error the next time around.
It could be something to do with cache configuration.