That is crazier than any old dailywtf stories, and that site felt like everyone tried to one-up each other.
rcxdude 12 hours ago [-]
Is there some part of PCI auditing requirements that is getting misinterpreted by some auditors to demand this? Though in my experience with standards like this what auditors want to see and what the standards say often have only loose overlap anyhow.
SpicyLemonZest 8 hours ago [-]
It's pretty counterintuitive from an auditing perspective. If the PCI standards require server racks to be painted red, it's entirely normal for an auditor to ask to see them, and very suspicious for you to say that they're in an encrypted box where nobody can check if they're red or not. I don't mean to excuse it, but I can understand how the error happens.
rcxdude 8 hours ago [-]
This is true. Maybe it's someone seeing a requirement like "all passwords must conform to these rules" and deciding that it means they need to check them directly, instead of looking at the systems that enforce that constraint.
samus 9 hours ago [-]
Right until the end I thought the guy was doing a social engineering penetration test, checking whether he could brow beat the server admins into bending over backwards to reveal this information.
eequah9L 13 hours ago [-]
> Over the past few months, our former payment provider Nexi S.p.A. (“Nexi”) requested access to private data, which we understood to be specifically the usernames and passwords of our supporters.
I must be missing something, but why is there an expectation that clear text passwords would even be known?
rcxdude 12 hours ago [-]
Probably because most people haven't internalized how password hashing works.
Freak_NL 14 hours ago [-]
The FSFE justly drew the line at providing private information of supporters. How many other customers of Nexi simply handed over such data 'because audit'?
zettabomb 2 hours ago [-]
It's not even just private information, because in any properly configured system it is explicitly unknowable information.
rasjani 14 hours ago [-]
So this was not only about FSFE and payments for them but a general audit of their (Nexi's) customers ?
rcxdude 12 hours ago [-]
It seems unlikely that the FSFE is the first customer they have asked for this information.
altairprime 5 hours ago [-]
Nexi’s mid-2025 statement notes that they’re finalizing imposition of a ‘one process, all subsidiaries’ auditing costs reduction program across all of their subsidiary banks. The FSFE was likely being (incorrectly) audited under business-provides-services rules imposed by the parent megacorp, rather than as whatever human-led interpretation the bank had used formally, or as whatever charities or PACs are called in the EU. Ironically, had they switched exclusively to freedom-restricted passkeys, they could have structured their credentials store to divulge no private information and no usable credentials while formally complying with the bank’s efforts to find cause to fire them as a customer. But I think the bank would still have just found another way to fire them regardless.
andrewflnr 5 hours ago [-]
Yeah, using the word "cancelled" that way in the title is... hyperbolic, even if it is technically true that the contract was cancelled.
TavsiE9s 14 hours ago [-]
That’s how I read the linked post as well, yes.
samsk 12 hours ago [-]
We work with MLS provider(s) that requires us to keep plaintext password for our users and provide it on request in case of `breach in the security of MLS Listing Information or a violation of MLS Rules`.
The user is accessing only copy of their data in _our_ systems, the user has no contact with MLS itself directly or indirectly.
rswail 10 hours ago [-]
Sounds like someone is being "overenthusiastic" about interpreting the KYC/ALM regulations.
Combined with the FSFE not being your "usual" charitable or business organization so setting off auditor red flags and perhaps raising the risk profile of Nexi as a payment processor.
butokai 14 hours ago [-]
As an Italian living in another EU country, I always thought that the amount of (broken) bureaucracy of Italy was not particularly worse. However this story comes after a couple more I heard this week, in a line of absurd practice possibly due to absurd regulations.
janpio 13 hours ago [-]
So what did Nexi really want, and how did it get mangled so badly that it came out as "specifically the usernames and passwords of our supporters"?
rcxdude 12 hours ago [-]
It's entirely possible that is actually what they wanted (at least what the people in the company they were talking to wanted). I suspect that "we understood to mean" is language carefully designed to avoid a lawsuit.
littlecranky67 13 hours ago [-]
Everytime people say bitcoin has no use case, I'd like to point them to cases like this.
zvqcMMV6Zcr 12 hours ago [-]
I will bite. How do I set up recurring crypto payments/donations for my site? How big cut will be taken by intermediary?
Maybe now more F/OSS supporters will understand the need of Bitcoin/Monero
g947o 12 hours ago [-]
You could put it this way, but to me the bigger question is why would a payment processor have such ridiculous requests? That probably should be examined first.
sebastien_b 9 hours ago [-]
[dead]
jasonvorhe 13 hours ago [-]
Not unless they start questioning the Club of Rome induced climate scam.
[1] https://serverfault.com/questions/293217/our-security-audito...
I must be missing something, but why is there an expectation that clear text passwords would even be known?
The user is accessing only copy of their data in _our_ systems, the user has no contact with MLS itself directly or indirectly.
Combined with the FSFE not being your "usual" charitable or business organization so setting off auditor red flags and perhaps raising the risk profile of Nexi as a payment processor.