Home Depot Privacy Pratfall: Spotting Web Shoppers In-Store

Written by Evan Schuman
January 16th, 2013

Home Depot has been using a CRM practice that uses payment-card numbers to match in-store customers with their online purchases. It’s a move that, although likely passable for PCI, is rather unnerving to privacy advocates.

Home Depot officials stress that they only use the technique with shoppers who opt in, an argument that is somewhat tempered by how often consumers don’t even notice privacy opt-in and opt-out Web site declarations. The chain has been using this technique for various purposes, including E-mailing in-store customers to ask them to review their recent purchases.

Home Depot’s use of the card-matching procedure is not that unusual among major chains, but the norm is for the effort to be kept internal, to help improve general marketing. It was Home Depot’s reaching out to customers that made some of them realize what was going on. And therein lies the problem.

One such shopper reached out to The Consumerist, which published his comments. That shopper said he had only visited as a guest and then made the in-store purchase of a drill months later.

“I can only conclude that Home Depot held my credit card information in one of their internal systems without my authorization, linked it to the e-mail address I used on the one-time purchase without my authorization, and is now watching what I buy in their store using the card so that I can build up their rating database and presumably so they can target their advertising to me,” the story quoted the anonymous shopper as saying.

To be precise, Home Depot does not, of course, store payment-card data. It converts that data to a character string and then looks for a match with that string when it processes a card in-store.

Home Depot wouldn’t say exactly how it converts the numbers, but there are only a few likely ways. PCI Columnist—and QSA Extraordinaire—Walter Conway said Home Depot could be using strong encryption or tokenization, or it might simply be comparing a non-reversible one-way hash. All approaches, he said, would enable the chain to track shoppers across channels. And, depending on the implementation, that is perfectly acceptable for PCI purposes.

Steve Sommers, a senior VP for applications development at security vendor Shift4, said his guess is that this is likely being done with a multi-use token, something Sommers argues is less than ideal.

Multi-use tokens came into being “when PCI SSC bastardized the tokenization definition and allowed for tokens to be mathematically derived from the PAN, either via encryption or some hash algorithm. Now with this method, the same card number would normally generate the same token. This would greatly reduce the effectiveness of the tokens to protect the data, but would give the merchant the tracking ability described. This is probably the method the merchant is relying on. While Shift4 adopted multi-use tokens, we do not believe that a token mathematically based on the PAN is secure, because it could be susceptible to rainbow attacks if the hash salt or key is ever compromised.”


Comments are closed.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.