advertisement
advertisement

This is page 2 of:

PCI’s New Mobile Guidelines Acknowledge Huge Hurdles

February 15th, 2013

Memory management and mobile operating systems are also of minimal help. “Mobile devices are developed for the ease of use of the consumer with optimized usability. As a result, the memory-management techniques of mobile devices will shut down applications and discard data based on the needs of the system as a whole. These memory-management techniques will likely result in a payment-acceptance application being shut down before account data could be securely deleted,” the document says. “Most mobile devices do not come with a secure subsystem (e.g., secure element) that could be used to isolate and store account data. Therefore, depending on the permissions of the application, any application can access any memory location on the mobile device.”

Like all elements of security strategy, retailers have to realistically calculate the effort-to-benefit-ratio on mobile protections. What types of attacks are likely, and which are not worth paying to protect against? The guidelines offer one example of something that, at least today, is not worth defending against.

“In order to bypass security mechanisms such as a secure element or various biometric mechanisms, a person or organization might require very expensive and technologically advanced equipment,” the guidelines say. “Today, attacks on security mechanisms like these are too difficult and not financially beneficial for the development of extensive countermeasures. However, in the future, this may not be the case and protecting against such attacks may become a higher priority.”

Several potential mobile weaknesses were specifically flagged as worthy of extra attention:

  • Direct PIN Entry
    “Should not implement (packages) that permit PIN entry directly into the mobile device. If the system incorporates PIN-entry capability, it should only occur through a PTS approved PIN Entry Device or EPP (Encrypting PIN Pad).”
  • Offline Transactions
    “Should not use the mobile payment (package) to authorize transactions offline or store transactions for later transmission, for example, when the mobile payment application on the host is not accessible.”
  • Camera Risk
    “Data captured by an embedded camera may prove to be an exploitable weakness.”
  • Alternate Mobile Access
    “Even with USB debugging disabled, other ways exist in which sensitive data can be accessed on a mobile device. Depending on the device, sensitive data may be accessible through the UART port, audio ports (e.g., headset connection and/or microphone), HDMI ports, IR ports, hardware test points (e.g., JTAG), or through various (non-native) phone states accessed by key sequences or combinations.”
  • Emergency Recover Mode Hole
    “When a mobile device is in a non-native state like emergency recovery mode, it can often be backed up, re-flashed, or have its memory wiped. These actions can usually be performed from the user interface or an external device (e.g., a side-loaded ROM or executable from an SD card).”
  • Reset Risk
    “Mobile devices come with resets from the chipset manufacturer, device manufacturer, and the carrier. These resets can be referred to as public or private resets. Public resets are generally available to the user and can be accessed through the device’s user interface. Private resets are generally not available to the user and require a key sequence, a passcode, or the device to be in a non-native state. Both public and private resets are usually not harmful to a device’s security features, although many of these resets delete large amounts of data and access different memory locations. Therefore, resets could adversely affect the security and the basic functionality of the device. For instance, a harmful reset may remove the requirement for users to be authenticated to the device.”

    The guidelines also touch on various other suggestions, under the best practices school.

  • Manual Override?
    “If the reader fails, is there a manual key-entry process to accept payment card data securely?”
  • BYOD? NG
    “This is the scenario where an employee brings a device to work that the employee (who is not the merchant) owns and controls. Since the BYOD scenario does not provide the merchant with control over the content and configuration of the device, it is not recommended as a best practice.”
  • Device Verification Mechanism
    “The merchant should verify that the mobile device accepting account data is an authorized device by validating its hardware and electronic serial numbers. Additionally, the software, firmware, and application version numbers should be verified before account data is entered. The (vendor) should supply the merchant with documentation that explains to the merchant how to accomplish this verification.”
  • Unique Identifier
    “To help identify devices and control inventory, the merchant should mark each device with a unique identifier. For instance, mark the device with a ultra-violet (UV) security pen or an embedded RFI tag.”

  • advertisement

    Comments are closed.

    Newsletters

    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!
    advertisement

    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...

    StorefrontBacktalk
    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.