Could 5-Year-Old Bank Rules Have Prevented The Heartland Breach?

Written by Evan Schuman
January 29th, 2009

A financial blog is raising a fascinating question, asking if banking security rules from 2004 might have prevented the Heartland data breach, where cyber thieves hid a sniffer program in an unallocated portion of a Heartland transaction server.

The financial blog quoted a well-placed security consultant, who apparently had direct knowledge of one of the Heartland probes, saying: “This was an ‘I told you so’ moment for me. I know exactly which part of the process got hit. It was the un-encrypted Point-to-Point connection, which occurs between the Host Security Module (HSM) and the Application Security Module (ASM). But that means that they had to have had a hole in their firewall to insert the sniffer into unallocated disk space.”

The blog posting goes on to say that banking rules from four to five years ago might have helped. “Now Heartland is crying poor me and making it sound like they are heroes by claiming that they are going to ‘develop’ end to end encryption. They should have been using the ISO Banking Security Standards, which were promulgated in 2004/2005. They should be expected to uphold the standard,” the site quoted their security expert as saying.

The site, run by Anthony Freed, also raises SEC questions about some stock trades performed by Heartland CEO Robert Carr. This appears to be much more thinly sourced and it comes down to whether Carr knew about the breach months earlier than the company has said. Given that the probe apparently started with Visa and MasterCard notifications, it would seem the timing is well documented, unless Heartland’s entire breach timeline is bogus, which seems highly unlikely.

Also, given the financial turmoil that was extremely well known this summer—especially to an executive of a payment card processing firm—there are plenty of non-nefarious reasons why an exec in that space at that time would be selling stock. But Freed appears to have documented his theory well, so it’s worth noting.


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.