advertisement
advertisement

This is page 2 of:

Google And Apple Can Reach Into Mobile Devices, Even If You’re Using Them For POS

March 9th, 2011

Unfortunately, both those vendors’ licenses reserve the right to reach in, either to push operating system upgrades or remove problem software. And if retailers can’t completely control what’s on the devices, who has access to them, how they’ll be set up and when they’ll be changed, there’s no way for a QSA to be sure a device is secure for handling payment card information. And these fears certainly also extend to mobile units that might happen to never be used for tendering purposes.

After all, mobile devices are much easier to steal or tamper with than dedicated POS devices, and those are already a perpetual security headache. A payment-card reader that’s been tampered with is a bad enough risk, but at least those devices can literally be nailed down.

Not so with a mobile POS device. A dedicated thief with a netbook and a little privacy could steal an unattended POS smartphone or tablet, install malware and return the device in minutes without even leaving the store and with no obvious signs of tampering with the device. Short of the ability to lock down that phone or tablet, how can a QSA seriously agree that this is a secure way of processing a payment card?

The problem for retailers with reach-ins doesn’t stop with payments. True, IT departments now have decades of experience with automated software updates for everything from PCs to HVAC systems. But mobile is very new and—as with every new platform—developers don’t know which rules they can bend. (The one thing you know for sure is that they will break rules to make the devices do what’s needed.)

That means there’s a much higher chance that an unexpected update will break existing software as soon as it arrives, or worse, create subtle issues that won’t become obvious until they generate major problems. That’s why IT does regression testing on new software before it goes into production — which can’t happen if Apple or Google makes changes without warning.

Still, because on-the-spot checkout is a prime reason many retailers are looking at in-store mobile devices, mobile POS is the place where reach-ins have the potential to be a deal killer.

It shouldn’t be. Apple and Google should be the most retailer-friendly phone vendors imaginable. Apple runs a chain of stores; Google offers an online checkout system. If any smartphone or tablet maker is going to understand the need of retailers to lock down devices and exempt them from reach-in, it should be these guys.

Of course, that’s no guarantee they will understand. Apple and Google have brands to protect. Are they ready to let retailers completely control the devices, even if that means critical bugs can’t be fixed? Will retailers have to sign away the right to sue over faulty handheld products, in exchange for the ability to completely control them as POS devices?

Maybe the response should be special hardened versions of Android and i-devices that can be locked down. But that’s likely to jack up the price per device, and those hardened versions will always trail the current consumer smartphones in terms of capabilities.

It’s an ugly tradeoff for retailers. Simply cutting a deal to allow locked-down devices would be a lot more attractive.

Still, Google and Apple’s ability to spike rogue apps isn’t all bad news for retailers. Suppose a retailer’s own app is cracked by thieves and injected with malware, then submitted to the App Store or Android Marketplace. Suppose it slipped through the phone vendor’s vetting process, and hundreds of thousands of your customers downloaded it to use before the malware was discovered.

Just about then, the ability to reach into all those phones and kill bad apps would start to sound very attractive indeed.


advertisement

2 Comments | Read Google And Apple Can Reach Into Mobile Devices, Even If You’re Using Them For POS

  1. Anton Chuvakin Says:

    This, IMHO, is a very big deal potentially. The trade-off is indeed ugly and there a chance that using a general purpose mobile device for payments will always be a risky bet, both PCI-wise and common security sense-wise

  2. GreatBigDog Says:

    You do realize that Google’s reach only extends to apps that are installed via Google’s own Android Market? If you’ve used another market, installed an app downloaded from the net, or created your own, Google would have no way of knowing that you have it installed on your device.

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.