Mobile Payment Vendor Claims PCI Compliance, Then Admits That It Was Fiction

Written by Evan Schuman
June 23rd, 2011

It’s not common to see a PCI security vendor issue a sales pitch E-mail blast and to then follow it up with an extensive correction to its retail IT prospects. But that happened on Wednesday (June 22), and for good reason: Not only did the company claim to be PCI compliant on mobile payment (when in fact no one can be), but it even created and posted on its site—and included in the E-mail—its own PCI Council seal of approval icon (when in fact none exists).

The actions of the vendor—TF Payments, a unit of ThoughtFocus Technologies, which is marketing the product as FocusPay—highlight some of the challenges involved when planning a retail mobile-payment strategy in an environment where the rules have yet to be established. And as a result, vendors are feeling pressured to promise capability with non-existent standards—and hoping no one notices. This time, however, someone did.

(Related story: PCI Hints At Mobile Payment Way Out By August.)

To be fair, many of these incidents (and we have seen quite a few bogus vendor PCI claims) stem more from a lack of PCI understanding within these vendors than outright attempts to lie. This is compounded when PR or marketing people put together such marketing documents, ads and presentations with no meaningful oversight from the technology people who know the areas better. That said, yes, many of these lies are just that—deliberate efforts to trick retailers. But there’s no need to immediately assume maliciousness when unbridled ignorance (dare we say incompetence, in the area of reckless lack of oversight in finalizing sales materials) is in such abundant supply.

As for FocusPay, here’s what happened. Daniel Stiel, a contractor working for FocusPay marketing, sent out an E-mail blast to retail IT prospects on June 11. In that message, the argument was made that “FocusPay-certified software and hardware is PCI-Certified” and “now you can turn your mobile device into a portable PCI-Certified POS system and accept all major bank credit and debit cards featuring the Visa, MasterCard, Discover Card logo on the front of the card.” It also prominently featured a PCI image that looked an awful lot like an official PCI Compliance seal of approval, even though none exists.

Indeed, even “PCI Certified” doesn’t exist for anything. As PCI Columnist Walt Conway noted last summer: “The first indication that should make you suspicious is when a vendor talks about being PCI ‘certified.’ As far as I know, nothing in the world of PCI is ‘certified.’ Payment applications may be validated, PIN encryption devices may be approved and service providers may be assessed or compliant, but nothing is certified. Maybe the vendor in this case is certifiable, but that is a separate discussion.”


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.