advertisement
advertisement

This is page 2 of:

Mobile POS Moves Forward, With MasterCard’s Blessing

May 30th, 2012

The most relevant parts of the document for retailers are on pages five and six. Here MasterCard makes it clear it is talking specifically about mobile devices with a card reader (or dongle) “attached to the audio port, USB port or proprietary connector,” and the merchant uses a payment application installed on its smartphone or tablet to process the transaction. The card brand excludes contactless solutions where customers use their own device as a replacement for the physical payment card.

Things start to get interesting because, as MasterCard puts it, merchants face a “unique challenge.” Specifically, MasterCard mandates that merchants use only PA-DSS validated payment applications listed by the PCI Council. But, as the document notes, “the PCI SSC is not certifying MPOS payment applications that reside on multi-purpose consumer mobile devices until further guidance is developed to ensure the security of cardholder data within the mobile device.” Get it? Retailers must use PA-DSS validated applications, but there are no PA-DSS validated mobile payment applications.

To me, this definitely qualifies as a unique challenge—or maybe even an insurmountable opportunity. What’s the answer? MasterCard appears to be saying merchants should follow its (meaning MasterCard’s) prescribed best practices. But as a QSA I recommend full PCI compliance at all times.

MasterCard tells MPOS solution providers that they “should” (note: not “must”) develop their code securely, update the application and have policies in place when their sub-merchants lose their MPOS device. The card brand tells merchants that they “should” (again, note: not “must”) talk to the solution providers about security.

That is about all solution providers need to do, and the “unique challenge” posed by the lack of PA-DSS validated mobile payment applications goes away. Again, as a QSA I have to reinforce the importance of using only PA-DSS validated applications installed and maintained according to the vendor’s PA-DSS Implementation Guide.

MasterCard recognizes another “unique challenge” a bit further on in the document. It notes that the open architecture of mobile devices and their susceptibility to malware can lead to the loss of unencrypted cardholder data. Because of these “limitations with the security features of mobile devices, merchants who use MPOS solutions will find it challenging to comply with the requirements of the PCI DSS.”

Did I just miss something, or did a major card brand just give MPOS merchants and sub-merchants a pass on PCI compliance? Or, is MasterCard taking a risk-adjusted approach to compliance? I do not think the card brand is doing either, but it could be confusing. MasterCard notes at the very beginning of the document that none of the best practices supersedes any of its rules. Still, the recommendations offered do not seem to include an easy path to PCI compliance.


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.