advertisement
advertisement

This is page 2 of:

Mobile Security Achilles’ Heel: Employees Won’t Report A Lost Phone For A Very Long Time

February 17th, 2011

You know that employees will search for a few minutes at least. Nobody wants to cry wolf—and generate a lot of help-desk and security paperwork—for a phone or tablet that was merely mislaid under a stack of loose papers.

Worse still, you know that when the device is found, everyone will assume there’s been no foul play. After all, the device is physically undamaged and it seems to work fine. And who wants a lot of paperwork to have equipment checked out when it was probably just lost for a few minutes?

That optimism is just human nature. (Well, human nature combined with a desire not to have lots of paperwork and a bad report in the employee’s file.) But it also means you could have an undetected loss of passwords—and a hacked iPhone or iPad that’s potentially being used to process payment cards or access your retail systems.

(While Apple’s iDevices have their security problems, there’s no guarantee that smartphones or tablets using other operating systems will be safer, according to the researchers. They just didn’t try their fast-break-in approach on any other devices.)

This is an obvious application for Apple’s recently patented technique for detecting phones that have been tampered with. Unfortunately, it’s not available yet. Meanwhile, those German researchers aren’t publishing exact how-to-do-it-yourself details of their exploit. But collecting the necessary software and duplicating their feat won’t be that difficult. The threat is real.

Fortunately, there are practical measures that help deal with the threat. You’re a retailer, which means you have antitheft technology. Cementing an unsightly security tag to the device makes it harder to sneak out of the store and less desirable to steal for resale.

Requiring that every device that goes missing, even briefly, be checked for tampering is a good idea. That shouldn’t require returning the device to the corporate office. The bad guys use scripts that can be run automatically to break into these devices; you should use scripts that can check for telltale signs of tampering.

An even better idea is to check all mobile devices for tampering each day, whether they’ve been reported missing or not. Checking those devices regularly also gives central IT the chance to do software updates and confirm what’s actively being used from each store’s device inventory. Daily is too often? Then make it weekly—but remember, you’re weakening your security, too.

There’s a side effect of implementing highly visible new security like antitheft tags and regular device inspections: Employees will notice and, for at least a little while, they’ll be more security conscious. That’s human nature, too—and those human associates are still the best way to keep mobile devices safe.


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.