New European Card Data Theft Ring Raising China Questions

Written by Evan Schuman
October 13th, 2008

A report this week from The Wall Street Journal about a European "credit-card fraud ring that funnels account data to Pakistan" and "uses untraceable devices inserted into credit-card readers that were made in China" sparked a lot of retail interest, but it’s unclear how widespread or innovative the attacks were.

A U.K. tradegroup that often speaks for European retailers on payment issues has gone on the record, trying to tone down the crime reports, claiming there is no evidence linking these crimes to either Pakistan or China.

"A very small number of shops have had devices compromised by criminals but not in the way that has been reported," said Mark Bowerman, a spokesperson for APACS, known as the U.K. payments association. Bowerman’s version has the devices being taken from the stores, retrofitted with electronic capture devices and then put back. If true, that’s a physical tactic seen periodically in the United States and is not especially controversial.

Among the chains that Bowerman confirmed were hit were Asda (owned by Wal-Mart), Tesco and J Sainsbury.

Other than the China claim—which some interpreted as a suggestion that the theft devices were added in at the point of manufacture—the most interesting part of the original story was a clever element of restraint, designed to elude detection. "The device can be told to copy certain types of transactions" such as "five Visa platinum cards or every tenth transaction. It can also be instructed to go dormant to evade detection. On average, only five to 10 card numbers would be phoned in to Pakistan, the person close to British law enforcement said."

The Journal story said the bogus devices weighed about four ounces and that an unexplained additional four ounces of weight is the best way to quickly identify tampered units. Some have questioned that figure, suggesting that four ounces is an awful lot of weight for what is typically a very small transmitter. Bowerman confirmed that the units appear to weigh more, but couldn’t confirm the amount of that weight differential.


2 Comments | Read New European Card Data Theft Ring Raising China Questions

  1. A Reader Says:

    If the units were contacting Pakistan and were wireless, they almost certainly had to be using cell phones to send the transmissions. (“The device…would call a number in Lahore” pretty much seals it.) And there are criminal organizations currently using cell-phone-based card skimmers for ATMs, so this would not be a unique attack.

    My small cell phone weighs 3 ounces without its battery, and 3.5 ounces with it.) I think “about 4 ounces” is a very plausible figure.

    Bowerman seems to contradict the WSJ story quite frequently. Perhaps he was discussing a completely different criminal investigation?

  2. Evan Schuman Says:

    Editor’s Note: Yes, it did feel that way. For the record, Mr. Bowerman was looking at a link of the Wall Street Journal story when we talked.


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.