advertisement
advertisement

This is page 2 of:

Retail Data Breach Victim Rolls Back The Tech Clock

October 21st, 2009

Still, so much of IT these days reflexively responds to a problem by whipping out the purchase orders and trying to throw whatever technology—the more expensive, the more comforting—is available at the issue. Sometimes, it takes a smaller retailer to point out that that is not always the most cost-effective—or even the most “just plain effective”—route.

But let’s be clear. Going back to a non-integrated approach certainly means losing a lot. From a security standpoint, it almost certainly means giving up encryption, so all card data—if accessed—is easy for anyone to read.

Then again, most professional cyber thieves are focused on tapping into such targeted data via the Internet or via physical assault on the card swipe or the POS. So it’s unclear how likely it is that data would be accessed from an analog connection dialing into a card processor. A thief who wanted to access it most likely could, but it’s so much easier—read cost-effective—to stick with Internet access. To make any real money with card data theft, millions—and sometimes tens of millions—of cards need to be accessed. That plain old analog telephone line makes it hard to profitably grab a lot of cards.

Also, the comments about vendor recommendations isn’t intended to suggest that vendors are necessarily being deceitful or greedy. After decades of doing business this way, it’s simply ingrained—not unlike a surgeon who tends to see “cutting a patient open” as the best treatment for almost any malady. After all, it’s what they’re trained to do.

Rather, this cautionary tale suggests not taking the traditional approach if an easier, cheaper method might suffice. It also means thinking through the inherent (and sometimes subconscious) biases of the experts whose advice you seek.

That’s why it’s always made us nervous that PCI assessors can sell the products and services that make a chain PCI compliant. Even the most honest of assessors can’t help but be a little bit influenced by that the revenue from selling their own offerings, especially in a down economy when every dollar means a few more days of not being laid off. Given the latitude that assessors have, can they truly divorce their bonus from what the retailer truly needs to be PCI compliant?

One of the points Cyopsis’ Roberts made was that IT managers—after a breach—should trace everything back to find the root cause of the breach. “They need to train their people to code more securely,” he said.

Maybe IT directors should sit back and not only consider the source code, though. In light of the advice they’re getting and who they’re getting it from, maybe they should think beyond the source code and to also, if you will, consider the source.


advertisement

4 Comments | Read Retail Data Breach Victim Rolls Back The Tech Clock

  1. Chris Says:

    I swear I’d do my best to initiate the comeback of the Carrier Pigeon if I knew it would do any better for network security :-)

  2. Steve Sommers Says:

    I question whether rolling back to dial up terminals is really more secure? Yes, it is a quick fix that will most likely close the current breach vector but it does bring back it own set of risks. I’m not aware of any dial up terminal that supports encrypting the data as it is sent to the modem. I’m also not aware of any processor “dial up” spec that supports encryption. While the card brands and PCI have added loopholes for unencrypted dial up traffic, there is a big grey area if the merchant uses a VoIP phone solution – in which case you might be introducing unencrypted traffic on a public network.

  3. Kiril Alexiev Says:

    Merchant payment technologies have become very sophisticated and allow various networks or products to link seamlessly so that users can benefit from straight-through processing. But integration of various products and networks poses a unique problem: are these linkages done right and are there vulnerable points that are outside the security mechanisms of each component. PCI represents one attempt to standardize security procedures for payments but standardization cannot catch all weak points. Thus somethings rolling back in time can help merchants avoid what Cheers Liquor Mart experienced. A better solution would be to have IT security technician on staff and mandate annual security audits to look for ways to troubleshoot or improve the end to end security of an integrated system. Or said in other words: using a typewriter to avoid computer viruses on your word processing equipment is not a long term solution in the century of automation …

  4. Michael Cherry Says:

    Excellent article. The Retail IT Community (my community) got ahead of itself and new safer solutions are needed. My community did a better job when we designed wholesale banking and brokerage electronic funds transfer systems (EFTS).

    Michael Cherry
    Cherry Biometrics Inc.

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.