Tesco’s Barcode Scan Security Dilemma

Written by Evan Schuman
August 8th, 2012

In late July, a U.K. programmer was at his local Tesco store when he noticed something unusual about a barcode. As programmers are inclined to do, he spent an inordinate amount of time online trying to decipher the barcode. He was joined in that effort by other like-minded techie folk, who eventually deciphered it. If that was the end of the story, it would be unremarkable in the extreme. But it’s not, and it’s Tesco’s reaction that makes things interesting.

Tesco’s reaction—overreaction? Ludicrously counterproductive overreaction?—was fueled by the interaction of mobile and self-checkout. That mobile/self-checkout part is where barcodes can be fed into systems manually. But if you think this is no more dangerous than a shopper getting a $3 half-gallon of milk for 3 cents, think again. It goes way beyond fake product barcodes to include fraudulent coupons, forged giftcards and SQL injection attacks.

The programmer who started this, Matt Evans, filed his initial barcode musings late last month. Tesco’s lawyers got wind of the discussions and slammed Evans hard with various legal threats. The page with the discussion was quickly taken down and replaced with a note saying, “Understandably, Tesco weren’t best pleased. Here ends playing with their barcodes.” Fortunately, a copy of the original page had been preserved prior to Tesco’s threats, so we can see what all the fuss is about.

(Note: The one part of the code that Evans had been unable to figure out was the so called red number, and a commenter offered this: “In case anyone is interested, I’ve spoken to a friend of mine who was once a manager at Tesco and I can shed a little more light on the matter. The red number, which the author had so far been unable to decipher, is the ‘discount-reason-code,’ which represents the reason for the discount. These reasons represent things like ‘damaged’ or ‘short date (nearly out of date).'”)

Some comments suggest that Tesco likely has a price database, making fake prices useless. If so, why the slap-down? Surely Tesco knows these discussions go on routinely. If the company has legitimate security, what harm can come from people trying to analyze its very public barcodes? Surely Tesco understands that security by obscurity (where something is secure as long as no one stumbles upon it) never works, and it certainly can’t work in today’s Web collaborative environment.

One longtime security executive at a very large national retail chain said the issue in this case that troubled her is the ability of a user to either create his own barcodes and display them on a mobile phone or simply key them in. Self-checkout enables the machine access that makes this type of attack possible.

“There is the lesson that a bad guy can and will scan whatever barcodes he wants into your self-checkout machines and no cashiers will spot it,” she said, adding the examples of the coupons, giftcards and SQL attacks. “There is also the lesson that whatever values you store in a barcode can potentially be deciphered by an attacker and may even be modified and used against you.”

Aside from having better security, does it make sense to impose restrictions on self-checkout system interactions? Perhaps a ban on mobile/self-checkout interactions, forcing the customer seek an intervention for such a move? (Simply tell associates monitoring the systems to immediately halt mobile efforts.)

The same thing applies for manual barcode entry. If the product isn’t scanning properly, seek associate help. Only with an override key and password can a barcode be manually entered. A product barcode not scanning should be indicative of an irregularity anyway, so an intervention is appropriate for both customer service and loss prevention reasons.

The legal threat Tesco likely used in this case—Tesco was given an opportunity to comment for this story and opted not to—was fraud, if the programmer had performed this on a machine and kept the money. But that threat would only make sense if a real security hole exists. If a pricing database would have blocked it, why the fuss? Put in a Shakespearean context: “The lawyer doth protest too much, methinks.” Or in an American version: “If there’s no threat, then why are you sweating?”


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.