The VeriFone-Square Battle Moves The Encryption Debate

Written by Evan Schuman
March 16th, 2011

In last week’s kerfuffle over VeriFone’s encryption fight with Square, the issue of whether a free, early-stage mobile payment device needed to have hardware encryption was key. But the capabilities of most of today’s POS units are such that it may be a silly debate. Many of the units can’t handle the encrypted communications, forcing the data to be converted into plain text so the POS station can comprehend it.

“Using an encrypting reader is not as simple as plugging it in. Very few POS processing systems can handle encrypted data. The vast majority of card data is processed as clear text ASCII. That includes the data read by most VeriFone terminals,” said Tom Siegler, VP of Strategic Market Development at UIC USA, another vendor in the payment space. “The reader must be key-injected by a certified vendor with the key for the acquiring processor. This typically costs from $15 to $40. Some vendors want to gate the transaction and charge a fee for the service. This was VeriFone’s and MagTek’s business model. All encrypted transactions would generate revenue. Nice business, if you can get it.”

Siegler’s point is not that mobile payment encryption won’t ever happen, but that it will take time and standards so the transaction format is accepted at every level. “These payments are a chain of events, and there are about five different players involved. If they all don’t play together, the device won’t work,” he said, adding that the device will say “I’ve never seen this message format before” and then “the transaction just won’t happen.”

(Envision a Retail IT version of A Few Good Men, with the lead POS played by Jack Nicholson, who’s arguing with a cocky card reader. “You want the encryption? You can’t handle the encryption!”)

The risk argument that VeriFone has made is that cyberthieves could use the Square device to steal data from consumer payment cards. To do that, though, the thief would need to physically access the card. And if retailers are using the device, the only fraud risk is that their systems would have unencrypted payment card data, which most chains have anyway due to current POS limitations.

The bigger risk, VeriFone argues, is that a store associate might take the payment device, use it to access Web sites and unknowingly download a Trojan horse program. That program would hide within an innocuous application or file and then copy the payment data, later transmitting it to the thief who created the Trojan horse. “There is no malware protection generally available for these devices,” said Paul Rasori, VeriFone’s Senior VP for Global Marketing.

Making this situation a lot trickier is that the PCI Council has delisted mobile applications and is refusing to approve any until it completes a lengthy review of all mobile issues.

In one to two years, these issues will almost certainly be addressed. The PCI Council will have issued its guidance by then, and newer POS systems—and all of the downwind players—will likely have embraced a standardized approach to encryption.

The future for mobile payments looks bright. But right now, here in the present, retail needs to adopt a series of temporary measures. These are approaches that will allow for mobile experimentation and limited deployments to happen while the more permanent fixes are being finalized.

In this stopgap environment, easy and low-cost options like Square are going to look very attractive.


One Comment | Read The VeriFone-Square Battle Moves The Encryption Debate

  1. Jim Huguelet Says:

    While I am eternally optimistic by my nature, I think it is very unlikely that in a one or two (or even, five) year timeline we’ll see widespread adoption of a standard encryption approach short of a card brand or legal mandate to do so. There are simply too many parties involved in the payment processing chain, each with its own sets of vested interests in how the changes wrought by encryption come about, to move that quickly. There will certainly be increasing numbers of proprietary solutions available for specific mobile devices using specific payment processors in specific situations (and this is a great achievement in and of itself, as mobile payments has been “next year’s thing” for many years) – but universal standards are further off than that, I’m afraid.

    I’ll be more than happy, though, to be proven wrong in this regard…


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.