advertisement
advertisement

This is page 3 of:

EMV Is Simply Not Worth The Effort. Not Even A Little

November 16th, 2011

Yes, in the U.S. where online shopping on Black Friday surpassed brick-and-mortar sales, we are going to adopt a technology that does nothing to improve the security of credit cards online. Speaking as a consumer now, this old technology has already proven to be susceptible to man-in-the-middle attacks, which is security speak for steal your PIN. As a consumer, this makes me more nervous than having to remember my PIN, because now it’s going to be just that much harder to protest that those are not my charges and that I don’t even live in Estonia.

“Is there any reason we can’t just have technology that secures the card data, removes my costs for data security compliance and protects consumers online?”

Actually, no, there is no reason. The chip in the card is probably capable of fully encrypting card data; in fact, it’s probably capable of doing away with card numbers all together and using the concept of certificates, like computers. It’s probably also capable of knowing the difference between normal EMV and better, encrypted, U.S. EMV 2.0 technology. And, if it doesn’t, we are starting to see solutions from other companies such as iTunes, Google and PayPal that are coming up with ways to protect credit-card data through the use of smartphone apps and online wallets. Mobile payments are just waiting for the spark that starts everyone using their phone to pay for purchases.

U.S. merchants don’t want old technology. U.S. merchants want the next generation of EMV. We want a technology that protects the card number. The U.S. is a clean slate. Where is EMV 2.0? Give us the next-generation approach.

Merchants have spent the last five years spending money to protect the credit-card companies’ even older technology—the magstripe. Now we’re being told to spend even more money on an inadequate technology that doesn’t address these same problems. This must stop. Give merchants a solution that fixes the data security of the cards. Give merchants a solution that eliminates PCI and addresses online fraud.

EMV is old, costly and inadequate. Visa needs to stop dressing this up as a fraud technology for consumers, merchants and banks. Visa, stop pretending this lipstick addresses the data security problem.

What do you think? Have I overstated the case? Please E-mail me at thuber@storefrontbacktalk.com and let me know.


advertisement

2 Comments | Read EMV Is Simply Not Worth The Effort. Not Even A Little

  1. Howie Brecher Says:

    Well said. Most of what Visa and MasterCard do is only to improve their profitability. They have virtually no interest in stopping fraud as they just pass the cost on to their customers. When they have to eat the costs of stolen cards and identity theft then they’ll do the right thing.

  2. Gavin Phillips Says:

    It’s a good point, but bear in mind that just because the US is beginning to see that there’s other technologies beyond the magstripe, in Europe EMV has been around for a *long* time. In that context, when EMV was created the issues around card data security weren’t of the same scope, and therefore was never the primary focus of the standard.

    But life moves on, and as the writer correctly points out, before migrating one of the world’s largest card and POS bases to chip, it’s an opportunity to take EMV to the next level and extend this technology to kill the PCI DSS issues too. Why this isn’t more of a focus for the schemes I don’t know.

    Then again, there’s quite a simple way of killing this with the existing technology – issue cards where the PAN is different to the Track 2 Equivalent Data, and stop pulling the latter from the card. If the PAN is only ever authorised by the issuer when the transaction originates as a chip transaction from a chip terminal that’s it’s able to do DDA on, then that PAN is essentially useless to a fraudster – they can’t use it for a card-not-present transaction, nor can they write it to a magstripe and use it on a non-chip terminal.

    Correct me if I’m wrong here but isn’t the big goal we’re chasing here to make a card number useless to the fraudster? If the PAN from the chip is useless outside of an EMV terminal then it becomes what POS vendors are busy selling for millions of dollars – a useless token that you can’t write to a magstripe or use for card-not-present.

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.