Comments
Wendy's Could Become Test Case For New EMV Liability Rules
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
jc01480
50%
50%
jc01480,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/3/2016 | 11:12:57 PM
I was one of them...
I am a security professional working at one of the greatest organizations there are. It came as a surprise to me one day when I received an email saying my card had been compromised and a new one was being issued. Within two days I had another (yes, the first one had a chip) EMV card. I haven't verified with my bank as to exactly where this card was compromised, but I speculate it was at Wendy's as my wife and I always ate there on the run like we do. Again, not certain it was them and I'll find out in due course. But so far there is no word from the bank about being charged for the replacement and no indications any money was fraudulently deducted from my account. I give kudos to my financial institution for making me aware and taking measures to cancel the old one while a new one was in my mailbox. So far, my life has not been affected whatsoever by this incident and I hope that the retail industry will adopt the technology required to safeguard retail transactions in lieu of risk mitigation by absorbing the losses. Eventually that risk mitigation will be a red flag to come and get it. And it does speak to the idea of a company's ethics when they are willing to implement this type of behavior because the loss of your PII still wouldn't cost them as much as implementing the technology to prevent it would. Should it be their decision? Just to save them some money? Hopefully this isn't the case for all persons affected. Thanks for reading and happy hunting!
No SOPA
100%
0%
No SOPA,
User Rank: Ninja
1/30/2016 | 7:21:47 PM
Re: EMV. Bah.
Past EMV hacks include man-in-the-middle attacks via programming a second chip (FUN card) to accept any PIN entry.  You solder that chip to the card's original chip. This increases the thickness of the chip from 0.4mm to 0.7mm.  This made insertion into a PoS possible (Ars Technia, 2015; researchers Houda Ferradi, Rémi Géraud, David Naccache, and Assia Tria).  Hackers took advantage of PIN authentication at the time being decoupled from transaction verification on EMV cards in Europe.  I'm not up-to-date on how much of this is still possible, but I know it annoys me (the chip) and many are still opposing the idea EMV is inherently safer.
dewald
100%
0%
dewald,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/30/2016 | 1:58:16 PM
Re: EMV. Bah.
"Particularly annoying is the liability shift having come so soon in this process.".  Visa announced the shift in Summer 2011.  Four years is too "soon"?
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
1/30/2016 | 12:06:26 PM
EMV. Bah.
Particularly because studies have indicated that EMV is not inherently safer than magnetic-stripe cards (it simply has different vulnerabilities that are exploited in different ways), and that it has been harder for some defrauded customers to be made whole because credit card companies and merchants automatically assume that EMV is impervious, I am pretty annoyed about EMV being foisted upon us by Visa et al. in the US.

Particularly annoying is the liability shift having come so soon in this process.  The credit-card companies are the ones who foisted this upon us, and they're the ones with the deeper pockets.  I think there was poor policy planning here.


Google Engineering Lead on Lessons Learned From Chrome's HTTPS Push
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  8/8/2018
White Hat to Black Hat: What Motivates the Switch to Cybercrime
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  8/8/2018
PGA of America Struck By Ransomware
Dark Reading Staff 8/9/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-3937
PUBLISHED: 2018-08-14
An exploitable command injection vulnerability exists in the measurementBitrateExec functionality of Sony IPELA E Series Network Camera G5 firmware 1.87.00. A specially crafted GET request can cause arbitrary commands to be executed. An attacker can send an HTTP request to trigger this vulnerability...
CVE-2018-3938
PUBLISHED: 2018-08-14
An exploitable stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability exists in the 802dot1xclientcert.cgi functionality of Sony IPELA E Series Camera G5 firmware 1.87.00. A specially crafted POST can cause a stack-based buffer overflow, resulting in remote code execution. An attacker can send a malicious POST r...
CVE-2018-12537
PUBLISHED: 2018-08-14
In Eclipse Vert.x version 3.0 to 3.5.1, the HttpServer response headers and HttpClient request headers do not filter carriage return and line feed characters from the header value. This allow unfiltered values to inject a new header in the client request or server response.
CVE-2018-12539
PUBLISHED: 2018-08-14
In Eclipse OpenJ9 version 0.8, users other than the process owner may be able to use Java Attach API to connect to an Eclipse OpenJ9 or IBM JVM on the same machine and use Attach API operations, which includes the ability to execute untrusted native code. Attach API is enabled by default on Windows,...
CVE-2018-3615
PUBLISHED: 2018-08-14
Systems with microprocessors utilizing speculative execution and Intel software guard extensions (Intel SGX) may allow unauthorized disclosure of information residing in the L1 data cache from an enclave to an attacker with local user access via a side-channel analysis.