Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Comments
Apple Pay: A Necessary Push To Transform Consumer Payments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
LucasZa
50%
50%
LucasZa,
User Rank: Moderator
9/15/2014 | 6:32:09 PM
Are we there yet?
Godwin's Law will rear its head in 3...2...1...

Seriously though, the word "hopefully" calls attention to a potential risk factor that lies within secure coding practices and unpublished technical specifications. I researched by digging up everything I could find in the public domain and cross referencing that with my knowledge on the payment processing world from past experience working in multiple job functions at a payment processor.

Getting private details for publication from a highly secretive company would be difficult to say the least. I could have been sneaky by calling contacts, digging up dirt on Apple Pay's implementation and their security development lifecycle adherence track record, then publish a tell-all. But that would be a jerk move. Besides, I have a day job on top of writing articles as a contributing author.
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
9/15/2014 | 6:00:14 PM
Re: Device Account Number
That is clear actually. Once you identify the device and the card and the POS with a unique random number the rest is easy to do. You can store the number as you want and where you want, that will not breach any security rules or regulations.
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
9/15/2014 | 5:55:13 PM
Re: Speaking of security...
I agree. What Apple is doing would eventually be more secure than a plastic credit card. You can always improve security measure on the system, it is more difficult and costly to do that on the physical card.
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
9/15/2014 | 5:50:00 PM
No plastic card needed
Thanks for sharing this article, quite informative. I have high hopes in Apple's and other companies' efforts to replace credit cards. We do not really need to have a card with magnetic stripe to secure our money transactions. That is simply failure of banks and credit cards providers and it takes Apple to disrupt the market to go where we needed to be already.
dkoobfhlbc
50%
50%
dkoobfhlbc,
User Rank: Apprentice
9/15/2014 | 2:22:24 PM
Re: The entire article falls apart at "Hopefully"
Congrats - 

 

Here's a million internet points. 

You win at arguing on the internet today. 

Come back again tomorrow for more points!
SDiver
100%
0%
SDiver,
User Rank: Strategist
9/15/2014 | 1:42:04 PM
Re: The entire article falls apart at "Hopefully"
First, I never stated that you were pro-Android.  I used Android only as an example because of its dominance in the market so please learn to read.  Your claim of Apple's wrongdoings as being forgotton is patently false.  I'm actually impressed with Android and have seen its users create some great apps with it.  Competition is good for customers.

Second, Apple is only creating its own payment processor.  Nobody has implied that Apple has "created' a new feature.  As for "revolutionizing" the industry I guess that all depends on how Apple implements this new system and how it will stand up to attack.  I challenge you to show me where the author implied that Apple is creating some new feature other than its own new payment system.  The author's statements are reasonable and is only reporting a new release.  What else should he do?

Third, you're complaining over the word "hopefully?"  Are you serious?!  I completely agree with the author and also hope that Apple really did its homework with this new system rather than rushing to market with a poor implementation.  Apple hasn't released any technical data yet on the new system and I'm sure we'll learn more over time.  If you have more technical detail about this new system then I would be eager to know what you learned. 

Fourth, if your concerns are legitimate then why reference Apple customers as "sheeple?"  Immature, to say the least.  As security professionals we should be helping the general public with solutions; not criticizing them for making decisions we don't like.

Finally, we all have known for a long time that cash is the only payment method where your ID is safe.  Either use cash, plastic or a contactless payment system.  The choice is yours.
dkoobfhlbc
50%
50%
dkoobfhlbc,
User Rank: Apprentice
9/15/2014 | 12:36:57 PM
Re: The entire article falls apart at "Hopefully"
I'm not trying to nitpick at why Apple Pay is completely insecure. What really irks me is that NFC payment has been around for YEARS. Yes its constantly evolving and becoming better and stronger and faster and more secure. What really makes me groan is when Apple 'creates' a feature that the masses think is brand new and 'revolutionary' when they're merely taking a technology they did not invent slapping a pretty face on it and calling it their own. While this is great for the recognition of the technology a wider attack vector means it'll just be the next big thing that is hacked.

 

Furthermore - I was initially upset that the author of this article chose to use the word 'hopefully' when describing the 'greatest technology company in the world's approach to payment security. I would have much rather the author done a little more investigation and added some substance to the article to describe why Apple Pay should be adopted and why it's more secure than other NFC payment vendors.

 

Finally - nowhere in my original comment did I mention I was pro Android/ Goole or Microsoft or Blackberry or any other vendor for that matter. I did not say any other vendor is more secure or has fewer flaws than Apple - I'm just upset that Apple's wrongdoings are so quickly forgotten when they introduce something new and shiny. Why the specific Google hate? Defensive much?

Last I checked - nobody's had their identity stolen, been asked for an ID or had their credit ruined when paying in cash.
SDiver
100%
0%
SDiver,
User Rank: Strategist
9/15/2014 | 12:21:13 PM
Re: The entire article falls apart at "Hopefully"
dkoobfhlbc, your comments provide no useful insight.

Yes, Apple's iCloud was breached but so has Android and Google Wallet.  In fact, name any system that is 100% foolproof so what's your beef with Apple?  Are Android users "sheeple" too or should Google be solely responsible for determining our security needs?

We have yet to see the reliability of Apple's new payment system.  Obviously, this new system will have flaws just like any other system but if you're so concerned about the "sheeple" putting their credit card numbers at risk then I invite you to:  1) please provide detailed information WHY Apple Pay is so weak; and 2) name the perfect payment system that you have obviously discovered which the rest of us have missed.
LucasZa
50%
50%
LucasZa,
User Rank: Moderator
9/12/2014 | 4:02:08 PM
Speaking of security...
I agree with those concerned about security flaws. It is possible that someone could figure out a way to retrieve the stored card data from the Secure Element chip. Passbook uses an iOS API to access that chip. If there's a weakness in protecting that API, then that could lead to apps being deployed to the Apple store that steal stored cards or malicious websites that use another vulnerability to gain initial access (e.g. jailbreaking techniques), then exploit the API flaw to steal card data. Or perhaps there's a way criminals could conduct fraud if they get on Apple's servers relaying transaction data. What if they managed to get the seed data used to generate the unique transaction identifiers? Lots of possibilities.

I also agree with those that state it's still more secure than using magstripe or EMV. Nothing is perfectly secure, so choosing the option with the least attack surface area makes sense. Unfortunately, most people don't care enough about security to ditch the plastic. They need some sort of gratification to change behavior.
LucasZa
50%
50%
LucasZa,
User Rank: Moderator
9/12/2014 | 3:52:06 PM
Re: Device Account Number
Marilyn, the Device Account Number is a permanent unique identifier for the mobile device. I'm not sure if it's randomly generated or derived from seed data. Either way, that Device Account Number gets stored on the "Secure Element" chip they've added to the iPhone 6. This is their way of implementing the Secured Element part of the NFC specification. More info at www.smartcardalliance.org/publications-nfc-frequently-asked-questions/#7

When it comes time to pay, the iPhone 6 will use NFC to transmit the Device Account Number and a a unique transaction identifier to the POS using those contactless readers that nobody in America currently cares about. This is where it gets a little vague. Prior reports talked about the elimination of the payment processor middleman. The merchant POS has to send the transaction data somewhere though. So I'd assume they're sending it through Apple servers which then authenticate the transaction with the card issuing bank before processing it through the appropriate card brand network such as Visa. Think of the transaction identifier as being an out of band mechanism so criminals can't leverage stolen data from Apple Pay transactions since they'd need another transaction identifier. I'm guessing the transaction identifiers are generated similar to how Google Authenticator and RSA two-factor have a rolling code that's constantly in sync with the server.

My guess that Apple is in the middle relaying transaction data stems from their careful choice in wording when they state they "don't save" your transaction data. They're choosing their words carefully to hide the complex inner workings behind a simpler message that doesn't require niche payment processing knowledge.
Page 1 / 2   >   >>


COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 9/21/2020
Cybersecurity Bounces Back, but Talent Still Absent
Simone Petrella, Chief Executive Officer, CyberVista,  9/16/2020
Meet the Computer Scientist Who Helped Push for Paper Ballots
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  9/16/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Latest Comment: Exactly
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal
This special report examines how IT security organizations have adapted to the "new normal" of computing and what the long-term effects will be. Read it and get a unique set of perspectives on issues ranging from new threats & vulnerabilities as a result of remote working to how enterprise security strategy will be affected long term.
Flash Poll
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic turned the world -- and enterprise computing -- on end. Here's a look at how cybersecurity teams are retrenching their defense strategies, rebuilding their teams, and selecting new technologies to stop the oncoming rise of online attacks.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-6564
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-21
Inappropriate implementation in permissions in Google Chrome prior to 85.0.4183.83 allowed a remote attacker to spoof the contents of a permission dialog via a crafted HTML page.
CVE-2020-6565
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-21
Inappropriate implementation in Omnibox in Google Chrome on iOS prior to 85.0.4183.83 allowed a remote attacker to spoof the contents of the Omnibox (URL bar) via a crafted HTML page.
CVE-2020-6566
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-21
Insufficient policy enforcement in media in Google Chrome prior to 85.0.4183.83 allowed a remote attacker to leak cross-origin data via a crafted HTML page.
CVE-2020-6567
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-21
Insufficient validation of untrusted input in command line handling in Google Chrome on Windows prior to 85.0.4183.83 allowed a remote attacker to bypass navigation restrictions via a crafted HTML page.
CVE-2020-6568
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-21
Insufficient policy enforcement in intent handling in Google Chrome on Android prior to 85.0.4183.83 allowed a remote attacker to bypass navigation restrictions via a crafted HTML page.