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
Study: Chip-&-PIN Won't Cure Retail Breaches
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Kelly Jackson Higgins
50%
50%
Kelly Jackson Higgins,
User Rank: Strategist
11/1/2014 | 7:55:51 PM
Re: A partial solution
I think consumers often miss or are in denial that they ultimately do pay for a data breach with higher prices at the victimized retailer, increased fees at the bank, etc. That fact really should be part of the disclosure process.
Ulf Mattsson
50%
50%
Ulf Mattsson,
User Rank: Moderator
11/1/2014 | 3:02:01 PM
EMV chip technology does not protect
I agree "That's because the total volume of card-not-present transactions are rising, and the bad guys will go after the easier targets as PoS systems get better locked down".

My main concern is that "EMV chip technology does not protect against malware attacks like those we have been reading about in the news, nor does it prevent card-not-present attacks" according to the new head of the PCI Council.

I think that more modern cost effective data protection, like data tokenization, should be used for all sensitive data, including personal data.

Recent studies reported that data tokenization can cut security incidents by 50 % compared to use of encryption.

I think it is time to secure the sensitive data in the entire data flow with modern approaches.

Ulf Mattsson, CTO Protegrity
Ed Telders
50%
50%
Ed Telders,
User Rank: Apprentice
10/31/2014 | 5:14:31 PM
A partial solution
The roll out of Chip and Pin will certainly reduce some risks.  But as always there is that tendency to think of these advances as a silver bullet.  Well unfortunately you are quite right, the CNP will continue to increase, particularly for the "smaller transaction" where the risk for the retailer would seems smaller, but as an aggregate, it will be a lot of fraud.  Also don't forget that getting a card number is not difficult outside of the retailer's environment.  I participated in an investigation where a malicious actor was conducting a very effective method of identifying valid card numbers by simply calling the card provider with a retailer's store identifier (easily obtained), used a phone spoofing technique to make the call appear to come from the "800" number of the retailer's PBX system, and conducted what are called "Zero-Auth" transactions.  That kind of transaction essentially asks the card provider to validate that the card number is a valid card number.  The malicious actor had thousands of valid card numbers in just a few minutes as a result.  With social media sources and all of the "big data" that is available it doesn't take long to associate a valid card with a name to use for CNP transactions.  None of that kind of attack even touches the retailer directly, and consequently the retailer is not actually a victim of the attack, nor is it a breach since it did not involve the retailer's systems at all.  The only victims are all of us collectively since even if we aren't directly involved, all the expenses related to card fraud eventually gets paid for by increasing fees and costs as these losses are recuperated by the retailers, card processing companies, and of course the banks.  The consumer pays the ultimate price for all of this.  Nonetheless, the push for Chip and Pin is a welcome direction.


Edge-DRsplash-10-edge-articles
7 Old IT Things Every New InfoSec Pro Should Know
Joan Goodchild, Staff Editor,  4/20/2021
News
Cloud-Native Businesses Struggle With Security
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  5/6/2021
Commentary
Defending Against Web Scraping Attacks
Rob Simon, Principal Security Consultant at TrustedSec,  5/7/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
2021 Top Enterprise IT Trends
We've identified the key trends that are poised to impact the IT landscape in 2021. Find out why they're important and how they will affect you today!
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2021-32089
PUBLISHED: 2021-05-11
** UNSUPPORTED WHEN ASSIGNED ** An issue was discovered on Zebra (formerly Motorola Solutions) Fixed RFID Reader FX9500 devices. An unauthenticated attacker can upload arbitrary files to the filesystem that can then be accessed through the web interface. This can lead to information disclosure and c...
CVE-2020-24586
PUBLISHED: 2021-05-11
The 802.11 standard that underpins Wi-Fi Protected Access (WPA, WPA2, and WPA3) and Wired Equivalent Privacy (WEP) doesn't require that received fragments be cleared from memory after (re)connecting to a network. Under the right circumstances, when another device sends fragmented frames encrypted us...
CVE-2020-24587
PUBLISHED: 2021-05-11
The 802.11 standard that underpins Wi-Fi Protected Access (WPA, WPA2, and WPA3) and Wired Equivalent Privacy (WEP) doesn't require that all fragments of a frame are encrypted under the same key. An adversary can abuse this to decrypt selected fragments when another device sends fragmented frames and...
CVE-2020-24588
PUBLISHED: 2021-05-11
The 802.11 standard that underpins Wi-Fi Protected Access (WPA, WPA2, and WPA3) and Wired Equivalent Privacy (WEP) doesn't require that the A-MSDU flag in the plaintext QoS header field is authenticated. Against devices that support receiving non-SSP A-MSDU frames (which is mandatory as part of 802....
CVE-2020-26139
PUBLISHED: 2021-05-11
An issue was discovered in the kernel in NetBSD 7.1. An Access Point (AP) forwards EAPOL frames to other clients even though the sender has not yet successfully authenticated to the AP. This might be abused in projected Wi-Fi networks to launch denial-of-service attacks against connected clients and...