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
I Smell a RAT! New Cybersecurity Threats for the Crypto Industry
David Trepp, Partner, IT Assurance with accounting and advisory firm BPM LLP,  7/9/2021
News
Attacks on Kaseya Servers Led to Ransomware in Less Than 2 Hours
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  7/7/2021
Commentary
It's in the Game (but It Shouldn't Be)
Tal Memran, Cybersecurity Expert, CYE,  7/9/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
How Enterprises are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
Concerns over supply chain vulnerabilities and attack visibility drove some significant changes in enterprise cybersecurity strategies over the past year. Dark Reading's 2021 Strategic Security Survey showed that many organizations are staying the course regarding the use of a mix of attack prevention and threat detection technologies and practices for dealing with cyber threats.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2021-42258
PUBLISHED: 2021-10-22
BQE BillQuick Web Suite 2018 through 2021 before 22.0.9.1 allows SQL injection for unauthenticated remote code execution, as exploited in the wild in October 2021 for ransomware installation. SQL injection can, for example, use the txtID (aka username) parameter. Successful exploitation can include ...
CVE-2020-28968
PUBLISHED: 2021-10-22
Draytek VigorAP 1000C contains a stored cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the RADIUS Setting - RADIUS Server Configuration module. This vulnerability allows attackers to execute arbitrary web scripts or HTML via a crafted payload in the username input field.
CVE-2020-28969
PUBLISHED: 2021-10-22
Aplioxio PDF ShapingUp 5.0.0.139 contains a buffer overflow which allows attackers to cause a denial of service (DoS) via a crafted PDF file.
CVE-2020-36485
PUBLISHED: 2021-10-22
Portable Ltd Playable v9.18 was discovered to contain an arbitrary file upload vulnerability in the filename parameter of the upload module. This vulnerability allows attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted JPEG file.
CVE-2020-36486
PUBLISHED: 2021-10-22
Swift File Transfer Mobile v1.1.2 and below was discovered to contain a cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability via the 'path' parameter of the 'list' and 'download' exception-handling.