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
The Future Of ATM Hacking
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
RetiredUser
100%
0%
RetiredUser,
User Rank: Ninja
7/31/2017 | 3:31:47 PM
Re: Security Cost vs. Risks
It should be noted that by deferring costs for securing a user's private data or money (even though insured, its still your money being attacked since your personal info is attached to it) rather than fixing a known problem (or an anticpated problem) a company risks alienating customers and breaking a very fundamental business ethics practice.  We need to get better at saving money early on in the process so we can put due diligence into the design, secure early on to avoid such exploits, and maintain ethical relationships with our customers.  Heck, we could even use some of the money saved on operational security monitoring...
IdahoseW596
0%
100%
IdahoseW596,
User Rank: Apprentice
5/8/2017 | 12:48:53 PM
Re: ATM Security
hi there
jcavery
50%
50%
jcavery,
User Rank: Moderator
8/28/2016 | 10:23:41 PM
Re: Security Cost vs. Risks
you're rght andrew, cost is the main driver when choosing a defense against hackers. the problem will always be that hackers only have to invest in the first target, once hacked, there is no cost for them to replicate the hack again across infinite targets. however, banks, institutions, etc have a huge initial cost for the solution, and then multiplied to implement across every customer they have. this is why the hackers will have a "cost" advantage until a better solution is found
AndrewfOP
50%
50%
AndrewfOP,
User Rank: Moderator
8/13/2016 | 2:14:38 PM
Security Cost vs. Risks
"Unfortunately, many ATM operators are reluctant to make hardware upgrades..."

 

It's all about costs vs. risks.  If the costs of better security is more than the damage of the risks, decision makers would continue to avoid 'costly' security until the damage itself becomes far more costly.  It's the same thing with EMV adaption with merchants: when VISA & Master Card made the ones that won't adopt EMV bear the fraud damage, the adoption became far more wide spread. Until the manufacturers/operators start to bear More of the damage responsibility, there would continue to be poor security with ATMs.  
Nabeelshaikhd
50%
50%
Nabeelshaikhd,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/13/2016 | 8:11:25 AM
Thanks for this nice post!
I love this blog and its posts!
DrNashik
50%
50%
DrNashik,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/11/2016 | 2:53:14 PM
ATM Security
I remember the May ATM scandle Japan. I wonder if using the chips in ATM's would help reduce the fraud. Seems to be working everywhere else..


COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 6/4/2020
Abandoned Apps May Pose Security Risk to Mobile Devices
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  5/29/2020
How AI and Automation Can Help Bridge the Cybersecurity Talent Gap
Peter Barker, Chief Product Officer at ForgeRock,  6/1/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: What? IT said I needed virus protection!
Current Issue
How Cybersecurity Incident Response Programs Work (and Why Some Don't)
This Tech Digest takes a look at the vital role cybersecurity incident response (IR) plays in managing cyber-risk within organizations. Download the Tech Digest today to find out how well-planned IR programs can detect intrusions, contain breaches, and help an organization restore normal operations.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-13768
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-04
In MiniShare before 1.4.2, there is a stack-based buffer overflow via an HTTP PUT request, which allows an attacker to achieve arbitrary code execution, a similar issue to CVE-2018-19861, CVE-2018-19862, and CVE-2019-17601. NOTE: this product is discontinued.
CVE-2020-13849
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-04
The MQTT protocol 3.1.1 requires a server to set a timeout value of 1.5 times the Keep-Alive value specified by a client, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (loss of the ability to establish new connections), as demonstrated by SlowITe.
CVE-2020-13848
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-04
Portable UPnP SDK (aka libupnp) 1.12.1 and earlier allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash) via a crafted SSDP message due to a NULL pointer dereference in the functions FindServiceControlURLPath and FindServiceEventURLPath in genlib/service_table/service_table.c.
CVE-2020-11682
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-04
Castel NextGen DVR v1.0.0 is vulnerable to CSRF in all state-changing request. A __RequestVerificationToken is set by the web interface, and included in requests sent by web interface. However, this token is not verified by the application: the token can be removed from all requests and the request ...
CVE-2020-12847
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-04
Pydio Cells 2.0.4 web application offers an administrative console named “Cells Console� that is available to users with an administrator role. This console provides an administrator user with the possibility of changing several settings, including the applicat...