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.

Vulnerabilities / Threats

7/31/2011
12:38 PM
50%
50%

Legacy Support Leaves Chip-And-PIN Vulnerable, Researcher Says

Black Hat talk will show that security and backwards compatibility are at odds in popular authentication technology

Vulnerabilities in the increasingly popular chip-and-PIN authentication technology used in credit cards could make it easy for attackers to steal data at the point of sale, a researcher says.

Click here for more of Dark Reading's Black Hat articles.

At the Black Hat USA conference in Las Vegas this week, Andrea Barisani, chief security engineer for secure design consultancy Inverse Path, will join with colleagues to show how flaws in chip-and-PIN -- which is becoming a standard in Europe and Asia -- can be easily exploited.

Chip-and-PIN systems are designed to support legacy transactions -- including the transmission of the card's password or PIN in plain text, Barisani observes. As a result, it can be a trivial matter for an attacker to install a skimmer on a point-of-sale terminal and steal the credit card data.

Barisani says these flaws can be found in current and emerging credit card systems, including the EuroPay-Mastercard-Visa (EMV) system that is being implemented worldwide. While EMV supports three types of cards -- older magnetic stripe cards, current chip cards, and more secure chip cards -- skimmers can force transactions to use the least secure transaction method, he warns.

"EMV is broken," Barisani says. "In order to fix the problem, they will have to change the standard and break compatibility with older cards."

EMV currently supports three different standards: static data authentication, an upgrade from older magstripe cards; dynamic data authentication, a more secure implementation that uses an encryption key to scramble transaction information; and combined data authentication, which implements more stringent security measures.

Attackers who can attach a skimming device to the point-of-sale terminal can control the security negotiation between the terminal and the consumer's credit card, Barisani explains. In order to support the older POS technologies, credit and debit cards will transmit a user's PIN in the clear if required by the terminal. A skimmer attacked to the device can then scoop up the details of the credit card.

Tampering with point-of-sale terminals has been a popular exploit among cybercriminals for years. In May, craft-supply chain Michaels notified customers that their credit- and debit-account details may have been leaked after finding more than 70 compromised POS terminals in its stores nationwide.

The chip-and-PIN flaws could be problematic for banks, which previously blamed users when a PIN was stolen or misused, clearing themselves of liability for the theft. But if the new vulnerabilities are exploited, the source of the PIN theft -- and the liability for the loss -- could be in question.

"If this kind of liability shift happens and the customers cannot demonstrate that the PIN was stolen, then it can be a problem," Barisani says.

Already, a customer has sued the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, which has countersued, alleging that such a flaw led to a fraudulent transaction of more than $81,000. The bank argues that the customer must have lost his card and PIN, and thereforte the bank should not be responsible for the loss.

There is no easy way for consumers or employees to know which authentication method is being used to process a given transaction, Barisani says. While the receipt will have a code that indicates the type of transaction, the code can be spoofed by skimming hardware.

Consumers should not expect a quick fix for the vulnerability, Barisani says. The move away from magstripe cards -- even with all their security problems -- has taken more than a decade.

"It has really taken ages to move away from the magstripe," he says. "So if the EMV problems are not fixed in the initial implementation, then the security issues are going to be around for a long time."

Barisani will present the findings of the vulnerability study at Black Hat. He will be joined at the podium by Daniele Bianco -- a colleague from Inverse Path -- as well as Adam Laurie and Zac Franken from Aperture Labs.

Have a comment on this story? Please click "Comment" below. If you'd like to contact Dark Reading's editors directly, send us a message.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
News
Inside the Ransomware Campaigns Targeting Exchange Servers
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  4/2/2021
Commentary
Beyond MITRE ATT&CK: The Case for a New Cyber Kill Chain
Rik Turner, Principal Analyst, Infrastructure Solutions, Omdia,  3/30/2021
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
How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
Recent breaches of third-party apps are driving many organizations to think harder about the security of their off-the-shelf software as they continue to move left in secure software development practices.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2015-20001
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-11
In the standard library in Rust before 1.2.0, BinaryHeap is not panic-safe. The binary heap is left in an inconsistent state when the comparison of generic elements inside sift_up or sift_down_range panics. This bug leads to a drop of zeroed memory as an arbitrary type, which can result in a memory ...
CVE-2020-36317
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-11
In the standard library in Rust before 1.49.0, String::retain() function has a panic safety problem. It allows creation of a non-UTF-8 Rust string when the provided closure panics. This bug could result in a memory safety violation when other string APIs assume that UTF-8 encoding is used on the sam...
CVE-2020-36318
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-11
In the standard library in Rust before 1.49.0, VecDeque::make_contiguous has a bug that pops the same element more than once under certain condition. This bug could result in a use-after-free or double free.
CVE-2021-28875
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-11
In the standard library in Rust before 1.50.0, read_to_end() does not validate the return value from Read in an unsafe context. This bug could lead to a buffer overflow.
CVE-2021-28876
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-11
In the standard library in Rust before 1.52.0, the Zip implementation has a panic safety issue. It calls __iterator_get_unchecked() more than once for the same index when the underlying iterator panics (in certain conditions). This bug could lead to a memory safety violation due to an unmet safety r...