About


Take On Payments, a blog sponsored by the Retail Payments Risk Forum of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, is intended to foster dialogue on emerging risks in retail payment systems and enhance collaborative efforts to improve risk detection and mitigation. We encourage your active participation in Take on Payments and look forward to collaborating with you.

Take On Payments

May 14, 2018


Is My Identity Still Mine?

I'm sure you've seen the famous cartoon by Peter Steiner published in the New Yorker in 1993. That cartoon alluded to the anonymity of internet users. Twenty-five years later, do you think it's still true? Or is the cartoon by Kaamran Hafeez that appeared in the February 23, 2015, issue of the New Yorker more realistic? Is online anonymity a thing of the past?

Cartoon-image

Having just returned from three days at the Connect: ID conference in Washington, DC, my personal perspective is that numerous key elements of my identity are already shared with thousands of others—businesses, governmental agencies, friends, business colleagues, and, unfortunately, criminals—and the numbers are growing. Some of this information I have voluntarily provided through my posts on various social media sites, but hopefully is available only to "friends." Other bits of my personal life have been captured by various governmental agencies—my property tax and voter registration records, for example. The websites I visit on the internet are tracked by various companies to customize advertisements sent to me. Despite the adamant disavowals of the manufacturers of voice assistant devices, rumors persist that some of the devices used in homes do more than just listen for a mention of their "wake up" name. And, of course, there is the 800-pound gorilla to consider: the numerous data breaches that retailers, financial institutions, health care providers, credit reporting agencies, and governmental agencies have experienced over the last five years.

The conference exhibit hall was filled with almost a hundred vendors who concentrated on this identity security issue. There were hardware manufacturers selling biometric capture devices of fingers, palms, hands, eyes, and faces. Others focused on customer authentication by marrying validation of a government-issued document such as a driver's license to live facial recognition. Remote identification and authentication of end users is becoming more and more common with our virtual storefronts and businesses, but is also becoming more challenging as the fraudsters look for ways to defeat the technology or overall process in some way.

I have yet to have my identity stolen or compromised, but notice I said "yet," and I have probably just jinxed myself. Unfortunately, I believe my identity is no longer just mine and is out there for the taking despite my personal efforts to minimize the availability of personal information. Do you agree?

Photo of David Lott By David Lott, a payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

May 14, 2018 in cybercrime, data security, fraud, identity theft, privacy | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

January 22, 2018


Business Email Compromise Is a Growing Threat

In April 2016, I wrote about the work of the FBI’s Internet Crime Center (IC3) and the rise of reported cases of business email compromise (BEC) attempts. BEC involves what looks like a legitimate email from another employee or customer requesting a transfer of funds. Since I wrote that post, BEC attempts—both successful and prevented—have continued to increase dramatically. The latest figures from the IC3 website show that from January 2016 through June 2017, BEC attempts totaled $223 million, with losses at $148 million. BEC scams are also attracting a wider variety of criminals, including individuals, small gangs, and professional groups.

At first, the fraudsters primarily targeted financial institutions and businesses dealing in frequent and large-value transfers, such as law firms handling real estate or trust account transactions. But as fraudsters have proliferated, they've begun targeting companies of all sizes. Last May, the FBI issued another BEC alert, which includes useful descriptions of BEC scenarios based on actual cases.

The BEC attempt is usually not the start of the criminal activity but rather the culmination of an extended effort that began with the criminal hacking a business's financial records. The hack may have occurred when an employee opened an email with a bogus attachment or link that loaded malware on the computer, or when the criminal purchased a user's credentials off the dark web. Once the fraudster has accomplished the intrusion, a period of information gathering begins. The fraudster obtains current accounts payable records, wire transfer transactions, and transfer procedures, and may also comb social media for information that could be useful. Perhaps a targeted company official will be out of town attending a conference, or on vacation and difficult to contact.

BEC attempts generally have the following common elements:

  • It is a funds transfer request.
  • The request is based on a routine event or legitimate transaction.
  • The bank account where the transfer is to be sent is new or has been modified in some way from previous transactions, or the requested method of payment is different.
  • The request often carries a sense of urgency—late fees or breach of a contract are threatened—to encourage bypassing of controls.

To avoid falling into this trap, it is imperative that businesses have strong funds transfer controls that are monitored to ensure compliance. Also, businesses should have a continuing program of internal education (and perhaps testing) for all employees involved in funds transfer requests. The FBI suggests that the best control is to verify transactions through a second, independent means, similar to two-factor authentication.

There are several actions a business can take if it becomes a victim of BEC:

  • Immediately contact the receiving financial institution to see if the funds can be frozen.
  • Notify all relevant employees of the attack—multiple employees are often targeted.
  • Contact the FBI or the Secret Service.
  • Conduct an internal investigation to determine the point of compromise, and then take the necessary corrective action.

Finally, financial institutions with customer education programs should consider providing business customers with materials regarding this threat.

We are interested in hearing from you about your experiences with BEC and preventive practices. Criminals are constantly changing their attack methods and sharing information is a valuable way to help develop best practices.

Photo of David Lott By David Lott, a payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

 

January 22, 2018 in banks and banking, data security, fraud, malware | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

January 16, 2018


Not Just a Card-Not-Present Problem

In 2012, I published a paper that looked at trends in card fraud in several countries that had adopted or were in the later stages of adopting EMV chip cards. The United States is now in the process of adopting EMV, so I am refreshing that paper with an eye towards fraud trends in what are now mature EMV markets. Payments experts know that card-not-present (CNP) fraud will continue to pose challenges that EMV chip cards do not solve, but are there other challenges lurking in these markets that the U.S. payments industry should note?

Although I'm still gathering data, one particular data point from the United Kingdom—lost and stolen fraud—already has me intrigued. In 2016, losses from this type of fraud stood at more than £96 million (about $130 million), up from more than £44 million (about $60 million) in 2010, a 117 percent increase. In 2010, lost and stolen fraud accounted for 12 percent of overall card fraud in that country. By the end of 2016, it had become 16 percent of card fraud. It is now the second leading type of fraud in the United Kingdom, though it still falls far behind CNP fraud, which accounts for 70 percent.

Remember that in the United Kingdom, PIN usage was adopted to mitigate lost and stolen card fraud at the same time that EMV chip cards were implemented. Yet lost and stolen card fraud is up significantly. According to Financial Fraud Action UK, fraudsters are getting their hands on the PINs—a static data element—through distraction tactics and scams. Other factors, such as the proliferation of contactless transactions and those that have no cardholder verification method, could also be drivers of this fraud, as could an increase of reports of lost or stolen fraud that is actually first-party, or "friendly," fraud. EMV has proven to be an effective tool to authenticate cards, but authenticating an individual using a card, even in a card-present environment, remains a challenge.

The lost and stolen fraud figures out of the United Kingdom lead me to believe that cardholder authentication isn't just a CNP problem. Furthermore, the decades-old PIN solution for the card-present environment is now showing signs of weakness. At the same time, to reduce customer friction, many card networks are eliminating signature verification and relying on data analytics to authenticate transactions. Is this a perfect storm for lost and stolen card fraud? Is it the foreshadowing of the emergence of biometrics, or some lesser known technology? Or will I find that this problem is isolated and should not worry us in the United States?

Photo of Douglas King By Douglas A. King, payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

 

January 16, 2018 in authentication, cards, chip-and-pin, debit cards, EMV, fraud, payments | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

June 19, 2017


Calculating Fraud: Part 2

Part 1 of this two-part series outlined an approach for whittling down credit card transactions to the value or number of authorized and settled payments as the denominator for calculating a fraud rate. This post reviews the elements needed to quantify the numerator.

To summarize from the previous post, when analyzing credit card fraud rates, you should consider what is being measured and compared. To calculate a fraud rate based on value or number, you need a fraud tally in the numerator and a comparison payment tally in the denominator. The formula works out as follows:

Fraud Rate = Numerator
                      Denominator

Where, for any given period of time
Numerator = Value, or number of fraudulent payments across the payments under consideration,
Denominator = Value, or number of payments under consideration.

Before calculating the numerator value, you must first decide what types of fraud to include in the measurement. One stratification method divides fraud into the following two categories:

  • First-party payments fraud results when a dishonest but seemingly legitimate consumer exploits a merchant or financial institution (FI). That is, the legitimate cardholder authorizes a credit card transaction as part of a scam. One manifestation of this is "friendly fraud," whereby a consumer purchases items online and then falsely claims not to receive the merchandise.
  • Third-party payments fraud occurs when a legitimate cardholder does not authorize goods or services purchased with his or her credit card. Besides the victimized cardholder, the other two parties to the transaction are the fraudster and the unsuspecting merchant or FI.

Sometimes no clear delineation between first-party and third-party fraud exists. For example, a valid cardholder may authorize a payment in collusion with a merchant to commit fraud.

The 2016 Federal Reserve Payments Study used only third-party unauthorized transactions that were cleared and settled in tabulating fraud. The study measured and counted fraud as having occurred regardless of whether a subsequent recovery or chargeback occurred. Survey results had to be adjusted because some card networks report gross fraud while others report net fraud, after recoveries and chargebacks. Furthermore, the study made no effort to determine which party, if any, in the payment chain may ultimately bear the loss. Finally, the study did not measure attempted fraud.

Excluding first-party payments fraud
The study excluded first-party fraud due to the greater ambiguity around identifying and measuring it along with the idea that it is difficult to eliminate, given that controls are relatively limited. One control option would be to place repeat offenders on a negative list that, unfortunately, might not be shared with other parties. As a result of excluding first-party fraud, the study focused on fraud specific to the characteristics of the payment instrument being used.

Paraphrasing from page 30 of the 2013 Federal Reserve Payments Study, first-party fraud, while important, is an account-relationship type of fraud and typically would not be included as unauthorized third-party payments fraud because the card or account holder is by definition authorized to make payments. Consequently, first-party fraud can occur no matter how secure the payment method.

As with tallying payments, you could follow a similar process for tallying fraudulent payments for other types of cards payments, with more questionnaire definitions and wording changes needed for other instruments such as ACH and checks.

Photo of Steven Cordray  By Steven Cordray, payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk  Forum at the Atlanta Fed

June 19, 2017 in ACH, cards, checks, debit cards, fraud | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

June 12, 2017


Watching Your Behavior

Customer authentication has been at the core of the Retail Payments Risk Forum's payments risk education efforts from the beginning. We've stressed not only that there are legal and regulatory requirements for certain parties to "know your customer," but also that it is in the best interest of merchants and issuers to be sure that the party on the other end of a given transaction is who he or she claims to be and is authorized to perform that transaction. After all, if you allow a fraudster in, you have to expect that you or someone else will be defrauded. That said, we also know that performing this authentication, especially remotely, has several challenges.

The recently released 2017 Identity Fraud Study from Javelin Strategy & Research estimated that account takeover (ATO) fraud losses in 2016 amounted to $2.3 billion—a 61 percent increase over 2015's losses. (ATO fraud occurs when an unauthorized individual performs fraudulent transactions through a victim's account.) Additionally, new-account fraud on deposit and credit accounts has increased significantly and generated several public warnings from the FBI.

In payments, the balancing act between imposing additional customer authentication requirements and maintaining a positive, low-friction customer experience has always been a challenge. Retailers, especially online merchants, have been reluctant to add authentication modalities in their checkout process for fear that customers will abandon their shopping carts and move their purchase to another merchant with lower security requirements. Some merchants have recently introduced physical biometrics modalities such as fingerprint or facial recognition for online orders through mobile phones. Although these modalities have gained a high acceptance rate, they still require the consumer to actively participate in the authentication process.

Enter behavioral biometrics for online transactions. Behavioral biometrics develops a pattern of a user's unique, identifiable attributes from when the user is online at a merchant's website or using the merchant's proprietary mobile app. Attributes measured include such elements as typing speed, pressure on the keyboard, use of keyboard shortcuts, mouse movement, phone orientation, and screen navigation. Coupled with device fingerprinting for the customer's desktop, laptop, tablet, or mobile phone, behavioral biometrics gives the merchant and issuer a higher level of confidence in the customer's authenticity. Another benefit is that behavioral biometrics is passive—it is performed without the user's involvement, which eliminates additional friction in the overall customer experience. Proponents claim that while it takes several sessions to develop a strong user profile, they can often spot fraudsters' attempts because fraudsters often exhibit certain recognizable traits.

Behavioral biometrics is still fairly new to the market but over the last couple of years, some major online retailers have adopted it as an additional authentication tool. Like any of the physical biometric modalities, no single behavioral authentication methodology is a silver bullet, and multi-factor authentication is still recommended for moderate- and higher-risk transactions.

Photo of David Lott By David Lott, a payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

June 12, 2017 in authentication, banks and banking, consumer fraud, fraud, mobile banking, payments | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

May 22, 2017


The Year(s) of Ransomware

I remember, as a child, despising the neighborhood kid who would always say, "I told you so." Well, let's move ahead some 30-odd years to the WannaCry ransomware attack—I now feel like that despised child. You see, on March 29 of this year, I emailed the following note to my colleagues in the Risk Forum:

Just a few high-level and interesting notes from the conference.… 2017 & 2018 will be the Year of Ransomware (I can elaborate on this when we are all together—pretty fascinating business models developed here).

Too bad I kept my thoughts to our little group here at the Atlanta Fed and didn't get the message out to the masses (or at least to our Take on Payments readers) prior to the WannaCry ransomware attack that began on May 12. So why did I (and still do) think 2017 and 2018 will both be the "Year of Ransomware"?

Those who know me know that I am not a very technical person. I see things more strategically than technically and usually sprint away from conversations that become technical. After viewing a demonstration on how to launch a ransomware attack, I was shocked to learn that hardly any technical expertise is required to pull off an attack. This is all made possible by the "pretty fascinating business models" that I referred to in my note, business models known as Ransomware as a Service (RaaS).

I'd always envisioned that serious technical code writing capabilities would be a requirement for developing the code to send the malicious files involved in ransomware. And while coding is needed, that is where the RaaS comes into play. You pay someone else to create the malicious code, which you then use to launch a ransomware attack. And to make the attack even more successful, there are simple tools available that allow you to not only test the code against the market-leading antivirus software detection programs but also to tweak the code embedded in the malicious file to ensure that none of the antivirus software programs will detect it. Antivirus software protects users only from known malicious code, which is the reason the software must be constantly updated.

With the undetectable code in hand, you can now launch a ransomware attack through either an embedded file or a link within a phishing email or social media post to a legitimate-appearing, but malicious, website. And this costs little or nothing up front! The cost for the RaaS is only realized once a successful attack occurs, with a portion of the collected ransom paid to the RaaS provider.

Which brings me back to why I think ransomware attacks will continue to escalate, leading to 2017 and 2018 becoming "The Year(s) of Ransomware." They are simple to execute, low cost, and proving to be highly lucrative. (According to the FBI, an estimated $209 million was paid in ransom in the first quarter of 2016.) Expect a future blog post on how to plan for and defend against attacks.

Photo of Douglas King By Douglas A. King, payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

May 22, 2017 in fraud, malware | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

May 8, 2017


Calculating Fraud: Part 1

When analyzing payments fraud rates, we have to consider what is being measured and compared. Should we measure fraud attempts that might have been thwarted—fraud that penetrated the system but might not necessarily have resulted in a loss—or fraud losses? Whatever the measure, it is important that the definition of what is included in the numerator and denominator be consistent to properly represent a fraud rate.

In calculating a fraud rate based on value or number, a fraud tally is needed in the numerator and a comparison payment tally in the denominator. The formula works out as follows:

Fraud Rate = Numerator
                     Denominator

Where, for any given period of time
Numerator = Value, or number of fraudulent payments across the payments under consideration,
Denominator = Value, or number of payments under consideration.

This post offers a process for tallying payments for the denominator. Part 2 of this series will focus on tallying the numerator, basing its approach on the process that the Federal Reserve Payments Study 2016 used. That process includes fraud that initially cleared and settled, not attempts, and does not exclude losses subsequently recovered.

The Fed’s 2016 payments study offers a method for whittling down all payment transactions to a subset of transactions suitable for calculating a fraud rate. Below is an extract, with clarifying commentary, from one of the study’s questionnaires, which asked card networks for both the value and number of payments.

Chart-one2

At first blush, totals for value or number under questions 1, 2, 3, and 4 could conceivably be used to provide a comparison tally for fraud. However, we should rule out the total from question 1 since the definition includes declined authorizations, making it unnecessarily broad. Question 2, "total authorized transactions," has the disadvantage of including pre-authorization only (authorized but not settled). While some of these transactions could have been initiated as part of a fraud attempt, they were never settled and consequently posed no opportunity for the fraudster to take off with ill-gotten gains. On balance, the preferred measure for payments is the result of question 3, which measures "net, authorized, and settled transactions." Unlike "net, purchased transactions" under question 4, this measure has the benefit of not excluding some of the fraud captured by chargebacks under question 3b.1. Other types of fraud are not covered under chargebacks, including when card issuers elect to absorb losses on low-value payments to avoid the costs of submitting a chargeback.

We could follow a similar process for tallying payments for ACH and checks, with adjustments to account for potential fraud resulting from the lack of an authorization system like that for cards, which requests authorization from the paying bank.

Part 2 of this series, which covers the process for calculating the numerator, will appear in June.

Photo of Steven Cordray  By Steven Cordray, payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk  Forum at the Atlanta Fed

May 8, 2017 in ACH, checks, debit cards, fraud | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

March 27, 2017


Don't Forget the Check

As the data in the recently released Federal Reserve Payments Study show, the decline of check usage continues—albeit at a slower rate than what past studies found. Despite the rapid decline in volume on the consumer side over the last 15 years, the check remains a key payment instrument for business customers. According to the study, in 2015, consumers and businesses wrote more than 19 billion checks representing $27.3 trillion.

While the share of the number of checks (12 percent) is dwarfed by the number of other noncash payments (debit/credit/prepaid card and ACH), which continue to grow, the check remains a key target of criminals. For that reason, we need to maintain, if not enhance, risk monitoring. Criminals use the check both to conduct fraudulent transactions and to launder money. The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network reports that the number of Suspicious Activity Reports (SAR) involving checks continues to increase. That number has grown more than 141 percent since 2013, as the chart shows. Also, checks are 71 percent of the total—by far the most common payment type of all the SAR categories.

Chart-one

In addition, the Association for Financial Professionals notes in its 2016 Payments Fraud and Control Survey that checks remain the most targeted payment method. Seventy-one percent of the 627 responding companies reported successful or attempted check fraud on their business accounts in 2015. The survey also found that checks accounted for the largest dollar amount of loss of all the payment methods, including wire transfers. On a positive note, the percentage of companies actually suffering a financial loss from check fraud declined from 57 percent in 2013 to 43 percent in 2015.

Checks remain a target since they are so easy to counterfeit or alter compared to electronic items. While much of the risk management effort focuses on electronic payments, be sure not to forget about the paper check. It is obvious the crooks haven't.

Photo of David Lott By David Lott, a payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

March 27, 2017 in checks, cybercrime, fraud | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

January 9, 2017


The Year in Review

As we move into 2017, the Take on Payments team would like to share its perspectives of major payment-related events and issues that took place in the United States in 2016, in no particular order of importance.

Cybersecurity Moves to Forefront—While cyber protection is certainly not new, the increased frequency and sophistication of cyber threats in 2016 accelerated the need for financial services enterprises, businesses, and governmental agencies to step up their external and internal defenses with more staff and better protection and detection tools. The federal government released a Cybersecurity National Action Plan and established the Federal Chief Information Security Office position to oversee governmental agencies' management of cybersecurity and protection of critical infrastructure.

Same-Day ACH—Last September, NACHA's three-phase rules change took effect, mandating initially a credit-only same-day ACH service. It is uncertain this early whether NACHA will meet its expectations of same-day ACH garnering 1 percent of total ACH payment volume by October 2017. Anecdotally, we are hearing that some payments processors have been slow in supporting the service. Further clarity on the significance of same-day service will become evident with the addition of debit items in phase two, which takes effect this September.

Faster Payments—Maybe we're the only ones who see it this way, but in this country, "faster payments" looks like the Wild West—at least if you remember to say, "Howdy, pardner!" Word counts won't let us name or fully describe all of the various wagon trains racing for a faster payments land grab, but it seemed to start in October 2015 when The Clearing House announced it was teaming with FIS to deliver a real-time payment system for the United States. By March 2016, Jack Henry and Associates Inc. had joined the effort. Meanwhile, Early Warning completed its acquisition of clearXchange and announced a real-time offering in February. By August, this solution had been added to Fiserv's offerings. With Mastercard and Visa hovering around their own solutions and also attaching to any number of others, it seems like everybody is trying to make sure they don't get left behind.

Prepaid Card Account Rules—When it comes to compliance, "prepaid card" is now a misnomer based on the release of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's 2016 final ruling. The rule is access-device-agnostic, so the same requirements are applied to stored funds on a card, fob, or mobile phone app, to name a few. Prepaid accounts that are transactional and ready to use at a variety of merchants or ATMS, or for person-to-person, are now covered by Reg. E-Lite, and possibly Reg. Z, when overdraft or credit features apply. In industry speak, the rule applies to payroll cards, government benefit cards, PayPal-like accounts, and general-purpose reloadable cards—but not to gift cards, health or flexible savings accounts, corporate reimbursement cards, or disaster-relief-type accounts, for example.

Mobile Payments Move at Evolutionary, Not Revolutionary, Pace—While the Apple, Google, and Samsung Pay wallets continued to move forward with increasing financial institution and merchant participation, consumer usage remained anemic. With the retailer consortium wallet venture MCX going into hibernation, a number of major retailers announced or introduced closed-loop mobile wallet programs hoping to emulate the success of retailers such as Starbucks and Dunkin' Brands. The magic formula of payments, loyalty, and couponing interwoven into a single application remains elusive.

EMV Migration—The migration to chip cards and terminals in the United States continued with chip cards now representing approximately 70 percent of credit/debit cards in the United States. Merchant adoption of chip-enabled terminals stands just below 40 percent of the market. The ATM liability shift for Mastercard payment cards took effect October 21, with only an estimated 30 percent of non-FI-owned ATMs being EMV operational. Recognizing some of the unique challenges to the gasoline retailers, the brands pushed back the liability shift timetable for automated fuel dispensers three years, to October 2020. Chip card migration has clearly reduced counterfeit card fraud, but card-not-present (CNP) fraud has ballooned. Data for 2015 from the 2016 Federal Reserve Payments Study show card fraud by channel in the United States at 54 percent for in person and 46 percent for remote (or CNP). This is in contrast to comparable fraud data in other countries further along in EMV implementation, where remote fraud accounts for the majority of card fraud.

Distributed Ledger—Although venture capital funding in blockchain and distributed ledger startups significantly decreased in 2016 from 2015, interest remains high. Rather than investing in startups, financial institutions and established technology companies, such as IBM, shifted their funding focus to developing internal solutions and their technology focus from consumer-facing use cases such as Bitcoin to back-end clearing and settlement solutions and the execution of smart contracts.

Same Song, Same Verse—Some things just don't seem to change from year to year. Notifications of data breaches of financial institutions, businesses, and governmental agencies appear to have been as numerous as in previous years. The Fed's Consumer Payment Choices study continued to show that cash remains the most frequent payment method, especially for transactions under 10 dollars.

All of us at the Retail Payments Risk Forum wish all our Take On Payments readers a prosperous 2017.

Photo of Mary Kepler
Mary Kepler
Photo of Julius Weyman
Julius Weyman
Photo of Doug King
Doug King
Photo of David Lott
Dave Lott
Photo of Jessica Trundley</span>
</div>
Jessica Washington
Photo of Steven Cordray
Steven Cordray

 

January 9, 2017 in ACH, ATM fraud, cards, chip-and-pin, cybercrime, debit cards, emerging payments, EMV, fraud, mobile banking, mobile payments, P2P, prepaid, regulations | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

October 17, 2016


EMV Comments That Make Me Cringe

Some aspects of the chip card implementation in the United States certainly make us frustrated. For one, the customer experience could be seen as slightly more negative because of the longer transaction time and confusion about the debit card selection menu. However, at several payments conferences I have attended recently, I have heard comments made by speakers and panelists about EMV chip cards and their technology that caused me to cringe a bit. I understand that a number of stakeholders are not proponents of EMV technology for a variety of reasons and, while some parts of their comments are factually accurate, they certainly are not "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

Cringe #1: The United States is implementing 20-year-old-technology with EMV chip cards. Yes, the first EMV specifications were publicly released in 1995. But isn't that like saying that the gasoline-powered automobile is technology that is 130 years old? Microsoft's first release of Windows was in 1985. Do we hear complaints about it being 30-plus years old? The reality is that the EMV specifications, like practically all software development, are continually updated over the years with enhancements continuing as long as the software is still being supported. The EMV specifications are now at version 4.3, released in November 2011, with 20 supplemental bulletins issued since then and more on the way.

Cringe #2: EMV (chip) cards haven't solved the card-not-present (CNP) fraud problem. Again, this is an accurate statement. CNP card fraud is the second largest category of fraud losses in the U.S. (see the chart). But, the statement is misleading inasmuch as the EMV specifications and chip cards were never intended to address the CNP ecommerce environment. Counterfeit card fraud, whereby the criminal produces a card using data obtained from a skimmer or data breach, has been the number-one source of card-present fraud in the United States. It was this type of card fraud that the chip card was designed to target, and, from all accounts to date, it has been highly successful in doing so.

table-one

Source: Chip Cards in the United States: The PIN, PINless, Debit, Credit Conundrum, Aite Group, July 2016

Cringe #3 – Using a PIN improves the security of the chip card. While a cardholder using a PIN in lieu of a signature does clearly result in a lower level of fraud losses, the claim is somewhat of an apples and oranges comparison. The chip on the card authenticates the card itself, while the use of a PIN is intended to authenticate the cardholder performing the transaction. These are two separate types of authentication which, when combined, make the transaction more secure—a good thing. The use of a PIN should result in lower lost/stolen card fraud as it invokes two-factor authentication—something you have (card) and something you know (PIN).

Are the current EMV specifications perfect? Of course not, and that is why there are constant efforts to identify ways to improve them. But one must recall that the EMV specifications provide global interoperability and must be developed keeping that requirement in mind. What are your thoughts on the EMV specifications and how they can be improved?

Photo of David Lott By David Lott, a payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

October 17, 2016 in chip-and-pin, consumer fraud, consumer protection, EMV, fraud | Permalink

Comments

Good stuff, Dave; I fully agree with your first 2 cringes, but on the third I think the objection is that if minimizing fraud is so important, why would we not complete the process of requiring PIN and take security to the next logical step?

Of course this opens up plenty of other debates- consumer choice, merchant fee levels, etc.- but thought it would be helpful to clarify that point in hopes of advancing the dialogue.

Posted by: Glen Sarvady | December 12, 2016 at 02:28 PM

Hello Dave,
While I agree with much that you have written.
The EMV specification has not kept pace with modern needs. The Target breach was the catalyst for the US implementation of EMV. Yet the current implementation of EMV would not have prevented the breach. The chip card exposes the static, clear text Primary Account Number (PAN) and other Personally Identifiable Information (PII) in numerous places. It does not cryptographically protect the sensitive data. To match our current needs, the cryptographic and computational power of the chip should be harnessed to protect the PAN and the PII. Or better yet, remove the PAN and PII from the chip card entirely.
The card is a physical token which should represent the PAN, but not expose it. The PAN should remain inside the Financial Institution (FI) linked to various tokens, each of which has a Device ID. The physical token should be authenticated without revealing the PAN to the merchant or a payment intermediary. Once the token (the Card or other access device) has been authenticated by the Issuer, it can look up the corresponding account and move (or not move) the funds accordingly.
When the card is capable of protecting itself, it can be issued, secured and validated by the issuer without the need for any intermediaries (consumers, merchants, processors, acquirers, networks) to participate in the protection process. With a proper chip card specification, this can be accomplished while maintaining global interoperability.
Respectfully,
Mimi Hart, MagTek

Posted by: Mimi Hart | December 9, 2016 at 03:11 PM

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

Google Search



Recent Posts


Archives


Categories


Powered by TypePad