Researchers Expose New Credit Card Fraud Risk 219
An anonymous reader writes "Researchers from the University of Cambridge have discovered flaws in the card payment systems used by millions of customers worldwide. Ross Anderson, Saar Drimer, and Steven Murdoch demonstrated how a simple paper clip can be used to capture account numbers and PINs from so-called 'tamper-proof' equipment. In their paper (PDF), they warn how with a little technical skill and off-the-shelf electronics, fraudsters could empty customers' accounts. British television featured a demonstration of the attack on BBC Newsnight."
Is anyone here really surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
First rule of security in my book: Someone who wants something bad enough, they will be able to circumvent nearly anything in order to get it. So its a matter of how badly they want it. Since its money in question, I'd say that a variety of organizations and people want it pretty bad.
They're looking in the wrong place (Score:5, Insightful)
People will gladly give their credit card number over the phone to a shady pizza shop, just to get a 15 dollar pizza delivered to their door.
We could build the most secure credit card system in the world, but the problem is that it has to be simple enough for idiots to use.
Re:Get rid of the damn things! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Get rid of the damn things! (Score:5, Insightful)
Why isn't it a PIN = SecurID + PIN (Score:4, Insightful)
(offtopic)
My biggest pet peeve is why are account numbers (on checks) in the clear while the same is basically true of PIN numbers (without any added "salt")
For checks I would like to see the account number + check number translated a 16 to 20 digit hash of which only the bank knows how to decipher to the correct account and check number?
(/offtopic)
Tough Interview (Score:5, Insightful)
Most will for large-ticket items (Score:4, Insightful)
It boils down to risk:
Most people passing funny money will want to get change rather than goods they can only resell at diminished value.
Also, many merchants use basic anti-counterfeit measures when accepting $20s and higher. Granted these measures have a high miss rate but they do catch amateurs.
Jail Time? (Score:3, Insightful)
I can build an atomic weapon with a paper clip (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, a paper clip. PLUS A BUNCH OF OTHER STUFF.
Well, shoot, I could probably build an atomic weapon with a paper clip. PLUS A BUNCH OF OTHER STUFF.
Another hole in the sieve? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is just one more flaw.
Re:Get rid of the damn things! (Score:3, Insightful)
These boxes can be made to make this attack nearly impossible.
But it would cost another 5 bucks to manufacture it.
Hell, if the designed them so the case was steel, and as thin as an iPhone this problem goes away because:
a) it would take serious effort even AFTER you knew what to do. Raises the risk.
b) You couldn't attach something to it without it being noticed.
As far as the software goes, encrypt the data.
Doesn't apply to US card systems (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:[Encrypted account and check numbers] (Score:2, Insightful)
Routing number keeps the same public self (we need to send the check to the correct bank for processing.)
Account number xxxxxxxx Check number yyyyy becomes zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Issuing bank has key to turn zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz back into original component numbers and verify that z... was not some made-up number in attempt to create a "bad check" of which there is no real account number attached to. Also xxxxxxxx, once extracted is verified to the name printed on the check. After about five or more bad values of z... in a day, a human is brought into the equation to look for the underlying cause.
If check is good, then issuing bank electronically clears the bank draft with bank (or presents cash to individual) that presented the check. This allows for a pre-verification of check prior to verifying the signature (which most banks no longer do anyways.)
I won't go into recurring drafts (automatic payments) as that makes things a bit more complicated.
Re:Is anyone here really surprised? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Tough Interview (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Get rid of the damn things! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Get rid of the damn things! (Score:3, Insightful)
he failure of our government to (re-)introduce a $1000 bill, in spite of massive inflation, is a deliberate scheme to make it impractical for us to use untraceable funds for any substantial purchase. And it has nothing to do with tracking terrorists or drug money, it's just to keep tabs on and control over the law abiding populous.
It might also have something to do with the fact that most people aren't crazy enough to walk around with thousands of dollars on them. In the end, it wouldn't matter, because any transaction of $10,000 or more with a bank will get reported anyway.
Besides, a suitcase full of stacks of $100 bills has more class.
Re:Get rid of the damn things! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Get rid of the damn things! (Score:4, Insightful)
banks should be liable (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is anyone here really surprised? (Score:0, Insightful)
But you're already bringing your card and remembering your PIN....
Re:This is a UK/Europe card system issue... (Score:-1, Insightful)
"notice hidden cameras that look out of place and point at PIN pads"
Also don't enter your PIN on "suspicious" terminals, or in "suspicious" businesses.
That just does not work. The system is putting on users a burden then can not take.
With the magnetic stripe and PIN, the only security is the PIN as the stripe can be easily copied. A better solution is chip-only cards (smart cards) where the actual secret can not be duplicated and holder must hold both the card and now the PIN. At least I know that if I have my card in hand, I am OK. The same can not be told for magnetic-stipe only cards.