Oct
01
2015
EMV
October 1st, 2015 by Elma Jane

The day the payments industry has pointed to for several years arrives today, a turning point in the U.S.‘s migration to EMV chip-and-PIN cards.

Rules set by Visa and MasterCard as of today, the liability for fraud carried out in physical stores with counterfeit cards belongs to the merchant if it has not yet upgraded its POS system to accept EMV-enabled chip cards. Banks will be issuing EMV Chip Cards.

An enormous change, as everyone learns to deal with the new technology that requires consumers to insert their cards and leave them in the store machines throughout a payment transaction, rather than swipe.

In a recent survey, less than a third of merchants overall have invested in EMV-compliant technology, and one study said 80 percent of small and midsize merchants have not upgraded their systems as of today’s liability shift.

Issuers are claiming to be more prepared than merchants, but according to the Smart Card Alliance, around 200 million chip cards have been issued to U.S. cardholders. That, however, is less than 17 percent of the approximately 1.2 billion payment cards in circulation.

What is clear is that today does not represent the end of the journey. The lack of preparedness at the physical point of sale, however, may be beneficial for card-not-present merchants.

Over the past few months, the mainstream media has awoken to the fact that implementing EMV does not mean fraud will disappear. Fraudsters quickly adapted to the difficulty of counterfeiting cards by attacking Card-Not-Present channels, where a chip has no effect.

In other markets, fraud migrated quite rapidly to card-not-present channels. It is necessary on e-commerce merchants to protect themselves with an array of tools, like device authentication, one-time passwords, randomized PIN pad and biometrics. Fraud mitigation tools like data analytics, address and CVV verification, 3D secure and tokenization. These services should be available from their merchant acquirer processor or gateway.

There should be a gradual reduction in card fraud over the next 12-18 months in spite of the delays in this country’s EMV migration. It’s going to take time for the technology to be adopted.

U.S. Merchants’ overall relative lack of preparedness for EMV may give e-commerce and mobile merchants time they didn’t think they would have to explore the options.

Sophisticated authentication technologies such as biometrics will help increase the security of card transactions. Device-based verification could be easily incorporated in an EMV transaction.

Banks have expressed interest more in using the phone as a biometrics. It’s all going to depend on what is the most convenient way to access your funds. The nice thing about biometrics is it’s meant to enable more convenience and stronger security.

 

Posted in Best Practices for Merchants, e-commerce & m-commerce, EMV EuroPay MasterCard Visa, Mobile Payments, Mobile Point of Sale, Point of Sale Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Mar
14
2014
March 14th, 2014 by Elma Jane

Merchant and Consumer Groups Seek Senate Support To Forego EMV Chip and Signature As Breach Concerns Rise

There’s no shortage of answers  in trying to put a stop to hackers set on throwing chaos into the way consumers transact at the point of sale, or online for  that matter. Yesterday, the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs subcommittee on national security and international trade and finance got its chance to hear some of them.

During the hearing, William Noonan, deputy special agent in charge, U.S. Secret Service, noted the advances in computer technology and greater access to personally identifiable information online, which have created a virtual marketplace for transnational cyber criminals to share stolen information and criminal methodologies. As a result, the Secret Service has observed a marked increase in the quality, quantity, and complexity of cyber crimes targeting private industry and critical infrastructure. These crimes include network intrusions, hacking attacks, malicious software, and account takeovers leading to significant data breaches affecting every sector of the world economy.

The recently reported data breaches of Target and Neiman Marcus represent only the most recent, well-publicized examples of this decade-long trend of major data breaches perpetrated by cyber criminals intent on targeting the nation’s retailers and financial payment systems.  The increasing level of collaboration among cyber-criminals allows them to compartmentalize their operations, greatly increasing the sophistication of their criminal endeavors and allowing for development of expert specialization. These specialties raise both the complexity of investigating these cases, as well as the level of potential harm to companies and  individuals.

So how should the industry react to prevent further breaches? Those opinions provided during testimony at the hearing varied widely, though both consumer and merchant groups would like the card networks to give up requiring only signatures for smart card purchases at the point of sale.

Consumer program director at the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, called for myriad of changes, citing that the greater risk from the recent breaches is less related to identity theft than it is to fraud on existing accounts,  and he said it’s time for players on both sides of the transaction to focus more on protecting consumers than on managing their own risk.

Until now, both banks and merchants have looked at fraud and identity theft as a modest cost of doing business and have not protected the payment system well enough. They have failed to look seriously at harms to their customers from fraud and identity theft -including not just monetary losses and the hassles of restoring their good names, but also the emotional harm that they must face as they wonder whether future credit applications will be rejected due to the fraudulent accounts.

As a first step, Congress should institute the same fraud cap, $50, on debit/ATM cards that exists on credit cards, or eliminate the $50 cap entirely, since it is never imposed because of the zero-liability policies issuers have voluntarily have imposed. Congress also should provide debit and prepaid card customers with the stronger billing-dispute rights and rights to dispute payment for products that do not arrive or do not work as promised, just as many credit card users enjoy.

Congress should  endorse a specific technology, such as EMV smart cards and if it does, require the use of PINs when initiating smart card transactions. The current pending U.S. rollout of chip cards will allow use of the less-secure chip-and-signature cards rather than the more-secure chip-and-PIN cards. Why not go to the higher-and-PIN authentication standard immediately and skip past chip and signature? There is still time to make this improvement.”

Retailers have spent billions of dollars on card-security measures and upgrades to comply with PCI card security requirements, but it hasn’t made them immune to data breaches and fraud. The card networks have made those decisions for merchants, and the increases in fraud demonstrate that their decisions have not been as effective as they should have been.

The card networks should forego chip and signature and go straight to chip and PIN. To do otherwise would mean that merchants would spend billions to install new card readers without they or their customers obtaining PINs’ fraud-reducing benefits. We would essentially be spending billions to combine a 1990’s technology chips with a 1960’s relic signature in the face of 21st century threats.

Posted in Best Practices for Merchants, Credit card Processing, Credit Card Reader Terminal, Credit Card Security, Digital Wallet Privacy, Electronic Payments, EMV EuroPay MasterCard Visa, Financial Services, Merchant Services Account, Payment Card Industry PCI Security, Point of Sale, Small Business Improvement, Visa MasterCard American Express Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,