IBJNews

U.S. credit card info is easy pickings for hackers

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The U.S. is the juiciest target for hackers hunting credit card information. And experts say incidents like the recent data theft at Target's stores will get worse before they get better.

That's in part because U.S. credit and debit cards rely on an easy-to-copy magnetic strip on the back of the card, which stores account information using the same technology as cassette tapes.

"We are using 20th century cards against 21st century hackers," says Mallory Duncan, general counsel at the National Retail Federation. "The thieves have moved on but the cards have not."

In most countries outside the U.S., people carry cards that use digital chips to hold account information. The chip generates a unique code every time it's used. That makes the cards more difficult for criminals to replicate. So difficult that they generally don't bother.

"The U.S. is the top victim location for card counterfeit attacks like this," says Jason Oxman, chief executive of the Electronic Transactions Association.

The breach that exposed the credit card and debit card information of as many as 40 million Target customers who swiped their cards between Nov. 27 and Dec. 15 is still under investigation. It's unclear how the breach occurred and what data, exactly, criminals have. Although security experts say no security system is fail-safe, there are several measures stores, banks and credit card companies can take to protect against these attacks.

Companies haven't further enhanced security because it can be expensive. And while global credit and debit card fraud hit a record $11.27 billion last year, those costs accounted for just 5.2 cents of every $100 in transactions, according to the Nilson Report, which tracks global payments.

Another problem: Retailers, banks and credit card companies each want someone else to foot most of the bill. Card companies want stores to pay to better protect their internal systems. Stores want card companies to issue more sophisticated cards. Banks want to preserve the profits they get from older processing systems.

Card payment systems work much the way they have for decades. The magnetic strip on the back of a credit or debit card contains the cardholder's name, account number, the card's expiration date and a security code different from the three or four-digit security code printed on the back of most cards.

When the card is swiped at a store, an electronic conversation is begun between two banks. The store's bank, which pays the store right away for the item the customer bought, needs to make sure the customer's bank approves the transaction and will pay the store's bank. On average, the conversation takes 1.4 seconds.

During that time the customer's information flows through the network and is recorded, sometimes only briefly, on computers within the system controlled by payment processing companies. Retailers can store card numbers and expiration dates, but they are prohibited from storing more sensitive data such as the security code printed on the backs of cards or other personal identification numbers.

Hackers have been known to snag account information as it passes through the network or pilfer it from databases where it's stored. Target says there is no indication that security codes on the back of customer credit cards were stolen. That would make it hard to use stolen account information to buy from most Internet retail sites. But the security code on the back of a card is not needed for in-person purchases. And because the magnetic strips on cards in the U.S. are so easy to make, thieves can simply reproduce them and issue fraudulent cards that look and feel like the real thing.

"That's where the real value to the fraudsters is," says Chris Bucolo, senior manager of security consulting at ControlScan, which helps merchants comply with card processing security standards.

Once thieves capture the card information, they check the type of account, balances and credit limits, and sell replicas on the Internet. A simple card with a low balance and limited customer information can go for $3. A no-limit "black" card can go for $1,000, according to Al Pascual, a senior analyst at Javelin Strategy and Research, a security risk and fraud consulting firm.

To be sure, thieves can nab and sell card data from networks processing cards with digital chips, too, but they wouldn't be able to create fraudulent cards.

Credit card companies in the U.S. have a plan to replace magnetic strips with digital chips by the fall of 2015. But retailers worry the card companies won't go far enough. They want cards to have a chip, but they also want each transaction to require a personal identification number, or PIN, instead of a signature.

"Everyone knows that the signature is a useless authentication device," Duncan says.

Duncan, who represents retailers, says stores have to pay more — and banks make more — on transactions that require signatures because there are only a few of the older networks that process them, and therefore less price competition. There are several companies that process PIN transactions for debit cards, and they tend to charge lower fees to stores.

"Compared to the tens of millions of transactions that are taking place every day, even the fraud that they have to pay for is small compared to the profit they are making from using less secure cards," Duncan says.

Even so, there are a few things retailers can do, too, to better protect customer data. The most vulnerable point in the transaction network, security experts say, is usually the merchant.

"Financial institutions are more used to having high levels of protection," says Pascual. "Retailers are still getting up to speed."

The simple, square, card-swiping machines that consumers are used to seeing at most checkout counters are hard to infiltrate because they are completely separate from the Internet. But as retailers switch to faster, Internet-based payment systems they may expose customer data to hackers.

Retailers need to build robust firewalls around those systems to guard against attack, security experts say. They could also take further steps to protect customer data by using encryption, technology which scrambles the data so it looks like gibberish to anyone who accesses it unlawfully. These technologies can be expensive to install and maintain, however.

Thankfully, individual customers are not on the hook for fraudulent charges that result from security breaches. But these kinds of attacks do raise costs —and, likely, fees for all customers.

"Part of the cost in the system is for fraud protection," Oxman says. "It costs money, and someone's going to pay for it eventually."
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • PCI DSS Compliance
    Sean, many merchants do not take security seriously. Many merchants who accept credit/debit card payments are not PCI DSS compliant which means they don't adhere to even the minimum suggested measures for how best to handle credit card information given their particular business environment. Being PCI DSS compliant does not ensure a merchant will never be breached but does reduce the probability. There are different measures based on whether the card is present or not present, whether a card is transmitted over an analog or data connection. When a breach happens to a small business, it potentially could put the merchant out of business either due to the fines or due to the time period of the investigation or both. Merchants - do the right thing. Become PCI DSS compliant and take it seriously.
  • Cyber Liability
    It is incredible how many business owners ignore this exposure in terms of purchasing insurance. The theft of credit card data and private information is not the only exposure. Hackers can take down a network or someone elses network using a business owners site as a launching point causing business interruption and losing large amounts of income or they can take over a social media site and promulgate misinformation, etc. All these issues bring exposure to liability to the business owner but most businesses do not purchase cyber liability and privacy breach insurance leaving them to deal with this exposure on their own. In the Target example, 40,000,000 cards were stolen. If they take just $1 per card, their is $40,000,000 stolen and Target is liable....most likely with very little insurance relatively speaking. Business owners need to wake up to this threat and protect themselves and their assets.
  • Fraudulent Processing Accts.
    And...the crooks can set up fraudulent merchant credit card processing accounts. I know because my business name and (now former) EIN were stolen and combined with the SSN of an 83 year old woman to set up fraudulent accounts that processed stolen credit cards. So, it's not just using a stolen card; the processing can also be fraudulent. It's not been a happy story.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT