Card Processing Software May Store CC Info

An anonymous reader writes "Visa has sent out a warning to customers stating that some card processing software may keep customer data even after a transaction is complete. The setup, two versions of a software made by Fujitsu Transaction Solutions, is used by such companies as Best Buy, OfficeMax, and Staples. It's unknown if any of these large retailers use the poorly-made versions of the software." From the article: "Visa's warning, which was first reported by The Wall Street Journal on Friday, has raised eyebrows in the financial and retail sectors. The software was flagged at a time when thousands of debit-card holders across the country have reported unauthorized withdrawals from their accounts. Bank of America, Washington Mutual and Citibank are among the financial institutions that have replaced more than 200,000 debit cards in the past two months ..."

Comments

well that explains it

[Gravis Zero]

i was wondering why i had bought several laptops for someone in Nigeria.

Re:well that explains it

[_Sharp'r_]

I'm trying to figure out why this is news.

I've worked with various POS software/hardware as well as plenty of online ecommerce sites and I'm really stretching trying to think of at least one that didn't store CC information somewhere for much longer than the transaction lasted.

Sure, if someone was using a third-party card processor, that third-party usually stored the info instead (although most people would be shocked by the merchants who store this info when there really is no reason for them to do so, since their card processor stores it for them), but the info usually get's stored somewhere.

Typically, you were typically lucky if they encrypted the information and doubly lucky if the encryption key wasn't stored on the same server that the data was stored on (which is typical of these systems).

They use the information for chargebacks, refunds, reconciliation, auto-renewal, etc..., etc...

Last time I read the VISA and MC guidelines, the only real requirement was that you are never supposed to store the VVC code for longer than you need to get the authorization. Everything else is fair game to store, subject to various security guidelines.

Re:well that explains it

[bastion_xx]

They use the information for chargebacks, refunds, reconciliation, auto-renewal, etc..., etc...

Last time I read the VISA and MC guidelines, the only real requirement was that you are never supposed to store the VVC code for longer than you need to get the authorization. Everything else is fair game to store, subject to various security guidelines.

If you are still involved with card processing, you should read up on the latest guidelines. Basically, don't store the PAN or exipiration date unencrypted. And NEVER store the card verification code (CVV2, CVC2, or Amex's CID), track data, or PIN for debit transactions. It should be transmitted to the processor or authorizer and then deleted from memory.

This has been in effect for a couple years now, but only recently (post Card Systems) have the associations started to really crack down. Processors and authorization entities were the first to comply with the more stringent guidelines. Now that they are, for the most part CISP complaint, the next in the chain are merchants.

POS software should include authentication and logging, at minimum, pertaining to lookups of cardholder info. Even tighter controls on cardholder data access should be required.

Post-transaction events such as chargebacks and returns do require access to cardholder details, at least the PAN.

What are we supposed to use?

[quokkapox]

You can't use credit cards because the number will get skimmed at the restaurant or the electronics store. You can't use cash because you might get pulled over or mugged and have your cash seized.

I raise chickens. Does Fry's accept barter? How many chickens for an iPod? Oh wait, I forgot about bird flu.

Re:What are we supposed to use?

[ForestGrump]

How bout barter with beef then?

Right now, corned beef is going for 70-90 cents/pound. Stock up now and go shopping when it's back up to 1.50 to 2 dollars/pound.

Remember kiddies. Buy low, barter high.

Grump

Re:What are we supposed to use?

[Alex P Keaton in da]

Well,I don't know about other stores, but I know the Gap must keep your info. When you return something there with your reciept, they don't need your credit card. They just scan the UPC on the reciept, and viola, the charge on your credit card is reversed. I don't like that, because it means that somewhere there is a database with your credit card info. I am sure there is fine print somewhere that makes you authorize this...

Re:What are we supposed to use?

[gEvil (beta)]

They just scan the UPC on the reciept, and viola...

I'm sorry, but I see no reason for them to need to look at my viola to decide whether or not I'm eligible to return some clothing.

Re:What are we supposed to use?

[JAFSlashdotter]

I don't know for sure, but it could be that they aren't storing your credit card info, but instead storing some sort of encrypted transaction code for just that one transaction associated with your receipt, that they share with the credit card company itself. In other words, it would be useless except for referring back to that single purchase transaction. Presumably the credit card company already knows your credit card info. :)

Imagine I put my credit card number on a piece of paper, put it in a sealed envelope, and hand it to the merchant. The merchant hands the envelope to the credit card company along with the purchase amount, and the credit card company hands them back a piece of paper with a transaction number on it, indicating approval. When you come back into the store later, the merchant says "Hey, remember this transaction? Credit the card holder back $xxx." So, it's possible to get you your money back without the merchant knowing your card info directly. On the other hand, I don't do these kinds of systems for a living, so I have no idea if that's how it really works.

Re:What are we supposed to use?

[Fareq]

You can issue a void or refund transaction without the credit card number -- you just need the Transaction ID / Authorization Code that the credit card processor returned.

I think this is only true during the first 30 days, though... but I'm not sure...

Asleep at the switch?

[xoip]

If there is no reason for storing pin data according to the credit card company specs, then why have these vendors built in a switch to do just that?

Re:Asleep at the switch?

[jmp_nyc]

There's a restaurant from which my wife and I order food for delivery every so often. I almost always use cash.

One time, I hadn't made it to the ATM recently enough and gave them my Visa number. The following time I ordered from them, I told them I wanted to pay cash. The delivery guy showed up with a credit card slip with my number on it. I called the restaurant and asked why they had stored my number without my permission. They shrugged it off and said they would remove it from their system.

The next time I ordered from them, the same thing happened. I told them I was complaining to Visa, since I had specifically requested that they not retain my card number. They tried to make some excuse, but it hasn't happened since.

This is exactly why I NEVER use a debit card, but will regularly use credit cards. If these guys are storing credit card numbers as a matter of practice, I don't want them to have my debit card number. Credit card agreements have built-in liability protection if the number is stolen. Debit cards leave the account holder dealing with missing money at least until things are sorted out, if not permanently.
-JMP

Re:Asleep at the switch?

[thrillseeker]

Credit card agreements have built-in liability protection if the number is stolen. Debit cards leave the account holder dealing with missing money at least until things are sorted out, if not permanently.

Debit cards have the same protection as credit cards when used as credit cards. The only time you're using it as a debit card is when you have to enter your PIN.

Re:Asleep at the switch?

[miracle69]

Actually, if your debit card is used through the credit-card system - I.E. the Visa or Mastercard system, then you have the same protections as a credit card for unauthorized charges. So, if you sign instead of using a pin, it is exactly like a credit card to the company issuing it, and is exactly like a credit card for you and your rights.

Re:Asleep at the switch?

[runcible]

Troubleshooting. Same reason you can store CVV2 codes, even though CISP says *never* store CCV2 codes. You'd be surprised how often this shit comees in handy when you are trying to figure out why a series of transactions failed. It's way easier to figure out what is fucked-up with a transaction if you can see all the data. Businesses ( and customers too, actually ) don't like to hear "Well it failed, but we don't keep data for that stuff, so that's all I can tell you." They are very into the why, and sometimes without that data there just is no why.

Not to say that you should do it, you'll *take it in the shorts* for doing this in a prod environment, it is stupidly dangerous...but everybody thinks their systems are secure, right?

Re:Asleep at the switch?

[hazem]

Debit cards have the same protection as credit cards when used as credit cards.

That's what the banks say, but it's not often born out by experience.

Remember, that visa debit card is attached to your checking account. If someone takes money they're not supposed to, you can end up bouncing checks and getting into all kinds of other trouble. You have to fight to get your money back, and bank does not have to respond immediately - and can even deny your claim.

If you just use a credit card and someone gets your number, it's actually the credit card company's money that's lost - not yours.

Why risk it.

Here's some info from Clark Howard's website about what he calls "Fake Visa's":

http://clarkhoward.com/shownotes/category/7/40/225 /


Feb 14, 2005 -- Update on Visa check card rights
Visa's check card is supposed to help elminate debt by drafting money directly and immediately from your account that has money. But there are some problems with the cards. First, criminals can empty your checking account if they get their hands on your card. Who pays the bounced checks charges if your check card has been stolen? YOU DO! Also, on a real credit card, if you order something you have the right to dispute the charge if something happens to your order. Until now, you could not dispute an order problem on your check card. Visa is now offering modified dispute rights for check card customers. If you have a check card, look on the back and see if it says 'enterlink'. If your card does say this, then you might be covered under Visa's new policy. Make sure you check with your bank to see if you are covered before you begin ordering on your check card.

Nov 10, 2004 -- Fake Visa warning and Wells Fargo update
Clark has a special warning for people who carry fake Visa cards. There has been a breach of security at one of the big national merchants. No one is saying which merchant it is, but an employee has evidently obtained the records of an untold number of customers. That person is using people's debit card numbers across the country without their knowledge. So, when people try to use their cards, they are being turned away. We need full disclosure by the banking industry about this and anytime it happens. We need to know how many people are affected and what institution is involved. So, for the next seven days, if you carry a fake Visa card, check your account for unauthorized debits. Criminals are striking fast before people realize what's going on. Why is this so important? If someone gets a hold of your fake Visa numbers and charges up your account, that money is gone. You have to fight to get that money back, and banks decide on an individual basis. Also,Visa offers no protection for you if it causes checks to bounce. It's a disgrace, but right now, banks are free to decide whether they want to help you out or not.

This is why cash won't die...

[chivo243]

not in the next 50 years... Until there is a "PERFECT" system in place for financial transactions, plus, too many remote "poor" areas that can't afford the other gizmos required for electronic payment. Long live cold hard cash.

Re:This is why cash won't die...

[Threni]

If governments decide to stop using cash (which I believe they will, in our lifetimes), they will. They'll stop using it, banks won't have anything to do with it, and you'll be out there on your own, trying to enforce disputes and payments over goods and services with progressively more tatty bits of paper. Everyone else will be using some form of credit.

Cash will be attacked for being connected with untraceable transactions relating to drugs, terrorism and tax evasion. The same people who now say `what's wrong with cctv in your town, street, bedroom if you're not breaking the law` will say `why do you want to use cash if you're not buying drugs`.

The only way to keep your card secure...

[ian_mackereth]

...is to use someone else's card number, purchased as a job lot from the spotty-faced clerk at your local Best Buy, OfficeMax, Staples, etc!

It's widespread...

[cardpuncher]

I know a number of (UK) mailorder businesses that routinely store the card number, expiry date and CVV of all transactions. It's either done for convenience (if a refund is required later you don't have to phone the customer to get the card number) or because of operational issues (for example, there is a batch process that extracts the payment details from one system and passes it to another to actually debit the card and it has to be repeatable in case one part of the process fails: the lazy solution is to store everything indefinitely).

The need to retain customer confidence in the card-processing system means that the interesting question of who would be liable in the case of a mass theft is unlikely to be tested in court - even if it were useful to do so (a lot of mailorder businesses are not cash rich and neither are the software companies that supply them).

This risk will persist until there is some sort of two-factor authentication on all card transactions.

HomeDepot in Canada

[Neter]

I purchased some bathroom renovation supplies at HomeDepot in Toronto a few weeks ago. When I was complete, I brought back the parts that I had not used. When I returned them to the customer service desk, the lady scanned the barcode at the bottom of the receipt, and then tossed the valves into the "restock" bins. When I attempted to hand her my credit card to refund the transaction, she looked at me and said "We don't need that..."

I looked at her, and asked how she had my credit card information, and how it was going to be credited to my account. She stated that they store all transaction information specifically so they can speed up the refund process.

I asked to speak to the manager to complain about this, but after waiting for 10 minutes for him to show up, my wife got the better of me, and we had to go...

Gut feeling says this should be against industry best practice, and potentially against Canadian banking and privacy laws, but IANAL.

Re:HomeDepot in Canada

[EnglishSteve]

I hate to tell you this, but the store has saved your credit card information almost EVERY TIME you have ever used a credit card in a retail store in recent years. The reason? They HAVE to, otherwise they would never get paid.

What happens is this: at the end of the day, the store (often from the store, but sometimes it's done from the corporate office) and the credit provider perform a process called Settlement, where they compare a log of the credit card transactions for the day. The retailer does not get paid for the credit card sales until the transactions are reconciled.

If the retailer and the credit provider are smart, the data is held and transmitted using encryption, but I know for a fact that this is not always so - I write Point Of Sale/credit authorization systems for a living.

Re:HomeDepot in Canada

[fermion]

My question is what information does the store have to save in order to do a refund. If the system was well done, it would just be a CC number with the original tranaction number to confirm. Such a system makes a lot of sense as it insures that the credit is applied to the same card and limits the number of person handling the card. Furthermore, it makes some sense for a operation to store the CC number along with the transaction in case the customer later protests the charge. Given the current practice of asking other questions to confirm the purchase, it is not such a big deal. For most retail outlets, a person must have a valid card with valid magnetic strip to make a purchase. These cards are not impossible to fabricate, but it an additional hurdle.

The problem, as I see it, is vendors that store all customer information, in a single logical location, long term. For instance, after a purchase is valiated, which online takes 30 seconds, my adress and CVVC should be delinked from my cc number. Keep the CC number in a transaction log, but get rid of the CVC and only keep the address in a ship log. I know this is not going to happen, as it is complicated, but it should help protect us. I am with you though. We need laws that makes bad practice a liability on the vendors, banks, and device providers that utilize it.

Re:HomeDepot in Canada

[ZoneGray]

Thanks for pointing out what should have been obvious... reminds me that I ran a retail shop in the 80's, and submitted my charges on paper.

And anybody who RTFA noted that the issue concerned DEBIT cards. You don't worry much about getting your credit card stolen, because the liability is limited. Debit cards are a whole 'nother story, and the problem here is that some debit-card software had been storing the PIN number as well as the card number... so anybody who got the numbers could go to an ATM and empty your bank account in seconds. Additionally, a stolen debit card is a much greater risk for identity theft than a stolen credit card.

Could this just be a PR/Power Grab ploy?

[vrimj]

Neither one of the Fujitsu products, RAFT and GlobalStore, is among the products approved by the major credit card companies. This doesn't mean that the software doesn't meet industry standards. It only means that the software hasn't undergone the review process needed for sanctioning by the group, according to a note on Visa's site.

Seems like something went wrong, they still don't know what or how (other then the possible OfficeMax connection), but they are using this opportunity to claim that it has something to do with devices not sanctioned by CC compaines.
Look like this has a high probablity of being spin.

Another similar issue

[Jon Abbott]

A couple weeks ago, after finishing refueling my motorcycle, I put the pump back and started to get ready to leave. I noticed though that the pump display didn't say "Insert card and remove quickly" as it normally says when one leaves -- it said "Remove pump and begin fueling" -- as if it were giving a freebie to the next customer! I have no idea how common this problem is, but it may be prudent to watch out for it.

Victim here - lessons learned

[dubbayu_d_40]

Last weekend someone overseas (Bangkok) started draining my checking account. I have a Visa debit card and was directed to Visa put a block on the card. That didn't work, I guess ATM txns go a different route. I tried moving all of my checking and overdraft line of credit into my savings account, but it turns out that it too was used for overdraft protection. My bank is a small credit union and there was nothing I could do until Monday morning - but to their credit they refunded everything within two hours of me walking in the door.

Lessons learned. Use your debit card as a credit card - the laws concerning credit fraud are more clear cut. Ask your bank to not to use your savings as overdraft protection. Only keep enough money in checking for what you know is coming in the short term, isolate the rest in the saving account. Check your account frequently (a friend has his balance emailed to him daily - not a bad idea). Check your credit history every four months (one free per year per credit agency - https://www.annualcreditreport.com/ ).

If fraud happens. Call bank/Visa/MC/whoever and get a block on your card. Call one of the credit agencies and put a fraud alert on your credit record. Call the local police and file a report. If you are like I was and can't do anything until Monday, move what is left into your savings account that are going to isolate after reading this.

A good resource is: http://www.consumer.gov/idtheft/

Re:Isn't what amazon.com does ?

[JAFSlashdotter]

Amazon.com stores your credit card number if they only ask you to enter the last four digits of your card number, right ? So what's different here ? Maybe I've not understood something

I think I can clarify... The problem isn't that they store the information, it's that unlike Amazon, they do it without your knowledge or consent. Also, because these vendors were unaware that this information was being stored by their systems, no security procedures are in place to prevent unscrupulous employees (or others) from extracting the card information from the system. On the other hand, a retailer like Amazon is aware that it is storing this information for you, you are (hopefully) aware Amazon is storing it for you, and both you and Amazon (presumably) take precautions to safeguard the info.

Never use Debit at a store...

[IcePop456]

This is why I never use Debit at a store. Yeah it sucks when your credit card is stolen. Discover has been quick to issue a new card and restore my credit line. However, I always have a 2nd card for back-up. My debit card will never be used in a store because it is my money that is stolen. That is, they get access to my actual cash (well electronic funds) and not a line of credit. I'd much rather risk some credit dollars since I don't pay the disputed amount.

What is needed is the finantial version of HIPPA

[jonwil]

What is needed is a law that forces companies dealing with bank and finantial details (banks, credit card companies, card processors, insurance companies, finance companies, ATM providers, EFTPOS/credit card processing machine providers and so on) to take greater efforts to keep it secure, much like HIPPA mandates high security for medical records.

Essentialy it would mandate things like "any device or software that holds on to any finantial data after it is no longer required to process whatever transaction the data was given for is illegal" and "All devices storing or transporting or moving finantial data must use encryption" (for example, any US website taking banking details, finantial details or credit card details must use SSL or similar to encrypt the data as it goes over the internet) as well as requiring (for example) banks to do more to make it harder for phishing sites to fool users into plugging in their password (there are certainly solutions out there so its not like its not possible for the banks to do it, they just dont because it would cost too much to fix it).

Also this law should have bigger penalties for companies who dont protect this data and it gets copied as a result (much like how there are penatlies if medical data is copied)

Re:Why software not paper?

[Nimloth]

Not true, most credit card transaction receipts include only the first and last 4 digits of the credit card number. The rest usually consists of *'s or X's.
This is to avoid fraud, the printout only serves the purpose of identifying the proper card with the proper sequence number, amount, date and signature.
Some cheaper, less used systems WILL however print out the complete number. I would personally find another method of payment if you know place X does that, but if you have to use a credit card, don't throw your receipt away in the trash.

Re:What is needed is the finantial version of HIPP

[TykeClone]

What is needed is a law that forces companies dealing with bank and finantial details (banks, credit card companies, card processors, insurance companies, finance companies, ATM providers, EFTPOS/credit card processing machine providers and so on) to take greater efforts to keep it secure, much like HIPPA mandates high security for medical records.

Banks already have that - it's the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act and purportedly is meant to protect customer financial privacy.

I think that the gist of the article, though, is that the merchants are not under the same regulatory burden - and that is where the weak link in the chain is at the moment.

One device that makes all this possible...

[cyclocommuter]

This article on the globeandmail.com talks about the inventor of one such device and the associated software (RenCode) and how easy it easy for thieves and others to get their hands on it.

Credit Card Processing Company Employee Here...

[Michael Spencer Jr.]

(I work for First National Merchant Solutions, a company which helps businesses accept payment by credit card.)

Many highly-moderated posts here are confusing the facts, or saying how they think the system should work.

The merchant SHOULD keep track of the credit card number. They can't print the card number on receipts they give to their customers, but the card number is sometimes the only customer identification they have. If a chargeback or retrieval request comes through, the mechant needs to be able to find information about a specific sale, and they usually find that using the card number.

Someone reported that a business issued a credit to their card without requiring their card number again. This, too, is normal. Even if the merchant didn't store the credit card number, they would only have to call their credit card processing company (like the company I work for), identify themselves properly, give them the day of the original sale and the amount, and WE would tell them your card number and expiration date so they could process the credit. (You would have been wasting that manager's time, if you did talk to them.)

Visa and Mastercard regulations prohibit merchants from storing the CVV2/CVC2 number (that's the 3 digit number printed on the papery stripe on the back of your card), or any of the 'secret' information encoded on the magnetic stripe of the card. Everything else they can store, AS LONG AS THEY COMPLY WITH SECURITY REQUIREMENTS. http://usa.visa.com/business/accepting_visa/ops_ri sk_management/cisp.html If they maintain a secure system, there is no problem at all with them storing their customers' details.

If there's a security breach, the government's intervention is not required. Processing regulations already demand fines for noncompliance. If a merchant's security is penetrated and they lose a bunch of customer details, they'll have to pay a fine and have their security audited to Visa/Mastercard's satisfaction. These fines scale according to the size of the merchant and their annual transaction volume. The largest merchants (like those many of you are talking about) could face huge fines in the hundreds-of-thousands-of-dollars range, if they're noncompliant and they stay that way for any length of time.

If a merchant is using your card information in a way they shouldn't (for example, assuming you'll put your sale on a card you used last time) that's a customer service issue. If they actually charge your card unauthorized, make them give the money back. If they don't credit your account within 30 days, contact your issuing bank. Chargeback reason "Fraudulent Transaction - No Cardholder Authorization." They aren't actually breaking any rules by using a stored card number, but that's still a pretty dumb thing to do if you want happy customers.

OK, now back on topic. Pin-based debit information, like full magnetic stripe info and ESPECIALLY any information about the pin number challenge/response, should NEVER be stored by any merchant. (They can store the card number, debit network ID, various transaction reference numbers, etc.) If someone's software is doing that, merchants should stop using that software. Maybe Visa/Mastercard should release a bulletin to its member organizations, for its merchants, warning them that if they're using this software they need to stop. (Looks suspiciously like something which inspired the original article, doesn't it?) If merchants fail to switch to other, compliant software versions, they deserve the fines and sanctions they'll incur.

(How can Visa and Mastercard levy fines, if they're not the government? Contract law. Visa and Mastercard require contracts with processing companies, like the one I work for. When we sign on a new merchant, they must sign a merchant processing agreement, which binds them to Visa/Mastercard's regulations, and with that binds them to any fines they might incur.)

Now let's get the discussion back on track. No more of this "businesses are storing my credit card number and I don't like it!" stuff.