Slashdot Mirror
UK Banks Attempt To Censor Academic Publication
An anonymous reader writes "Representatives of the UK banking industry have sent a take-down notice (PDF link) to Cambridge University, demanding that they censor a student's webpage as well as his masters thesis (PDF). The banks' objection is that the information contained in the report might be used to exploit a vulnerability in the Chip and PIN system, used throughout Europe and Canada for credit and debit card payments. The system was revealed to be fundamentally flawed earlier this year, as it allowed criminals to use a stolen card with any PIN. Cambridge University has resisted the demands and has sent a response to the bankers explaining why they will keep the page online."
Security through obscurity is foolish. If this forces the banks to reinforce what they already know is weak, then I commend both the guy and the university.
The university's response completely owns the bank.
"1. Why don't you have the balls to complain to the guy who actually published it? 2. Why do you suddenly object to research based on something that was already published, like, years ago, and which we warned you about before? 3. Why are you defrauding your customers by pretending your shitty system is secure, and on what grounds do you demand our help with that? 4. Fuck you this is a anteater^W university."
by linking to the pdf of the thesis, Slashdot is effectively publishing said thesis D:
Institute checks at the acquiring or issuing bank that make sure the card and the terminal agree that it was a PIN transaction, that would seem to be an obvious one. And comparatively easy.
Failing that, remove the signature verification auth method from cards, can be done via an update delivered during any transaction.
Or make all PIN transactions over the floor limit the 'online PIN verification' type.
EMV has problems by the looks of it, if you have a sophisticated MITM machine, but it wouldn't take much to fix the problem with this attack.
That said, the banks still shouldn't be suppressing the research.
They just got used to be douchebags and unpunished. Until the guillottine starts chopping some heads again, it won't get any better.
Yes, I'm bitter and a bit hopeless.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Incorporate his research. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with the suits that they don't look at this and go "hmmmm, free research" instead of "OMG TEH WURLD IZ FALLIN?!"
They're screwed right now. If they bankrupt him through litigation, you can bet that someone from the Russian mob is going to offer him a briefcase of unmarked bills to "fund his education."
The BBC Newsnight program on the issue (from last February) explains the issue pretty well. Watch it.
The funny/disturbing thing is why did it take 10 months! for some official at the UK banking industry association to have a revelation/panic and issue such a stupid letter. The professor's response to them is pretty effing on!
I think he should've said quite blunty: " listen, our students figured this weakness in your system during their free time, using our shoe string budget". Do you really think high tech criminals and criminal organizations with millions or even more at their disposal won't reproduce this? All you need to do is read the bloody manual! "
If I was a banker/bank/building society I would seriously consider funding research into this instead of whining about it. I mean those students don't have what the criminals can easily get with just money. At least buy them the latest oscilloscope/logic analyser for god sake! - its a miniscule fraction of the profits the banks make - or even what they stand to loose from such weaknesses...
www.tribalnetworks.org - helping tribal people around the world to own their own means of high-tech communications
That's important to note. However, they're taking their fucking time fixing it (it's been a year since the first notification) - only Barclays' system has been fixed so far - so they aren't really justified in making such a request.
To prevent this day from getting worse, I'll just read ERROR as GOOD TH
Ross Anderson does great work in this field, and has done for decades. The banks are happy to put out a flawed system, and hope that people don't notice they are getting ripped off by criminals. Those that actually do notice get reimbursed if they fight hard enough and manage to win their court case (the banks often falsely convince the judge their system is infallible), and then this simply gets shifted back onto the customers through increased bank charges.
If you look at his February post after they broadcast the problem on Newsnight (major UK political television programme), a large number of the commenters appear to be victims.
The message is clear: if you take your credit or debit card out with you, or use it online, there is a good chance money will easily be stolen from your account. If somebody swipes and clones your card, they do not need to know your PIN number to extract money from it. The safest way to pay is currently with cash.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
Looking through the article, it looks like the terminal requests the transaction as chip and PIN, the MITM hardware changes the transaction flag to chip and signature, and the smart card responds with an OK. Unfortunately, it's the same OK as if the smart card had in fact received a transaction type of chip and PIN with the attached PIN being the correct one. The flaw is in having the smart card response being the same for both kinds of transactions. If instead, there was a signature method OK, and a different PIN # OK, then the terminal would catch the difference. This way, the terminal sends back to the bank: "I requested a chip and PIN transaction, and the smart card said that the PIN was good", when in fact all the smart card saw was the terminal say that the user requested a chip and signature transaction. The bank would have no way to realize that what the smart card saw wasn't what the terminal (and probably the bank) requested.
...as it is absolutely epic. I adore the parting shot:
Nonetheless, I am delighted to note your firm statement that the attack will no longer work and pleased that the industry has been finally been able to deal with this security issue, albeit some considerable time after the original disclosure back in 2009.
OWNED!
They implement Chip and PIN with the chip being a mini flash drive with all your shit on it ready to steal and a PIN authenticator that basically says "this PIN is correct, scout's honour, you can use the banking details!"
I was expecting it to be implemented a'la GSM with the PIN waking up the crypto-processor, submitting the transaction to the crypto-processor, signing the transaction with the card's details and the PIN pad merely passing along the signed transaction and submitting it to the issuing bank.
Chip and PIN is the most retarded use of two factor authentication I have ever seen.
I notice with interest that the Ph.D paper has the acknowledgement "I thank my supervisor, Markus Kuhn, for extensive guidance and valuable advice on rigorous design and research"
Not THE Markus Kuhn for whom many of us have to thank for Season 7, the Sky smartcard emulator and a kickstart into the world of hardware hacking? (in the nicest sense of the word).
We are not worthy. Omar, you walk in the footprints of a giant.
And what exactly would they sue him for?
Um, did you read the same letters I did? The Cards Association's letter was exactly a take-down notice ("Our key concern is that this type of research was ever considered suitable for publication by the University ... we would ask that this research be removed from public access immediately") and the reason it doesn't mention the DMCA is because, you know, it's in the UK. And the only reason it's not David-and-Goliath is because Cambridge is Cambridge, a huge and ancient university with one of the best academic reputations in the world, which is ready, willing, and able to fight for academic freedom, as the response letter shows. Your criticism of Slashdot for daring to present the story accurately is bizarre; I honestly have to wonder if you're being paid, or if you're just so blindly faithful to the Golden Rule ("he who has the gold makes the rules") that you can't properly interpret what's right in front of your face.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Except in the UK they will lose, and lose big. Frivolous lawsuits are looked down upon.
Taking on one of the largest universities in the world, with alumni who are incredibly powerful, is not a good idea.
Speaking English is not particularly relevant. Understanding the language is something entirely different. To anyone raised in the British Isles this is very clearly a 'Gentleman's' way of phrasing a demand. What surprises me is not the arrogance of the Banks in making this demand, but the fact they actually think they can intimidate one of the worlds oldest universities. The reply they got was not only right to the point, but devastating in its clarity and accuracy. P.S. Been a /. watcher for years, but only now thought I'd participate :)
Is there no difference between the interrogative ("..we would ask...") and the imperative (for example, "...we demand that you remove...")?
If we're going to call this a "take-down notice," what will we call it when Cards actually notifies Cambridge that they are demanding that Cambridge remove some other content and that Cards believes they have the legal force of law to require it? Will that be a "take-down sexual assault?"
Simply put, there can be letters that are not take-down notices. This is one of them.
But, to answer your question: I'm reasonably certain that we did read the same document. However, I'm also reasonably certain that my interpretation of it is informed by the meanings of the words on the page and a verifiable reconstruction of the authors' understanding of the scope of actions available to them. In contrast, you quoted back to me the supplication, "...we would ask that this research be removed...," and called the document that contained that phrase a "notice," with apparent sincerity. I allege that this characterization is not supported by the text of the letter.
Furthermore, in your brief missive, you managed to impugn my motives in a very silly way, accusing me either of being on the bankers' dole or of being so prostrate before moneyed interests on principle (Heh. "Moneyed interest on princip[le|al]." Get it?) that I'm unable to properly read the letter. Is this a serious way to think or argue? Specifically, is this a way to think or argue that is even capable either of engaging the facts of the matter or of fostering any kind of intellectual progress?
Also, if I don't get modded up for "moneyed interests on principle," then you people have hearts of stone.
Chip and PIN is the most retarded use of two factor authentication I have ever seen.
Certainly the UK version is. Read pages 16 and 17 of the thesis.
What's so lame about this is that it's a reasonably recent system design. How to do this right has been understood since the 1980s, and getting enough CPU power into the card to do an encryption isn't that big a deal.
The way this is done right is that the bank and merchant send the transaction details to the device, where the user checks them and signs the transaction using their PIN and crypto within the device. The bank and merchant confirm that the transaction is signed properly and the bank confirms the account information. The merchant system never sees the PIN or the customer's private key.
Of course, the problem with doing it right is that to do a true mutually mistrustful system, the customer has to have a device with a keyboard and display, plus some CPU power. If the merchant owns the PIN pad, that's a vulnerability. That's usually a phone, not a dedicated device, which opens up a new range of vulnerabilities.
I just hate those pushy bankers. Why can't they just keep their place in line behind lawyers for who is going to get it when the revolution comes? Are they afraid we are going to run out of bullets or something?
Okay, so the line is lawyers, bankers, politicians, republicans. NO pushing ahead. We probably run out of bullets before we got to republicans but we can just have them watch Fox showing a video of a gun firing and they will drop dead from fright.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I designed the CAP/EMV check system employed by one of the UK banks eBanking system. These are the little battery operated units that offer 3 types of 'authentication' that can be typed into an ebanking website after inserting a debit card and performing a PIN entry etc. Some debit cards simply have another couple of programs on the chip on the card that can do simple challenge/response type algorithms to encode input data along with the cards cert to produce a 6 to 8 digit number that the user then types into an ebanking website etc.
I was wondering how long it would take for the retail chip and pin system to be broken. the core difference between retail units and the ebanking system is that the user returns an encrypted block (inside 6 to 8 digits) containing the card counter (which you can determine by pressing the menu button on any hand held CAP disconnected 2FA reader). If the card counter is out by a **censored** number then the transaction is stopped and a fraud warning is placed on the card.
Clearly, people can increase their card counter by buggering around putting the card in an out of card readers without doing a transaction and so the odd person gets their card locked down and they just have to ring in for a new one. n (I actually did this by mistake with my own debit card).
the disconnected CAP 2FA systems were a good few years later than "Chip and PIN" and so had the benefit of a bit better understanding. It should be noted that a large UK bank does not do this with their eBanking system and was nearly picked up on an earlier light-blue touchpaper paper but they didn't quite get that far so i think there are some problems looming for some of the handheld 2 factor authentication units as well. we'll wait and see.
This looks more like the opening volley in a lawsuit than a polite request. It details that the student built a device (or designed it), that the police know he falsified a transaction in a shop, and claims that publication is a hazard to people's money. That the language is polite is irrelevant: it's notification of a cause for action that can be referred to later and it demands ('requests') that the paper be removed from public access.
As for being prostrate before moneyed interests, i don't understand it either, but I'm in the US and I see a whole lot of people doing just that - arguing against progressive taxation, demanding tax breaks in a recession, and so on; personally, I blame our right wing talk show idiots for whipping the mob into a frenzy, and the GP may have confused you with one of them.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
They did not send a "take-down notice", at least in the way the term is usually used. It normally is used to mean a notice under the DMCA to a service provider that something must be taken down, or more loosely a notice warning that something is in violation of law.
What was actually sent was simply a request, with no claim of legal authority behind it, asking that the material be removed.
Is there no difference between the interrogative ("..we would ask...") and the imperative (for example, "...we demand that you remove...")?
When the person asking has infinite money and infinite lawyers... no.
Well, I admit my assumptions are:
1. Barclays is a big bank (or banking syndicate, or whatever).
2. There aren't massive differences between big banks as far as the extent of chip and pin services or the ability to roll out updates to them are concerned.
->
What the hell are they (except Barclays) doing? They've got enough money to pay themselves big fat bonuses in a depression - how come they haven't got enough to repair a widely-used system in order to protect their customers from fraud? It's almost as if they don't give a fuck!
The important thing is, a shitload of people are risking a shitload of money over this without so much as an email from the bank telling them it's even happening.
To prevent this day from getting worse, I'll just read ERROR as GOOD TH