Slashdot Mirror
Target Has Major Credit Card Breach
JoeyRox writes "Target experienced a system-wide breach of credit card numbers over the Black Friday holiday shopping season. What's unique about this massive breach is that it didn't involve compromising a centralized data center or website but instead represented a distributed attack at individual Target stores across the country. Investigators believe customer account numbers were lifted via software installed on card readers at checkout." Also at Slash BI.
Who said anything about these devices being compromised by an attack from the internet? There are all sorts of ways to attack them indirectly:
- Compromise the system that manages them, then use that management system to push out compromised firmware or OS updates (depending on the device type - the newer payment terminals are often little Linux machines).
- Compromise the POS registers and capture the data there instead of directly on the terminals.
- Compromise the centralized back-end systems that Target uses for payment authorization. PCI-compliant retailers aren't supposed to capture full track data from the cards, but it might be possible to enable some sort of legacy mode that does just that.
- Compromise the network devices (routers, etc.) that the data is transmitted over. PCI only requires network-level encryption for transmission over untrusted networks, not internal corporate networks.
Etc. etc. Magnetic-stripe cards are a security nightmare, and everything that retailers do related to them is just a band-aid. We (the US) need to move to systems that use one-time codes - like chip-and-PIN - like the entire rest of the world is either in the process of doing or has done already.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
Considering you need the pin for it to work, it becomes a bit more difficult. And it's either going to be 4 or 6 numbers long, so unless at every terminal they're recording the pin, you're talking about brute forcing all known pin's against the card. Most cards lock after 5 failed attempts, plus at least with the Interac system here in Canada, if the otherside doesn't authorize the pin, the chip doesn't authorize the pin you get squat.
It's massively cut down on the bank card, and CC fraud we've been dealing with up here. I'm sure it'll be an arms race again in a few years, but right now it is an improvement in security albeit a small one.
Om, nomnomnom...
Chip-and-PIN isn't perfect, but it's about a thousand times better than the archaic mag-stripe cards that are still in use in the US.
Mag-stripe cards are a relic of 30-40 years or more ago - similar to social security numbers - where your identification is the same as your authentication. It's a "secret name"-type system where as soon as you tell someone what your account number is, they can do whatever they want with it.
Mag-stripe cards can be cloned easily with a ~$100 reader/encoder that you can order from China on eBay (I have one - it's pretty neat). All you need to do is swipe the card through it once (or through a cheap reader, which you save the data from and then write to a card using the bulkier encoder later). AFAIK with Chip-and-PIN, you would need a lot more time with the card, some expensive hardware, and some reverse-engineering skills instead of just click-the-copy-button skills.
Also, AFAIK, with Chip-and-PIN, you can't clone the card solely by intercepting network or device-to-device traffic. You have to compromise the reader itself. If you can intercept unencrypted network traffic from a mag-stripe transaction, then at a minimum you've got everything you need to use that card fraudulently online, and depending on how bad the system is that's involved, you probably have everything you need to create a full clone of the card.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
I thought PCI Compliance was supposed to take care of that per defining the standards in network security for POS (Point of Sales) systems?
It did. The article's scenario is a lie. Let me ask you how likely it is that, during the busiest day of the year for this retailer, with thousands of people jammed into long lines, in the one place where there are at least two high resolution cameras pointed at each terminal, a single person or group of persons, could plant multiple devices at multiple stores, within a short period of time, and then remove them after, without leaving any photographic or forensic evidence.
Because guys, that's the story that law enforcement, in collusion with the company, has released to the general public. So yes, this is bona fide conspiracy theory. But it's credible because 1. It only takes a small number of people to keep the secret: Target's senior management and information security, and select law enforcement offices. 2. They all have motivations for doing so -- law enforcement is doubtless aware that releasing true details of the crime would (a) expose a weakness in a Fortune 100 company that, besides processing credit card payments, also maintains personal health data at these locations (Pharmacy). The damage to the company, and indeed the country's economy, would be far in excess of the damage to individual creditors accounts. It makes sense to lie about it. And this story doesn't have to hold forever -- in a few months, when everyone has forgotten about it, the truth will emerge in a court filing when they bring the people responsible up on charges.
Now, all that said -- here's the more likely scenario, which is based on my short employment with this corporation: They hacked their wifi. Unfortunately, Target has repeatedly opted to silence, or even fire, people who object to their security policy, so I do not feel bad about making this public. Target is run by morons -- big surprise, it's a large corporation. Anyone who's worked in IT will have similar experiences -- it's hardly just Target. In this case, they allow full access to any server within their corporate network at each retail location, isolated only by primitive subnet routing to delineate what is and isn't allowed through the choke router. And that's it. Once you're logged into the network anywhere, it's a flat network topology and you can easily make contact with any other node on the network. Every store has multiple wifi routers, and while they do change the keys on an regular basis, it's not all the keys, and not on all the routers -- specifically, they use an inventory-management system within the stores (Those bulky "guns" you see the red shirts carrying) which depends on wifi.
There have been breaches to the network in the past through its wireless access points. These are not generally known to the public, but they have happened, and it has resulted in a number of security problems. Besides the customer's credit card data being stored on POS systems which are booted off DHCP to embedded windows, there's also the IP-based cameras. There are an average of 20 or so at each store, and they use an embedded webserver in each of them, which stream to a central source. The password for the approximately 42,000 devices is the same on each, and is not changed often, if ever, because the firmware lacks the ability to change the password programmically; there's no admin console. Besides the fact that many of these cameras have zoom and rotate features, and some have been known to be installed in positions where rotating the view can show the customers in the changing rooms... they're of sufficiently high quality that you can see the PINs people enter at the POS systems. The cash room, where the money is counted down at the end of every shift, is secured, but also has a camera in it. It's not hard to imagine someone with access to the cameras spying on the managers to acquire their passwords. And that's not even the creepy part: Target has installed ANPR-capable cameras i
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
CVV is on the magnetic strip.
CVV2 is only printed on the card.
Do not confuse them. One of them is used to validate a swiped transaction, one is used to validate a keyed transaction. Any transaction that has both is invalid. A transaction that has neither is ripe for an audit.