Liability for push payment fraud pushed onto the victims

This morning, BBC Rip Off Britain focused on push payment fraud, featuring an interview with me (starts at 34:20). The distinction between push and pull payments should be a matter for payment system geeks, and certainly isn’t at the front of customers’ minds when they make a payment. However, there’s a big difference when there’s fraud – for online pull payments (credit and debit card)  the bank will give the victim the money back in many situations; for online push payments (Faster Payment System and Standing Orders) the full liability falls on the party least able to protect themselves – the customer.

The banking industry doesn’t keep good statistics about push payment fraud, but it appears to be increasing, with Which receiving reports from over 650 victims in the first two weeks of November 2016, with losses totalling over £5.5 million. Today’s programme puts a human face to these statistics, by presenting the case of Jane and Steven Caldwell who were defrauded of over £100,000 from their Nationwide and NatWest accounts.

They were called up at the weekend by someone who said he was working for NatWest. To verify that this was the case, Jane used three methods. Firstly, she checked caller-ID to confirm that the number was indeed the bank’s own customer helpline – it was. Secondly, she confirmed that the caller had access to Jane’s transaction history – he did. Thirdly, she called the bank’s customer helpline, and the caller knew this was happening despite the original call being muted.

Convinced by these checks, Jane transferred funds from her own accounts to another in her own name, having been told by the caller that this was necessary to protect against fraud. Unfortunately, the caller was a scammer. Experts featured on the programme suspect that caller-ID was spoofed (quite easy, due to lack of end-to-end security for phone calls), and that malware on Jane’s laptop allowed the scammer to see transaction history on her screen, as well as to listen to and see her call to the genuine customer helpline through the computer’s microphone and webcam. The bank didn’t check that the name Jane gave (her own) matched that of the recipient account, so the scammer had full access to the transferred funds, which he quickly moved to other accounts. Only Nationwide was able to recover any money – £24,000 – leaving Jane and Steven over £75,000 out of pocket.

Neither bank offered Jane and Steven a refund, because they classed the transaction as “authorised” and so falling into one of the exceptions to the EU Payment Services Directive requirement to refund victims of fraud (the other exception being if the bank believed the customer acted either with gross negligence or fraudulently). The banks argued that their records showed that the customer’s authentication device was used and hence the transaction was “authorised”. In the original draft of the Payment Services Directive this argument would not be sufficient, but as a result of concerted lobbying by Barclays and other UK banks for their records to be considered conclusive, the word “necessarily” was inserted into Article 72, and so removing this important consumer protection.

“Where a payment service user denies having authorised an executed payment transaction, the use of a payment instrument recorded by the payment service provider, including the payment initiation service provider as appropriate, shall in itself not necessarily be sufficient to prove either that the payment transaction was authorised by the payer or that the payer acted fraudulently or failed with intent or gross negligence to fulfil one or more of the obligations under Article 69.”

Clearly the fraudulent transactions do not meet any reasonable definition of “authorised” because Jane did not give her permission for funds to be transferred to the scammer. She carried out the transfer because the way that banks commonly authenticate themselves to customers they call (proving that they know your account details) was unreliable, because the recipient bank didn’t check the account name, because bank fraud-detection mechanisms didn’t catch the suspicious nature of the transactions, and because the bank’s authentication device is too confusing to use safely. When the security of the payment system is fully under control of the banks, why is the customer held liable when a person acting with reasonable care could easily do the same as Jane?

Another question is whether banks do enough to recover funds lost through scams such as this. The programme featured an interview with barrister Gideon Roseman who quickly obtained court orders allowing him to recover most of his funds lost through a similar scam. Interestingly a side-effect of the court orders was that he discovered that his bank, Barclays, waited more than 24 hours after learning about the fraud before they acted to stop the stolen money being transferred out. After being caught out, Barclays refunded Gideon the affected funds, but in cases where the victim isn’t a barrister specialising in exactly these sorts of disputes, do the banks do all they could to recover stolen money?

In order to give banks proper incentives to prevent push payment fraud where possible and to recover stolen funds in the remainder of cases, Which called for the Payment Systems Regulator to make banks liable for push payment fraud, just as they are for pull payments. I agree, and expect that if this were the case banks would implement innovative fraud prevention mechanisms against push payment fraud that we currently only see for credit and debit transactions. I also argued that in implementing the revised Payment Service Directive, the European Banking Authority should require banks provide evidence that a customer was aware of the nature of the transaction and gave informed consent before they can hold the customer liable. Unfortunately, both the Payment Systems Regulator, and the European Banking Authority conceded to the banking industry’s request to maintain the current poor state of consumer protection.

The programme concluded with security advice, as usual. Some was actively misleading, such as the claim by NatWest that banks will never ask customers to transfer money between their accounts for security reasons. My bank called me to transfer money from my current account to savings account, for precisely this reason (I called them back to confirm it really was them). Some advice was vague and not actionable (e.g. “be vigilant” – in response to a case where the victim was extremely cautious and still got caught out). Probably the most helpful recommendation is that if a bank supposedly calls you, wait 5 minutes and call them back using the number on a printed statement or card, preferably from a different phone. Alternatively stick to using cheques – they are slow and banks discourage their use (because they are expensive for them to process), but are much safer for the customer. However, such advice should not be considered an alternative to pushing liability back where it belongs – the banks – which will not only reduce fraud but also protect vulnerable customers.

Underground abraCARDabra: Understanding carding forums

Paying for dinner? A taxi ride? A tropical drink? Sure. Swipe or tap your card and it is done. Convenient. Payment cards make it easy for us to make payments at “brick-and-mortar” locations and online marketplaces. However, they are also attractive targets for cybercriminals seeking to steal funds from the accounts linked to payment cards, as seen in this recent high-profile theft of credit cards affecting more than 1,000 hotels, for instance.

Theft of payment card information via phishing, skimming, or hacking, is usually the first step in the chain of payment card fraud. Other steps include sales, validation, and monetisation of the stolen data. These illicit deals are aided by underground online forums where cybercriminals actively trade stolen credit card information. To tackle payment card fraud, it is therefore important to understand the characteristics of these forums and the activity of miscreants using them. In our paper, presented at the 2017 APWG Symposium on Electronic Crime Research (eCrime2017), we analyse and discuss the characteristics of underground carding forums. We focus on the available products and prices, characteristics of sellers, and features of the forums. We won the Best Paper Award at eCrime2017.


The main products available on carding forums are credit card numbers, dumps, and fullz. Credit card numbers comprise the information actually printed on credit cards, that is, cardholder name, card number (16 digits on most cards), expiry date, and the security code on the back of the card (usually 3 digits).

Dumps comprise stolen information from the tracks of magnetic stripe of a credit card. Dumps are usually obtained via skimmers. Skimmers are devices attached to Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) and Point of Sale (POS) terminals by miscreants to steal data from unsuspecting victims. Afterwards, the miscreants create clones of the skimmed credit cards and monetise the clones, for instance, by making illicit purchases with them.

Fullz contain further information about the cardholder. In other words, fullz usually comprise information printed on the card plus additional information such as bank account information, cardholder’s date of birth, Social Security number, etc.


Generally, there are several types of participants on carding forums: sellers, buyers, intermediaries, mules, administrators, and others. These roles are not mutually exclusive; sellers may simultaneously be buyers. In this study, we focus on sellers since they come before buyers in the fraud chain.

Our approach

We studied previous work on underground marketplaces and forums, and derived the following hypotheses from the insights gained. We then searched for names of carding forums, found 25 names, and collected data from 5 active forums. We then tested the hypotheses on the data.

Hypothesis 1. Prices of fullz (credit card numbers and additional cardholder information) are higher than prices of credit card numbers.
Hypothesis 2. A small number of traders are responsible for a large
proportion of traffic.
Hypothesis 3. Most traders sell only one product type (that is, they are specialised).
Hypothesis 4. Specialised traders sell their products at lower prices than unspecialised traders.
Hypothesis 5. Carding forums have working reputation systems that are as sophisticated as those of legal marketplaces (for instance, eBay).
Hypothesis 6. The vast majority of actors do not operate on more than
one forum.

Summary of findings

Our analyses confirmed Hypothesis 1, Hypothesis 2, and Hypothesis 6. In other words, prices of fullz are indeed higher than prices of credit card numbers (credit card numbers: mean = $10.08, median = $10.00; fullz: mean = $31.82, median = $30.00). Also, a small number of traders are responsible for a large proportion of traffic. Finally, most sellers focus their efforts on a single forum, as expected.

Hypothesis 4 was partially rejected, while Hypothesis 3 and Hypothesis 5 were completely rejected. In other words, specialised sellers do not always sell their products at lower prices than the unspecialised ones, most sellers advertise more than one type of product, and most of the carding forums under study do not have working reputation systems that are as elaborate as those of legitimate online marketplaces.

In conclusion, dumps and fullz are relatively expensive; they are more than three times as expensive as credit card numbers. This may be due to the effort needed to obtain or monetise the data, the amount of available information, or differing supply and demand. Sellers have varying success. Even though some sellers complete hundreds of transactions, most sellers do not succeed in selling anything. This means that the trading sections of the forums are profitable distribution channels for high-profile actors. Finally, specialisation is not a key characteristic of sellers, not even of high-profile sellers.

Further details can be found in the full paper All Your Cards Are Belong To Us: Understanding Online Carding Forums, by Andreas Haslebacher, Jeremiah Onaolapo, and Gianluca Stringhini.

Online security won’t improve until companies stop passing the buck to the customer

It’s normally in the final seconds of a TV or radio interview that security experts get asked for advice for the general public – something simple, unambiguous, and universally applicable. It’s a fair question, and what the public want. But simple answers are usually wrong, and can do more harm than good.

For example, take the UK government’s Cyber Aware scheme to educate the public in cybersecurity. It recommends individuals choose long and complex passwords made out of three words. The problem with this advice is that the resulting passwords are hard to remember, especially as people have many passwords and use some infrequently. Consequently, they will be tempted to use the same password on multiple websites.

Password re-use is far more of a security problem than insufficiently complex passwords, so advice that doesn’t help people manage multiple passwords does more harm than good. Instead, I would recommend remembering your most important passwords (like banking and email), and store the rest in a password manager. This approach isn’t perfect or suitable for everyone, but for most people, it will improve their security.

Advice unfit for the real world

Cyber Aware also tells people not to write down their passwords, or let anyone else know them – banks require the same thing. But we know that people commonly share their banking credentials with family, for legitimate reasons. People also realise that writing down passwords is a pretty good approach if you’re only worried about internet hackers, rather than people who can get close to you to see the written notes. Security advice that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny or doesn’t fit with people’s lives will be ignored – and will discredit the organisation offering it.

Because everyone’s situation is different, good security advice should include helping people to understand what risks they should be worried about, and to take steps that mitigate these risks. This advice doesn’t have to be complicated. Teen Vogue published a tutorial on how to select and configure a secure messaging tool, which very sensibly explains that if you are more worried about invasions of privacy from people who can get their hands on your phone, you should make different choices than if you are just concerned about, for example, companies spying on you.

The Teen Vogue article was widely praised by security experts, in stark contrast to an article in The Guardian that made the eye-catching claim that encrypted messaging service WhatsApp is insecure, without making clear that this only applies in an obscure and extremely unlikely set of circumstances.

Zeynep Tufekci, a researcher studying the effects of technology on society, reported that the article was exploited to legitimise misleading advice given by the Turkish government that WhatsApp is unsafe, resulting in human rights activists using SMS instead – which is far easier for the government to censor and monitor.

The Turkish government’s “security advice” to move from WhatsApp to less secure SMS was clearly aimed more at assisting its surveillance efforts than helping the activists to whom the advice was directed. Another case where the advice is more for the benefit of the organisation giving it is that of banks, where the terms and conditions small print gives incomprehensible security advice that isn’t true security advice, instead merely a legal technique to allow the banks wiggle room to refuse to refund victims of fraud.

Continue reading Online security won’t improve until companies stop passing the buck to the customer

Strong Customer Authentication in the Payment Services Directive 2

Within the European Union, since 2007, banks are regulated by the Payment Services Directive. This directive sets out which types of institutions can offer payment services, and what rules they must follow. Importantly for customers, these rules include in what circumstances a fraud victim is entitled to a refund. In 2015 the European Parliament adopted a substantial revision to the directive, the Payment Services Directive 2 (PSD2), and it will soon be implemented by EU member states. One of the major changes in PSD2 is the requirement for banks to implement Strong Customer Authentication (SCA) for transactions, more commonly known as two-factor authentication – authentication codes based on two or more elements selected from something only the user knows, something only the user possesses, and something the user is. Moreover, the authentication codes must be linked to the recipient and amount of the transaction, which the customer must be made aware of.

The PSD2 does not detail the requirements of Strong Customer Authentication, nor the permitted exemptions to this rule. Instead, these decisions are to be made by the European Banking Authority (EBA) through Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS). As part of the development of these technical standards the EBA opened an initial discussion, to which we submitted a response based on our research on the security usability of banking authentication. Based on the discussion, the EBA produced a consultation paper incorporating a set of draft technical standards. In our response to this consultation paper, included below, we detailed how research both on security usability and banking authentication more broadly should guide the assessment of Strong Customer Authentication. Specifically we point out that there is an incorrect assumption of an inherent tradeoff between security and usability, that for a system to be secure it must be usable, and that evaluation of Strong Customer Authentication systems should be independent, transparent, and follow principles developed from latest research.

False trade-off between security and usability

In the reasoning presented in the consultation paper there is an assumption that a trade-off must be made between security and usability, e.g. paragraph 6 “Finally, the objective of ensuring a high degree of security and safety would suggest that the [European Banking Authority’s] Technical Standards should be onerous in terms of authentication, whereas the objective of user-friendliness would suggest that the [Regulatory Technical Standards] should rather promote the competing aim of customer convenience, such as one-click payments.”

This security/usability trade-off is not inherent to Strong Customer Authentication (SCA), and in fact the opposite is more commonly true: in order for SCA to be secure it must also be usable “because if the security is usable, users will do the security tasks, rather than ignore or circumvent them”. Also, SCA that is usable will make it more likely that customers will detect fraud because they will not have to expend their limited attention on just performing the actions required to make the SCA work. A small subset (10–15%) of participants in some studies reasoned that the fact that a security mechanism required a lot of effort from them meant it was secure. But that is a misconception that must not be used as an excuse for effortful authentication procedures.

Continue reading Strong Customer Authentication in the Payment Services Directive 2

Steven Murdoch – Privacy and Financial Security

Probably not too many academic researchers can say this: some of Steven Murdoch’s research leads have arrived in unmarked envelopes. Murdoch, who has moved to UCL from the University of Cambridge, works primarily in the areas of privacy and financial security, including a rare specialty you might call “crypto for the masses”. It’s the financial security aspect that produces the plain, brown envelopes and also what may be his most satisfying work, “Trying to help individuals when they’re having trouble with huge organisations”.

Murdoch’s work has a twist: “Usability is a security requirement,” he says. As a result, besides writing research papers and appearing as an expert witness, his past includes a successful start-up. Cronto, which developed a usable authentication device, was acquired by VASCO, a market leader in authentication and is now used by banks such as Commerzbank and Rabobank.

Developing the Cronto product was, he says, an iterative process that relied on real-world testing: “In research into privacy, if you build unusable system two things will go wrong,” he says. “One, people won’t use it, so there’s a smaller crowd to hide in.” This issue affects anonymising technologies such as Mixmaster and Mixminion. “In theory they have better security than Tor but no one is using them.” And two, he says, “People make mistakes.” A non-expert user of PGP, for example, can’t always accurately identify which parts of the message are signed and which aren’t.

The start-up experience taught Murdoch how difficult it is to get an idea from research prototype to product, not least because what works in a small case study may not when deployed at scale. “Selling privacy remains difficult,” he says, noting that Cronto had an easier time than some of its forerunners since the business model called for sales to large institutions. The biggest challenge, he says, was not consumer acceptance but making a convincing case that the predicted threats would materialise and that a small company could deliver an acceptable solution.

Continue reading Steven Murdoch – Privacy and Financial Security

Do you know what you’re paying for? How contactless cards are still vulnerable to relay attack

Contactless card payments are fast and convenient, but convenience comes at a price: they are vulnerable to fraud. Some of these vulnerabilities are unique to contactless payment cards, and others are shared with the Chip and PIN cards – those that must be plugged into a card reader – upon which they’re based. Both are vulnerable to what’s called a relay attack. The risk for contactless cards, however, is far higher because no PIN number is required to complete the transaction. Consequently, the card payments industry has been working on ways to solve this problem.

The relay attack is also known as the “chess grandmaster attack”, by analogy to the ruse in which someone who doesn’t know how to play chess can beat an expert: the player simultaneously challenges two grandmasters to an online game of chess, and uses the moves chosen by the first grandmaster in the game against the second grandmaster, and vice versa. By relaying the opponents’ moves between the games, the player appears to be a formidable opponent to both grandmasters, and will win (or at least force a draw) in one match.

Similarly, in a relay attack the fraudster’s fake card doesn’t know how to respond properly to the payment terminal because, unlike a genuine card, it doesn’t contain the cryptographic key known only to the card and the bank that verifies the card is genuine. But like the fake chess grandmaster, the fraudster can relay the communication of the genuine card in place of the fake card.

For example, the victim’s card (Alice, in the diagram below) would be in a fake or hacked card payment terminal (Bob) and the criminal would use the fake card (Carol) to attempt a purchase in a genuine terminal (Dave). The bank would challenge the fake card to prove its identity, this challenge is then relayed to the genuine card in the hacked terminal, and the genuine card’s response is relayed back on behalf of the fake card to the bank for verification. The end result is that the terminal used for the real purchase sees the fake card as genuine, and the victim later finds an unexpected and expensive purchase on their statement.

A rigged payment terminal capable of performing the relay attack can be made from off-the-shelf components
The relay attack, where the cards and terminals can be at any distance from each other

Demonstrating the grandmaster attack

I first demonstrated that this vulnerability was real with my colleague Saar Drimer at Cambridge, showing on television how the attack could work in Britain in 2007 and in the Netherlands in 2009.

In our scenario, the victim put their card in a fake terminal thinking they were buying a coffee when in fact their card details were relayed by a radio link to another shop, where the criminal used a fake card to buy something far more expensive. The fake terminal showed the victim only the price of a cup of coffee, but when the bank statement arrives later the victim has an unpleasant surprise.

At the time, the banking industry agreed that the vulnerability was real, but argued that as it was difficult to carry out in practice it was not a serious risk. It’s true that, to avoid suspicion, the fraudulent purchase must take place within a few tens of seconds of the victim putting their card into the fake terminal. But this restriction only applies to the Chip and PIN contact cards available at the time. The same vulnerability applies to today’s contactless cards, only now the fraudster need only be physically near the victim at the time – contactless cards can communicate at a distance, even while the card is in the victim’s pocket or bag.

Continue reading Do you know what you’re paying for? How contactless cards are still vulnerable to relay attack

International Comparison of Bank Fraud Reimbursement: Customer Perceptions and Contractual Terms

Terms and Conditions (T&C) are long, convoluted, and are very rarely actually read by customers. Yet when customers are subject to fraud, the content of the T&Cs, along with national regulations, matter. The ability to revoke fraudulent payments and reimburse victims of fraud is one of the main selling points of traditional payment systems, but to be reimbursed a fraud victim may need to demonstrate that they have followed security practices set out in their contract with the bank.

Security advice in banking terms and conditions vary greatly across the world. Our study’s scope included Europe (Cyprus, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Italy, Malta, and the United Kingdom), the United States, Africa (Algeria, Kenya, Nigeria, and South Africa), the Middle East (Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Yemen), and East Asia (Singapore). Out of 30 banks’ terms and conditions studied, 26 give more or less specific advice on how you may store your PIN. The advice varies from “Never writing the Customer’s password or security details down in a way that someone else could easily understand” (Arab Banking Corp, Algeria), “If the Customer makes a written record of any PIN Code or security procedure, the Customer must make reasonable effort to disguise it and must not keep it with the card for which it is to be used” (National Bank of Kenya) to “any record of the PIN is kept separate from the card and in a safe place” (Nedbank, South Africa).

Half of the T&Cs studied give advice on choosing and changing one’s PIN. Some banks ask customers to immediately choose a new PIN when receiving a PIN from the bank, others don’t include any provision for customers to change their PIN. Some banks give specific advice on how to choose a PIN:

When selecting a substitute ATM-PIN, the Customer shall refrain from selecting any series of consecutive or same or similar numbers or any series of numbers which may easily be ascertainable or identifiable with the Customer…

OCBC, Singapore

Only 5 banks give specific advice about whether you are allowed to re-use your PIN on other payment cards or elsewhere. There is also disagreement about what to do with the PIN advice slip, with 7 banks asking the customer to destroy it.

Some banks also include advice on Internet security. In the UK, HSBC for example demands that customers

always access Internet banking by typing the address into the web browser and use antivirus, antispyware and a personal firewall. If accessing Internet banking from a computer connected to a LAN or a public Internet access device or access point, they must first ensure that nobody else can observe, copy or access their account. They cannot use any software, such as browsers or password managers, to record passwords or other security details, apart from a service provided by the bank. Finally, all security measures recommended by the manufacturer of the device being used to access Internet banking must be followed, such as using a PIN to access a mobile device.


Over half of banks tell customers to use firewalls and anti-virus software. Some even recommend specific commercial software, or tell customers how to find some:

It is also possible to obtain free anti-virus protection. A search for `free anti-virus’ on Google will provide a list of the most popular.

Commercial International Bank, Egypt

In the second part of our paper, we investigate the customers’ perception of banking T&Cs in three countries: Germany, the United States and the United Kingdom. We present the participants with 2 real-life scenarios where individuals are subject to fraud, and ask them to decide on the outcome. We then present the participants with sections of T&Cs representative for their country and ask them then to re-evaluate the outcome of the two scenarios.

Question DE UK US
Scenario 1: Card Loss 41.5% 81.5% 76.8%
Scenario 1: Card Loss after T&Cs 70.7% 66.7% 96.4%
Scenario 2: Phishing 31.7% 37.0% 35.7%
Scenario 2: Phishing after T&Cs 43.9% 46.3% 42.9%

The table above lists the percentage of participants that say that the money should be returned for each of the scenarios. We find that in all but one case, the participants are more likely to have the protagonist reimbursed after reading the terms and conditions. This is noteworthy – our participants are generally reassured by what they read in the T&Cs.

Further, we assess the participants’ comprehension of the T&Cs. Only 35% of participants fully understand the sections, but the regional variations are large: 45% of participants in the US fully understanding the T&Cs but only 22% do so in Germany. This may indeed be related to the differences in consumer protection laws between the countries: In the US, Federal regulations give consumers much stronger protections. In Germany and the UK (and indeed, throughout Europe under the EU’s Payment Service Directive), whether a victim of fraud is reimbursed depends on if he/she has been grossly negligent – a term that is not clearly defined and confused our participants throughout.


International Comparison of Bank Fraud Reimbursement: Customer Perceptions and Contractual Terms by Ingolf Becker, Alice Hutchings, Ruba Abu-Salma, Ross Anderson, Nicholas Bohm, Steven J. Murdoch, M. Angela Sasse and Gianluca Stringhini will be presented at the Workshop on the Economics of Information Security (WEIS), Berkeley, CA USA, 13–14 June 2016.

Biometrics for payments

HSBC and First Direct recently announced that they are introducing fingerprint and voice recognition authentication for customers of online and telephone banking. In my own research, I first found nearly 20 years ago that people who have a multitude of passwords and PINs cannot manage them as security experts want them to. As the number of digital devices and services we use has increased rapidly, managing dozens of login details has become a headache for most people. We recently reported that most bank customers juggle multiple PINs, and are unable to follow the rules that banks set in their contracts. Our research also found that many people dislike the 2-factor token solutions that are currently used by many UK banks.

Passwords as most people use them today are not particularly secure. Attackers can easily attempt to collect information on individuals, using leaks of password files not properly protected by some websites, “phishing” scams or malware planted on people’s computers. Reusing a banking password on other websites – something that many of us do because we cannot remember dozens of different passwords – is also a significant security risk.

The introduction of fingerprint recognition on smartphones – such as the iPhone – has delighted many users fed up with entering their PINs dozens of times a day. So the announcement that HSBC and other banks will be able to use the fingerprint sensor on their smartphones for banking means that millions of consumers will finally be able to end their battle with passwords and PINs and use biometrics instead. Other services people access from their smartphones are likely to follow suit. And given the negative impact that cumbersome authentication via passwords and PINs has on staff productivity and morale in many organisations, we can expect to see biometrics deployed in work contexts, too.

But while biometrics – unlike passwords – do not require mental gymnastics from users, there are different usability challenges. Leveraging the biometric from the modality of interaction – e.g. voice recognition phone-based interactions – makes authentication an easy task, but it will work considerably better in quiet environments than noisy ones – such as a train stations or with many people talking in the background. As many smartphone users have learnt, fingerprint sensors have a hard time recognising cold and wet fingers. And – as we report in a paper presented at IEEE Identity, Security and Behavior Analysis last week – privacy concerns mean some users ‘don’t like putting their face on the Internet’. Biometrics can’t come soon enough for most users, but there is still a lot of design and testing work to be done to make biometrics work for different interaction, physical and social contexts.

Are Payment Card Contracts Unfair?

While US bank customers are almost completely protected against fraudulent transactions, in Europe banks are entitled to refuse to reimburse victims of fraud under certain circumstances. The EU Payment Services Directive (PSD) is supposed to protect customers but if the bank can show that the customer has been “grossly negligent” in following the terms and conditions associated with their account then the PSD permits the bank to pass the cost of any fraud on to the customer. The bank doesn’t have to show how the fraud happened, just that the most likely explanation for the fraud is that the customer failed to follow one of the rules set out by the bank on how to protect the account. To be certain of obtaining a refund, a customer must be able to show that he or she complied with every security-related clause of the terms and conditions, or show that the fraud was a result of a flaw in the bank’s security.

The bank terms and conditions, and how customers comply with them, are therefore of critical importance for consumer protection. We set out to answer the question: are these terms and conditions fair, taking into account how customers use their banking facilities? We focussed on ATM payments and in particular how customers manage PINs because ATM fraud losses are paid for by the banks and not retailers, so there is more incentive for the bank to pass losses on to the customer. In our paper – “Are Payment Card Contracts Unfair?” – published at Financial Cryptography 2016 we show that customers have too many PINs to remember them unaided and therefore it is unrealistic to expect customers to comply with all the rules banks set: to choose unguessable PINs, not write them down, and not use them elsewhere (even with different banks). We find that, as a result of these unrealistic expectations, customers do indeed make use of coping mechanisms which reduce security and violate terms and conditions, which puts them in a weak position should they be the victim of fraud.

We surveyed 241 UK bank customers and found that 19% of customers have four or more PINs and 48% of PINs are used at most once a month. As a result of interference (one memory being confused with another) and forgetting over time (if a memory is not exercised frequently it will be lost) it is infeasible for typical customers to remember all their bank PINs unaided. It is therefore inevitable that customers forget PINs (a quarter of our participants had forgot a 4-digit PIN at least once) and take steps to help them recall PINs. Of our participants, 33% recorded their PIN (most commonly in a mobile phone, notebook or diary) and 23% re-used their PIN elsewhere (most commonly to unlock their mobile phone). Both of these coping mechanisms would leave customers at risk of being found liable for fraud.

Customers also use the same PIN on several cards to reduce the burden of remembering PINs – 16% of our participants stated they used this technique, with the same PIN being used on up to 9 cards. Because each card allows the criminal 6 guesses at a PIN (3 on the card itself, and 3 at an ATM) this gives criminals an excellent opportunity to guess PINs and again leave the customer responsible for the losses. Such attacks are made easier by the fact that customers can change their PIN to one which is easier to remember, but also probably easier for criminals to guess (13% of our participants used a mnemonic, most commonly deriving the PIN from a specific date). Bonneau et al. studied in more detail exactly how bank customers select PINs.

Finally we found that PINs are regularly shared with other people, most commonly with a spouse or partner (32% of our participants). Again this violates bank terms and conditions and so puts customers at risk of being held liable for fraud.

Holding customers liable for not being able to follow unrealistic, vague and contradictory advice is grossly unfair to fraud victims. The Payment Services Directive is being revised, and in our submission to the consultation by the European Banking Authority we ask that banks only be permitted to pass fraud losses on to customers if they use authentication mechanisms which are feasible to use without undue effort, given the context of how people actually use banking facilities in normal life. Alternatively, regulators could adopt the tried and tested US model of strong consumer protection, and allow banks to manage risks through fraud detection. The increased trust from this approach might increase transaction volumes and profit for the industry overall.


“Are Payment Card Contracts Unfair?” by Steven J. Murdoch, Ingolf Becker, Ruba Abu-Salma, Ross Anderson, Nicholas Bohm, Alice Hutchings, M. Angela Sasse, and Gianluca Stringhini will be presented at Financial Cryptography and Data Security, Barbados, 22–26 February 2016.

Forced authorisation chip and PIN scam hitting high-end retailers

Chip and PIN was designed to prevent fraud, but it also created a new opportunity for criminals that is taking retailers by surprise. Known as “forced authorisation”, committing the fraud requires no special equipment and when it works, it works big: in one transaction a jewellers store lost £20,500. This type of fraud is already a problem in the UK, and now that US retailers have made it through the first Black Friday since the Chip and PIN deadline, criminals there will be looking into what new fraud techniques are available.

The fraud works when the retailer has a one-piece Chip and PIN terminal that’s passed between the customer and retailer during the course of the transaction. This type of terminal is common, particularly in smaller shops and restaurants. They’re a cheaper option compared to terminals with a separate PIN pad (at least until a fraud happens).

The way forced authorisation fraud works is that the retailer sets up the terminal for a transaction by inserting the customer’s card and entering the amount, then hands the terminal over to the customer so they can type in the PIN. But the criminal has used a stolen or counterfeit card, and due to the high value of the transaction the terminal performs a “referral” — asking the retailer to call the bank to perform additional checks such as the customer answering a security question. If the security checks pass, the bank will give the retailer an authorisation code to enter into the terminal.

The problem is that when the terminal asks for these security checks, it’s still in the hands of the criminal, and it’s the criminal that follows the steps that the retailer should have. Since there’s no phone conversation with the bank, the criminal doesn’t know the correct authorisation code. But what surprises retailers is that the criminal can type in anything at this stage and the transaction will go through. The criminal might also be able to bypass other security features, for example they could override the checking of the PIN by following the steps the retailer would if the customer has forgotten the PIN.

By the time the terminal is passed back to the retailer, it looks like the transaction was completed successfully. The receipt will differ only very subtly from that of a normal transaction, if at all. The criminal walks off with the goods and it’s only at the end of the day that the authorisation code is checked by the bank. By that time, the criminal is long gone. Because some of the security checks the bank asked for weren’t completed, the retailer doesn’t get the money.

Continue reading Forced authorisation chip and PIN scam hitting high-end retailers