Take On Payments, a blog sponsored by the Retail Payments Risk Forum of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, is intended to foster dialogue on emerging risks in retail payment systems and enhance collaborative efforts to improve risk detection and mitigation. We encourage your active participation in Take on Payments and look forward to collaborating with you.
Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.
Please submit appropriate comments. Inappropriate comments include content that is abusive, harassing, or threatening; obscene, vulgar, or profane; an attack of a personal nature; or overtly political.
In addition, no off-topic remarks or spam is permitted.
Federal Reserve Web Sites
Other Bank Regulatory Sites
December 16, 2019
ATM Cash-Out Attacks Return
I first wrote about ATM cash-outs back in 2013 when these attacks were escalating. But the frequency of the attacks quickly declined when card issuers and their processors and networks hardened their defenses. So why am I writing about it again? There were some major attacks in mid-2018. A bank in India, for example, lost approximately US$13 million from more than 12,000 fraudulent transactions at ATMs located in Canada, India, and Hong Kong. The United States has seen isolated attacks in recent years, but law enforcement is concerned that these attacks will grow because perpetrators stand to obtain a large amount of money. It's critical that financial institutions and other transaction processors remain vigilant, so I'd like to bring some attention back to this especially costly crime.
These attacks require careful planning and a synchronized effort, but the payoff for the criminals can make it worth all the work. First, the criminal gains remote access to an issuer's card management system and transaction controls. Next, the criminal uses a money mule network to open new accounts with a chip card or distributes debit or prepaid cards with cloned magnetic stripes and compromised PINs to the money mules spread across the globe. In a carefully synchronized operation, the money mules begin making withdrawals at numerous ATMs. With access to the card management system, the criminal keeps resetting balances and transaction counters to get around amount and transaction limits, and withdrawals continue to be authorized. The mules continue to make withdrawals until the cash supply in the ATM is exhausted. This is how such attacks can result in a loss to issuers in the millions of dollars worldwide in just a couple of hours. Most networks have now implemented transaction monitoring capabilities that can detect abnormal transaction traffic both at the account and the financial institution levels. If the networks identify abnormalities, they contact the issuer or processor to examine the transactions more closely. Some networks, if they can't contact the financial institution or processor, are authorized to block the activity right away to prevent additional transactions until the situation can be evaluated. Some criminals have responded by increasing the number of targeted accounts so the activity is spread across more accounts and the detection thresholds are not crossed as quickly.
Here are some steps that issuers and processors can take to defend against cash-out attacks:
- Follow standard cybersecurity protocols related to password strength and management of system access controls to prevent compromise of system access credentials.
- Evaluate adding further layers of authentication/approval for remote changes to card management data fields such as account balances and transaction counters.
- Discuss with processors and networks any additional monitoring capabilities they may have to mitigate such attacks.
As the ATM celebrates its golden anniversary, cash-out attacks remind us of the constant efforts by criminals to defraud financial institutions and other stakeholders in the payments industry. Cash-out attacks are not new, but they can still result in huge losses, so the industry needs to remain vigilant and continue to look for ways to defeat them.
April 1, 2019
Contactless Cards: The Future King of Payments?
Just over two years ago, my colleague Doug King penned a post lamenting the lack of dual interface, or "contactless," chip payment cards in the United States. In addition to having the familiar embedded chip, a dual interface card contains a hidden antenna that allows the holder to tap the card on or wave it near the POS terminal. This is the same technology—near field communications (NFC)—that various pay wallets inside mobile devices use.
Doug is now doing his daily fitness runs with a bigger smile on his face as the indicators appear more and more promising that 2019 will be the year of the contactless card. Large issuers have been announcing plans to distribute dual interface cards either in mass reissues or as a cardholder's current card expires. Earlier this year, some of the global brand networks launched advertising campaigns to make customers aware of the convenience that contactless cards offer.
So why have U.S. issuers not moved on this idea before now? I think there have been several reasons. First, for the last several years, financial institutions have focused a lot of their resources on chip card migration. Contactless cards will create an additional expense for issuers and many of them wanted to let the market mature as it has done in a number of other countries. They were also concerned about the failure of contactless card programs that some of the large FIs introduced in the early 2000s—most merchants lacked terminals capable of handling the technology.
The EMV chip migration solved much of the merchant terminal acceptance problem as the vast majority of POS terminals upgraded to support EMV chips can also support contactless cards. (While a terminal may have the ability to support the technology, the merchant has to enable that support.) Visa claims that as of mid-2018, half of POS transactions in the United States were occurring at terminals that were contactless-enabled. Another factor favoring contactless transactions is the plan by major U.S. mass transit agencies to begin accepting contactless payment cards. According to the American Public Transportation Association's 2017 Ridership Report, there were 41 transit agencies in the United States with annual passenger trip volumes of over 20 million trips.
Given that consumer payments is largely a total sum environment, these developments have led me to ask myself and others what effect contactless cards will have on consumers' use of other payment forms—in particular, mobile payments. As my colleagues and I have written numerous times in this blog, mobile payments continue to struggle to obtain consumer adoption, despite earlier predictions that they would catch on quickly. There are some who believe that the convenience of ubiquity and fast transaction speed will favor the dual purpose card. Others think that the increased merchant acceptance of contactless will help push the mobile phone into becoming the primary payment form.
My personal perspective is that contactless cards will hinder the growth of in-person mobile payments. There are those who claim to leave their wallet at home and never their phone, and they will continue to be strong users of mobile payments. But the reality is that mobile payments are not accepted at all merchant locations, whereas payment cards are practically ubiquitous. While I am a frequent user of mobile payments, simply waving or tapping a card appeals to me. It's much more convenient than having to open the pay application on my phone, sign on, and then authorize the transaction.
Do you believe the adoption of contactless cards by consumers and merchants will be as successful as it was for EMV chip cards? And do you think that contactless cards will help or hinder the growth of mobile payments? Let us hear from you.
By David Lott, a payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed
July 23, 2018
Learning about Card-Not-Present Fraud Mitigation
Over the last year, I have had the pleasure of working with Fed colleagues and other payments industry experts on one of the Accredited Standards Committee's X9A Financial Industry Standards workgroups in writing a technical report on U.S. card-not-present (CNP) fraud mitigation. You can download the final report (at no cost) from the ANSI (American National Standards Institute) web store.
As this blog and other industry publications have been forecasting for years, the migration to payment cards containing EMV chips may already be resulting in a reduction of counterfeit card fraud and an increase in CNP fraud and other fraudulent activity. This has been the trend in other countries that have gone through the chip card migration, and there was no reason to believe that it would be any different in the United States. The purpose of the technical report was to identify the major types of CNP fraud and present guidelines for mitigating these fraud attacks to the various payments industry stakeholders.
After an initial section identifying the primary stakeholders that CNP fraud affects, the technical report reviews five major CNP transaction scenarios, complete with transaction flow diagrams. The report continues with a detailed section of terms, definitions, and initialisms and acronyms.
The best defense against CNP fraud from an industry standpoint is the protection of data from being breached in the first place. Section 5 of the report reviews the role that data security takes in CNP fraud mitigation. It contains references to other documents providing detailed data protection recommendations.
Criminals will gather personal and payment data in various attacks against those who don't use strong data protection practices, so the next sections deal with the heart of CNP fraud mitigation.
- Section 6 identifies the major types of CNP fraud attacks, both attacks that steal data and those that use that data to conduct fraudulent activities.
- Section 7 reviews mitigation tools and approaches to take against such attacks. The section is subdivided into perspectives of various stakeholders, including merchants, merchant acquirers and gateways, issuers and issuer processors, and, finally, payment card networks.
- Section 8 discusses how a stakeholder should identify key fraud performance metrics and then analyze, report, and track those metrics. While stakeholders will have different elements of metrics, they must each go to a sufficient level so the results will provide key insights and predictive indicators.
The report concludes with several annex sections (appendices) covering a variety of subjects related to CNP fraud. Suggestions for the improvement or revision of the technical report are welcome. Please send them to the X9 Committee Secretariat, Accredited Standards Committee X9 Inc., Financial Industry Standards, 275 West Street, Suite 107, Annapolis, MD 21401. I hope you will distribute this document among those in your institution involved with CNP fraud prevention, detection, and response to use as an educational or reference document. I think it will be quite useful.
By David Lott, a payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed
May 21, 2018
Heading toward A New Era of POS Portability?
At recent conferences I've attended, exhibitors in the point-of-sale (POS) terminal and acquiring business were all showing off their portable devices. With one of these, a restaurant server could take a payment at the table or a retail employee could conduct a transaction in a store aisle. The exhibitors said that these devices allow for a more high-touch, personalized customer experience than traditional counter-top POS devices. In fact, while walking the exhibit floor, I noted that countertop POS devices were extremely hard to find.
The theme of POS portability was also evident in the session rooms. Multiple panel discussions and keynote speeches focused on the Payment Card Industry's (PCI) PIN-on-glass security standard, which would give already-in-the-marketplace devices for using mobile phones and tablets as card readers the ability to use PIN-based authentication. In essence, the standard allows customers to enter their PINs on merchants' commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) devices—such as bring-your-own-device tablets or phones—rather than on PCI-certified devices that a merchant owns or leases through its acquiring relationship. PIN on glass has been widely implemented in Australia and, based on what I've heard at these conferences, it is probably one to three years from making any headway here in the United States.
I first wrote about portable POS devices in the restaurant industry nearly six years ago. Since then, I can count on my hands the number of times I've swiped or dipped my card at a portable POS terminal (and several of these interactions occurred in Mexico). Most experiences were positive. On numerous occasions, I've used my card with a COTS device, also with mostly positive experiences. I have honestly never envisioned using or yearned to use a PIN for these transactions.
Little has changed in the way of mobile POS adoption since I wrote that post. So, do I believe we are moving towards a new era of POS mobility? Yes, but very slowly. With the proliferation of independent software providers and their mobile-based solutions for payment processing, I think the industry is now better positioned than it was six years ago for a change. However, I learned from speaking with others in the industry that the conversion process remains time consuming and costly. As far as PIN on glass goes, will the consumer be an obstacle to adoption? I'm not convinced that consumers will be comfortable entering their PIN on someone else's mobile device.
What is your take on the future of POS portability?
By Douglas A. King, payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed
Take On Payments Search
- account takeovers
- ATM fraud
- bank supervision
- banking regulations
- banks and banking
- card networks
- check fraud
- consumer fraud
- consumer protection
- credit cards
- crossborder wires
- data security
- debit cards
- emerging payments
- financial services
- financial technology
- identity theft
- law enforcement
- mobile banking
- mobile money transfer
- mobile network operator MNO
- mobile payments
- money laundering
- money services business MSB
- online banking fraud
- online retail
- payments fraud
- payments innovation
- payments risk
- payments study
- payments systems
- Payment Services Directive
- phone fraud
- remotely created checks
- risk management
- Section 1073
- skills gap
- social networks
- thirdparty service provider
- trusted service manager
- Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices UDAP
- wire transfer fraud
- workforce development
- workplace fraud