EMV and the Changing Payment Space: Migration

Moving to EMV compliant terminals is not a plug-and-play endeavor. You can’t simply plug them in, turn them on and expect everything to work. Changes are needed to the software for supporting point-of-sale systems (cash registers). You will likely need to provision keys to devices; if you manage keys internally you will also need to make sure everything is safely stored in an HSM. There are often required changes to back-office software to sync up with the POS changes. IT staff typically need to be trained on the new equipment. Merchants who use payment processors or gateways that manage their terminals for them face less disruption, but it’s still a lot of work and rollouts can take months. Much of the merchant pushback we heard was due to the cost, time, and complexity of this conversion. Merchants see basically the old payment system they have today, with one significant advantage: that cards can be validated at swipe. But merchants have not been liable for counterfeit cards, so have had little motivation to embrace this cumbersome change. PINs vs. Signatures Another issue we heard was the lack of requirement for “Chip and PIN”, meaning that in conjunction to the chipped card, users must punch in their PIN after swiping their card. This verifies that the user using the card owns it. But US banks generally do not use PINs, even for chipped cards like the ones I carry. Instead in the US signatures are typically required for purchases over a certain dollar amount, which has proven to be a poor security control. PINs could be required in the future, but the issuers have not published any such plans. Point to Point Encryption The EMV terminal specification does not mandate the use of point-to-point encryption (P2PE). That means that, as before, PAN data is transferred in the clear, along with any other data being passed. For years the security community has been asking merchants to encrypt the data from card swipe terminals to ensure it is not sniffed from the merchant network or elsewhere as the PAN is passed upstream for payment processing. Failure to activate this basic technology, which is built into the terminals, outrages security practitioners and creates a strong impression that merchants are cavalier with sensitive data; recent breaches have not improved this perception. But of course it is a bit more complicated. Many merchants need data from terminals for fraud and risk analytics. Others use the data to seed back-office customer analytics for competitive advantage. Still others do not want to be tied to a specific payment provider, such as by provisioning gateways or provider payment keys. Or the answer may be all of the above, but we do not anticipate general adoption of P2PE any time soon. Why Move? The key question behind this series is: why should merchants move to EMV terminals? During our conversations each firm mentioned a set of goals they’d like to see, and a beef with some other party in the payment ecosystem. The card brands strongly desire any changes that will make it easier for customers to use their credit cards and grease the skids of commerce, and are annoyed at merchants standing in the way of technical progress. The merchants are generally pissed at the fees they pay per transaction, especially for the level of service they receive, and want the whole security and compliance mess to go away because it’s not part of their core business. These two factors are why most merchants wanted a direct Merchant-Customer Exchange (MCX) based system that did away with credit cards and allowed merchant to have direct connections with customer bank accounts. The acquirers were angry that they have been forced to shoulder a lot of the fraud burden, and want to maintain their relationships with consumers rather than abdicating it to merchants. And so on. Security was never a key issue in any of these discussions. And nobody is talking about point-to-point encryption as part of the EMV transition, so it will not really protect the PAN. Additionally, the EMV transition will not help with one of the fastest growing types of fraud: Card Not Present transactions. And remember that PINs are not required – merely recommended, sometimes. For all these reasons it does not appear that security is driving the EMV shift. This section will be a bit of a spoiler for our conclusion, but I think you’ll see from the upcoming posts where this is all heading. There are several important points to stress here. First, EMV terminal adoption is not mandatory. Merchants are not being forced to update. But the days of “nobody wanting EMV” are past us – especially if you take a broad view of what the EMV specifications allow. Citing the lack of EMV cards issued to customers is a red herring. The vast majority of card holders have smart phones today, which can be fully capable “smart cards”, and many customers will happily use them to replace plastic cards. We see it overseas, especially in Africa, where some countries process around 50% of payments via mobile devices. Starbucks has shown definitively that consumers will use mobile phones for payment, and also do other things like order via an app. Customers don’t want better cards – they want better experiences, and the card brands seem to get this. Security will be better, and that is one reason to move. The liability waiver is an added benefit as well. But both are secondary. The payment technology change may look simple, but the real transition underway is from magnetic plastic cards to smartphones, and it’s akin to moving from horses to automobiles. I could say this is all about mobile payments, but that would be gross oversimplification. It is more about what mobile devices – powerful pocket computers – can and will do to improve the entire sales experience. New technology enables complex affinity and pricing plans, facilitates the consumer experience, provides geolocation, and offers an opportunity to bring the underlying system into the modern age (with modern security). If

Read Post

Totally Transparent Research is the embodiment of how we work at Securosis. It’s our core operating philosophy, our research policy, and a specific process. We initially developed it to help maintain objectivity while producing licensed research, but its benefits extend to all aspects of our business.

Going beyond Open Source Research, and a far cry from the traditional syndicated research model, we think it’s the best way to produce independent, objective, quality research.

Here’s how it works:

  • Content is developed ‘live’ on the blog. Primary research is generally released in pieces, as a series of posts, so we can digest and integrate feedback, making the end results much stronger than traditional “ivory tower” research.
  • Comments are enabled for posts. All comments are kept except for spam, personal insults of a clearly inflammatory nature, and completely off-topic content that distracts from the discussion. We welcome comments critical of the work, even if somewhat insulting to the authors. Really.
  • Anyone can comment, and no registration is required. Vendors or consultants with a relevant product or offering must properly identify themselves. While their comments won’t be deleted, the writer/moderator will “call out”, identify, and possibly ridicule vendors who fail to do so.
  • Vendors considering licensing the content are welcome to provide feedback, but it must be posted in the comments - just like everyone else. There is no back channel influence on the research findings or posts.
    Analysts must reply to comments and defend the research position, or agree to modify the content.
  • At the end of the post series, the analyst compiles the posts into a paper, presentation, or other delivery vehicle. Public comments/input factors into the research, where appropriate.
  • If the research is distributed as a paper, significant commenters/contributors are acknowledged in the opening of the report. If they did not post their real names, handles used for comments are listed. Commenters do not retain any rights to the report, but their contributions will be recognized.
  • All primary research will be released under a Creative Commons license. The current license is Non-Commercial, Attribution. The analyst, at their discretion, may add a Derivative Works or Share Alike condition.
  • Securosis primary research does not discuss specific vendors or specific products/offerings, unless used to provide context, contrast or to make a point (which is very very rare).
    Although quotes from published primary research (and published primary research only) may be used in press releases, said quotes may never mention a specific vendor, even if the vendor is mentioned in the source report. Securosis must approve any quote to appear in any vendor marketing collateral.
  • Final primary research will be posted on the blog with open comments.
  • Research will be updated periodically to reflect market realities, based on the discretion of the primary analyst. Updated research will be dated and given a version number.
    For research that cannot be developed using this model, such as complex principles or models that are unsuited for a series of blog posts, the content will be chunked up and posted at or before release of the paper to solicit public feedback, and provide an open venue for comments and criticisms.
  • In rare cases Securosis may write papers outside of the primary research agenda, but only if the end result can be non-biased and valuable to the user community to supplement industry-wide efforts or advances. A “Radically Transparent Research” process will be followed in developing these papers, where absolutely all materials are public at all stages of development, including communications (email, call notes).
    Only the free primary research released on our site can be licensed. We will not accept licensing fees on research we charge users to access.
  • All licensed research will be clearly labeled with the licensees. No licensed research will be released without indicating the sources of licensing fees. Again, there will be no back channel influence. We’re open and transparent about our revenue sources.

In essence, we develop all of our research out in the open, and not only seek public comments, but keep those comments indefinitely as a record of the research creation process. If you believe we are biased or not doing our homework, you can call us out on it and it will be there in the record. Our philosophy involves cracking open the research process, and using our readers to eliminate bias and enhance the quality of the work.

On the back end, here’s how we handle this approach with licensees:

  • Licensees may propose paper topics. The topic may be accepted if it is consistent with the Securosis research agenda and goals, but only if it can be covered without bias and will be valuable to the end user community.
  • Analysts produce research according to their own research agendas, and may offer licensing under the same objectivity requirements.
  • The potential licensee will be provided an outline of our research positions and the potential research product so they can determine if it is likely to meet their objectives.
  • Once the licensee agrees, development of the primary research content begins, following the Totally Transparent Research process as outlined above. At this point, there is no money exchanged.
  • Upon completion of the paper, the licensee will receive a release candidate to determine whether the final result still meets their needs.
  • If the content does not meet their needs, the licensee is not required to pay, and the research will be released without licensing or with alternate licensees.
  • Licensees may host and reuse the content for the length of the license (typically one year). This includes placing the content behind a registration process, posting on white paper networks, or translation into other languages. The research will always be hosted at Securosis for free without registration.

Here is the language we currently place in our research project agreements:

Content will be created independently of LICENSEE with no obligations for payment. Once content is complete, LICENSEE will have a 3 day review period to determine if the content meets corporate objectives. If the content is unsuitable, LICENSEE will not be obligated for any payment and Securosis is free to distribute the whitepaper without branding or with alternate licensees, and will not complete any associated webcasts for the declining LICENSEE. Content licensing, webcasts and payment are contingent on the content being acceptable to LICENSEE. This maintains objectivity while limiting the risk to LICENSEE. Securosis maintains all rights to the content and to include Securosis branding in addition to any licensee branding.

Even this process itself is open to criticism. If you have questions or comments, you can email us or comment on the blog.