Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Would You Trust RFID-Enabled ATM Cards?

Posted by Cliff on Wed Dec 06, 2006 06:45 AM
from the bringing-new-meaning-to-'pick-pocketing' dept.
race_k2 asks: "As a regular Slashdot reader I've followed the development and implementation of RFID devices in many ubiquitous areas such as clothing, passports and even people. Given that our environment is becoming increasingly tagged, often without our knowledge or consent, and can be monitored or hacked by anyone with the proper hardware, skills and motivation, I viewed the recent arrival of two new ATM cards containing RFID chips with skepticism. While this feature may bring the increased convenience of speedy checkouts, it is not something I am completely comfortable using and decided that the safety of my personal data was more important than the ability to buy things quickly. The vulnerable nature of RFID security coupled with recent, though unrelated, reports of a Possible Security Flaw In ATMs make me seriously question whether the marriage of wireless data transfer with personal finance is a wise application of technology." So race's question basically boils down to: How safe and secure are the RFID chips that are being embedded in debit and credit cards? To add another issue on to the fire: Would you trust RFID technology on your cards?


race_k2 continues: "My concerns were well received by representatives at Chase and after checking with a supervisor the rep said that a new chip-less card was on its way. On the other hand, the people at HSBC could not fathom why I would not want to have this fantastic new technology in my pocket everywhere I go. The customer service agent said that cards without RFID tags were simply unavailable and I could opt to not use the feature at checkout. The concept of unauthorized reading of the ATM card by a mobile RFID scanner fell on deaf ears and questions regarding the level of security on the RFID ATM card chips were not answered to the technical level that I was hoping for. The stated 'Don't worry, we use encryption' did little to allay my concerns.

Is the unauthorized access of sensitive personal data on an ATM card chip by a home-brew RFID scanner a real possibility? Will we have to worry about the spread of RFID viruses to our back pockets and purses? Finally, are there any passive methods to permanently inactivate an RFID chip without having to resort to its removal or destruction?"

Related Stories

[+] Mobile: Virus Jumps to RFID 109 comments
MrShaggy writes "According to a BBC article, researchers have been able to make the jump between RFID tags and viruses. They found that the mere act of scanning a mere 127 bytes could cause an attack vector that would corrupt databases. From the article;'"This is intended as a wake-up call," said Andrew Tanenbaum, one of the researchers in the computer science department at Amsterdam's Free University that did the work revealing the weaknesses on smart tags. "We ask the RFID industry to design systems that are secure," he said.'"
[+] IT: Hackers Clone E-Passport 185 comments
mrops writes "I guess the skeptical Slashdot community always knew that e-passports are a big waste of time and money; now German security consultants have been able to successfully clone e-passports, even onto building access cards. FTA: 'The whole passport design is totally brain damaged,' Grunwald says. 'From my point of view all of these RFID passports are a huge waste of money. They're not increasing security at all.'"
[+] IT: RFID Passport Security "Poorly Conceived" 33 comments
tonk writes, "European expert researchers on identity and identity management summarize their findings from an analysis of passports with RFID and biometrics — Machine Readable Travel Documents or MRTDs — and recommend corrective measures that 'need to be adopted by stakeholders in governments and industry to ameliorate outstanding issues... By failing to implement an appropriate security architecture, European governments have effectively forced citizens to adopt new international MTRDs which dramatically decrease their security and privacy and increases risk of identity theft. Simply put, the current implementation of the European passport utilizes technologies and standards that are poorly conceived for its purpose.' The European experts therefore come to similar conclusions as the Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee of the US Department of Homeland Security in a draft report, which seems to be delayed."
[+] IT: Possible Serious Security Flaw In ATMs 167 comments
sfjoe writes "According to a story at MSNBC.com, researchers at Algorithmic Research (ARX) have shown it may be possible for 'someone with access to the ATM network to attack the special computers that transmit bank account numbers and PIN codes, called hardware security modules'. Using these methods, an attacker could trick the security modules into exposing a PIN. It has long been considered impossible to access PINs as they are traveling through the ATM network without the encryption key used by the card-issuing bank. If PINs can be compromised, the almost 8 billion transactions per year they handle may be in danger. Not to mention all the transaction at retail stores."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Would You Trust RFID-Enabled ATM Cards? 50 Comments More | Login /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login
Keybindings Beta
Q W E
A S D
Loading ... Please wait.
  • Disable the RFID (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Ice Wewe (936718) on Wednesday December 06 2006, @06:52AM (#17127008)
    Just wrap the card in Tin foil. You can keep the magnetic strip (assuming it still has one) uncovered so that you can still check-out the old way. That's the only non-destructive way I'm aware of for disabling an RFID chip.
    • Nuke it (Score:5, Insightful)

      by brunes69 (86786) <.gro.daetsriek. .ta. .todhsals.> on Wednesday December 06 2006, @07:08AM (#17127132) Homepage
      An RFID chip will fry in seconds in a microwave. It takes much longer than that to affect the plastic. And the magnetic stripe will not be affected at all, until the plastic starts to melt.

      Putting the card in the microwave for 3-5 seconds should do the trick. The worst that can happen is you ruin your bank card, so just go to the bank and get another. They don't cost anything.

      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Disable the RFID (Score:5, Interesting)

      by value_added (719364) on Wednesday December 06 2006, @07:33AM (#17127300)
      Just wrap the card in Tin foil.

      Funny ha ha, yes, but has anyone noticed that many science-fiction movies of recent years have included as a plot device one of the characters embedded with some sort of implant (in the brain, under the skin, etc.) or added to some common item (clothing, watch, pen, etc.) that was carried around? I recently watched Jonathan Demme's The Manchurian Candidate [imdb.com] on cable and it occurred to me that such a scenario doesn't have to involve a conspiracy of the highest order to be successful or involve a high-concept goal; unwitting or passive acceptance would work just fine, and the goal can be mundane but similarly insidious.

      My guess is that monitoring technologies in various forms will increasingly become part of our daily lives. RFID chips, for example, seem destined to be everywhere [wikipedia.org], and while it's up to each of us to be as vigilant as the article's poster, the future will play out as a constant game of catch-up and workarounds for the select few in the know. Computers are part of our daily lives but knowledge of them is superficial at best. Should we expect the average person to have an inkling of how other technologies that come in smaller packages work?

      Have you scanned yourself, lately?
      [ Parent ]
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        "constant game of catch-up and workarounds for the select few in the know"

        This has fascinating potential for spoofing.
        If, in the future, we can expect to be tracked as a "package" of our worn and carried emitters, we can have a pre-built alternate package
    • Re:Disable the RFID (Score:5, Informative)

      by michaelaiello (841620) on Wednesday December 06 2006, @09:11AM (#17128414) Homepage
      Even better, you can get the real deal. RFID Blocking Wallets and passport cases http://www.difrwear.com/ [difrwear.com].
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Disable the RFID (Score:4, Informative)

      by StressedEd (308123) <ej...grace@@@imperial...ac...uk> on Wednesday December 06 2006, @09:34AM (#17128798) Homepage
      More stylish than tin foil, a Muji Aluminium card holder [mujionline.co.uk]. I use one as my wallet, storing everything but coins. It has the added benefit that you absolutely cannot squeeze that one last thing in to your wallet - so it doesn't end up looking like a sphere.

      Of course it means I have to take my Oyster card [tfl.gov.uk] out in order to use it, rather than wave the wallet at the reader - but that's the point!

      [ Parent ]
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      how about a read button?

      If you are pressing the button, the circuit closes and your card will enable a reader.

      If you are not pressing the button, the circuit is open, and disables the RFID on the chip?

      I mean, even my MacBook has a power button.
  • Not suprised about HSBC (Score:5, Interesting)

    by arivanov (12034) on Wednesday December 06 2006, @06:55AM (#17127026) Homepage
    Not surprised about HSBC. In fact surprising about some sense from Chase.

    HSBC recently forced me to subscribe to the Verified by Visa marketing pseudosecurity garbageshiteware gimmick (the only one of cards I have that actually forced me to do so). During the subscription process I found out that the idiotic subscription interface does not maintain state with most non-mainstream browsers. In fact if you use Konqueror (or play around with your browser a bit) you can cruise through it with flying colours without it asking for verification information, passwords and the like. I was seriously tempted to go all the way and register a few cards for entertainment purposes, but end of the day decided not to.

    So I tried to get the wankers which run the "HSBC Goodness Gracious Me" call center to give me a security contact and a reference to report the bugs. Guess what - they neither understood the concept of "Your credit card interface has a major security flaw", not could provide a contact. Still better then Amex though. Under similar circumstances 4 years ago when I tried to contact the Amex security dept with a similar bug they subscribed me to a mandatory 60 days of phone marketing and email marketing for good measure.

    Frankly - they have no clue. Banking security at its best. Understanding is not required, BS and ISO numbers are.
    • Re:Not suprised about HSBC (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Bazman (4849) on Wednesday December 06 2006, @07:14AM (#17127162) Journal
      Talk to a financial journalist. Not only will they have contacts at the bank, but the bank will fear them more than they fear you...

      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Not suprised about HSBC (Score:5, Funny)

      by canesfan (607211) on Wednesday December 06 2006, @08:01AM (#17127538)
      "pseudosecurity garbageshiteware"

      Hence forth all software found wanting shall be refered to as "pseudosecurity garbageshiteware". Man law???

      [ Parent ]
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 06 2006, @08:20AM (#17127748)
      been made your problem by way of the 'identyty theft' myth. There's no such thing as identity theft. When someone gives your money or loas their money to the wrong person, thinking it's you, THEY ARE AT FAULT.

      Effing brainwashed sheep have bought into the identity theft ruse hook, line, sinker, and hummer to the fisherman.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Not suprised about HSBC (Score:5, Interesting)

      by EatHam (597465) on Wednesday December 06 2006, @09:27AM (#17128670)
      So I tried to get the wankers which run the "HSBC Goodness Gracious Me" call center to give me a security contact and a reference to report the bugs. Guess what - they neither understood the concept of "Your credit card interface has a major security flaw", not could provide a contact.
      Careful doing that. I've heard of *ahem* someone *ahem* doing the same thing with a bank, and having to spend several weeks giving depositions to the police, talking to the fbi, and basically being treated like a criminal. Moral of the story, switch your account and shut up about it, or it could easily become a giant hassle for you.
      [ Parent ]
  • No can do, I wouldn't trust RFID for anything that requires a password or requires any sort of security.

    I'd use it for inventory management etc. like was the big hype when it first came out but I'd keep it out of ATM cards, passports... PEOPLE.

  • Absolutely not (Score:5, Informative)

    by techmuse (160085) on Wednesday December 06 2006, @07:03AM (#17127080)
    As a security expert who has done studies on RFID security, I would have to say absolutely not. I would switch banks.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Would You Trust RFID-Enabled ATM Cards?

      Sure why the heck not? We've got rfid passports and government IDs, rfid in our cars (toll passes), and rfid boarding passes just on the horizon. I mean, we've even got rfid in our TIRES making is possible to TRAC
    • Re:Absolutely not (Score:5, Insightful)

      by nasor (690345) on Wednesday December 06 2006, @11:23AM (#17130962)
      If your bank really wants to make it easy for people to rip them off, it's not really your problem is it? I've never understood why people care so much about credit card security. If someone steals your credit card number and uses it to buy something, you just report the charge as fraudulent. No credit card company charges customers from fraudulent charges made on there account.

      Using a credit card seems much safer than cash. If someone steals my cash, I'm out of luck. If someone steals my credit card or uses my account number without my authorization, I don't lose anything except the 10 minutes or so that I have to spend on the phone with the credit card company.
      [ Parent ]
  • Not only no (Score:3)

    by bhima (46039) <Bhima.Pandava @ g mail.com> on Wednesday December 06 2006, @07:05AM (#17127098)
    Not only no but hell no.
  • My answer would depend entirely on who pays if the remotely accessible card data is used to make transactions without my authorisation:

    If I pay, then it is in my interests to worry about the security of the card, and I'll want a card that's unlikely to

    • by bhima (46039) <Bhima.Pandava @ g mail.com> on Wednesday December 06 2006, @07:28AM (#17127258)
      Do you honestly think that banks don't pass every single expense they incur along to the customer?

      No matter who pays at first, in the end we all pay more because of shitty security.
      [ Parent ]
      • Re: (Score:2)

        No, but I have the option to switch banks, which keeps the charges under control; if HSBC has to charge me more/pay me less interest than Chase to make the same profit (because HSBC's RFID cards are insecure, and Chase doesn't issue RFID cards), then I'll
        • I thought moving more than X dollars between accounts automagically flagged you as a terrorist? Pretty sweet deal for the bank:

          Me: I've had enough of this shit, I quit
          Bank: If you do, we'll have the government sieze all your money
          Me: Hey, let's negot
    • Re: (Score:2)

      The problem is that, even if it's nominally the bank's responsibility, it will still hurt you. You still have to check on the bank to see if they're not letting any unauthorized transactions slip, you will still be the victim if someone uses your account d
  • New fashion accessory (Score:2, Interesting)

    Your grandfather's old silver cigarette case has just acquired a new lease of life as a Faraday cage.


    What use is an RFID to a bank?

    --

    E

  • um cost? (Score:4, Funny)

    by tomstdenis (446163) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `sinedtsmot'> on Wednesday December 06 2006, @07:29AM (#17127262) Homepage
    Instead of spending that money on putting RFID in, why not just release, oh, I dunno, SMART CARDS!!!

    Oh, no, we're north american, we have to be different *cough* cdma *cough*, no way we can conform with the rest of the fucking world *cough* soccer *cough*...

    Besides, RFID is not meant for privacy or security. It's meant to track inventory. The sooner these "experts" realize that the better. The sooner they realize that RFID readers are common place the even better.
    • Re: (Score:2)

      American Express released the smart card American Express Blue many years ago. I still have the free smart card reader they gave out with it. It was pretty worthless and not widely adopted. They probably still have chips in them, but no-one cares. I now ha
      • I'd say that no, it isn't ready yet for handling security-sensitive tasks like credit card or debit card transactions. It's happening anyways, but I don't think it's mature enough to trust our bank accounts to them.

        Just for a tiny bit of reassurance, RF

  • My answer is no, as well. [theregister.com]


    Despite assurances by the issuing companies that data contained on RFID-based credit cards would be encrypted, the researchers found that the majority of cards they tested did not use encryption or other data protection technology.
  • RFID Detection (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Chaos1 (466833) on Wednesday December 06 2006, @07:51AM (#17127424) Homepage
    Does anyone know if there are RFID Detection scanners available? I know there are remote readers, but I was thinking more along the lines of a scanner which simply lights up an LED, beeps or something along those lines when it comes in close proximity to RFID. It seems with all the hidden tagging of clothes, shopping carts, etc. that this might be something handy to have.
  • Check the incentives (Score:5, Informative)

    by inviolet (797804) <pineminder&yahoo,com> on Wednesday December 06 2006, @07:51AM (#17127432) Journal

    With an RFID-enabled credit card, the credit card company is the first line of defense against fraudulent usage. The customer is only secondarily responsible, and in any event does not lose any cash or interest. So, you can be certain that the security system and the implementation will be sound.

    With an RFID-enabled ATM card, all of that is reversed. A fraud will cause the customer to lose his or her cash and interest... and the customer must then fight with the bank to get them back. The bank has only secondarily responsibility, and therefore only secondary incentive, to get the plan right and to maintain the implementation. It's like a config.rc file with the wrong default value: loss-paid-by = customer.

    It's a given that few people in any organization (banks or otherwise) actually understand security, encryption, or the very pertinent issue of "identification versus authentication". But even if Chase or whoever has done their research, the incentives for protecting customers from atm fraud are inherently perverse.

  • by ClayJar (126217) on Wednesday December 06 2006, @08:06AM (#17127590) Homepage
    For several years now, I've been carrying my personal card collection (credit, discount, ID, etc) in an Altoids tin. It's the perfect size for such cards, and it protects them from me. Also, it has the added benefit of being quite the faraday cage. Unlike foil, which can easily tear, an Altoids tin can take *quite* the beating without any significant damage.

    At work, we have RFID security badges. Mine is, obviously, in my Altoids tin. I can hold the tin against the sensor as long as I want; it won't scan. I pop it open (which is really easy to do one-handed once you get used to it), and it'll read from several inches away.

    They also have several designer colors: red peppermint, aqua wintergreen, tan ginger, and my personal favorite -- black liquorice. :)
  • Destroy the tag... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Ghostalker474 (1022885) <Ghostalker@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday December 06 2006, @08:32AM (#17127884)
    I've been researching this for one of my masters classes (I know, I'm a student, but hear me out) and I came across 2 ways of non-destructively stopping the tag. The first is simply blocking the tag with another tag, so that when the RFID reader goes to energize the tag, it gets a garbled response that even error-correcting software can't figure out. The second is to broadcast a kill-code to the tag. The kill code closes the circuit to a specified part of the chip, effectively overwriting the memory. This is the equivalent of removing the CMOS password on a motherboard, close the circuit, and when energized.... game over. The best thing to do would (yes) throw it in the microwave for 3-5 seconds [so as not to melt the plastic or the magnetic strip] and then go on using it with the RFID feature disabled. Personally, after all the research I've done on the security of RFID... I doubt the encryption is strong enough to block a dedicated reader. Hell, remember when they said WEP on 802.11b was unbreakable? I'll stick with my small-hometown bank, since they likely won't upgrade for some time.
  • Re: Check the incentive (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Erick Lionheart (745320) on Wednesday December 06 2006, @09:33AM (#17128770) Homepage
    Uh... no? If the credit card companies were the ones paying for the fraud done with credit cards, there would BE next to 0 fraud.

    As it is, they make the -merchant- pay for it! And not only do they make us cover the price of the fraudulent transaction, but they ALSO tag an extra $25 -per fraud transaction- !! Heck, at this rate they might actually be MAKING money from fraud!!

    If one customer buys 3 times with same fraudulent cc over a few days (say, for $5 items!), we pay $75 in -addition- to the cc company taking back the $15!!!!!

    With the hundreds of Billions they process every day, do you really think there would be so much fraud if the cc companies were the ones really paying for it?? :/
    • Re:Yes but..... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by flyboy974 (624054) on Wednesday December 06 2006, @07:03AM (#17127082)
      The reality is that by forcing a "swipe" of a card through a reader, this enforces the act of choosing to provide the information. With RFID, you can read it from across the room given a good transmitter and a sensitive receiver. Why should we need to add a new layer when the old physical layer works just fine. The new RFID does NOT save time. You can't just wave your wallet or purse over the weak reader (which is far weaker than a hacker would be using) if you had multiple cards. How would it tell it apart. You still end up having to take the card out. The difference is Mag Stripe (physical contact.. almost), or RFID, Radio Broadcast. I'll take the Mag Stripe or the Smart Card chip (which required physical contact).
      [ Parent ]
      • Re: (Score:2)

        Well, they could install "on/off" switch right on the card. You then can turn on the card right before checkout, and card would turn itself off after 5 seconds (so you have just enough time to go through checkout scanner thing)
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          These are non-powered RFID tags. There is no "on/off" for them. If you wanted powered RFID, you'd have to include a battery, making the new card larger and bulkier than the old cards.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            Yes, they are powered. They are powered by RF.

            If you put a power switch on them, they wouldn't send back a signal even if you were getting RF energy.

            That would pretty much end the ability for someone to sniff out your RFID tags in your credit cards and pa
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          I don't know if this is the case. Everyone seems to assume you can "intercept" the RFID information from many meters away. I guess I'm not sure which technology is used in credit cards, but if it's anything like ISO 14443 standard or even ISO 15693, the ma
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            The two examples you gave are not quite valid in this case. The Defcon example looks like it used a Matrics [symbol.com] (now Symbol technologies) reader which operates in the UHF range. I perfectly agree that these can operate 69 ft and under better conditions would b
    • Re:Yes but..... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tttonyyy (726776) on Wednesday December 06 2006, @07:07AM (#17127122) Homepage Journal

      I would, but everyone seems to forget that you can have RFID and a PIN or other second form of ID. I would have no problem as long as there was an OPTION for a second method of authentication to be applied.

      Sure, it would cut down on convenience, but only a little, and would more than make up for it in added safety.

      -Charlie
      Tell you what, why not post your card details here (including the three digits on the reverse), but NOT THE PIN, and we'll see how many of us can buy something with it.

      Willing to stand by your statement? Are you sure you still don't have a problem with other people having access to your card data?
      [ Parent ]
        • Re: (Score:2)

          Maybe you are still not being clear, because his point is valid. Maybe you meant 'cannot read ANY of the information remotely.' Your statement says that you don't mind if it can be read remotely, as long as some of the information is still not remote-rea
        • Re: (Score:2)

          No... he's saying that a pin in and of itself will not protect the rest of the info on your card. If every gas station, used tire store and cigarette depot can get access to the card scanners it is likely that "the bad guys" can get access to the card sca
        • "A pin is part of the necessary info to make a transaction.


          Not really, no. For Debit cards, yes. But you can just use them as a "Credit" card, and all you have to do is sign your name. You can also make online purchases without a pin.
            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              The only credit card parent company that requires a CID for online purchases is American Express. Visa, MasterCard, and Discover do not enforce this policy.

              Source: I work in e-Commerce for a catalog company.
    • The same benefit any big company finds with technology

      Step 1: Higher up finds he's got all this money, but it's tied up in the company and he wants to sneak it out into my own pocket.

      Step 2: Contract out with a friend for a zany new technological upg
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      The problem with RFID encoded is they can be viewed by anyone that has the right equipment. I work for a company that uses RFID encoded labels because of there ease of reading the data off the label. Since you don't have to be within close proximity of the
    • Re: (Score:2)

      ``Until we have the stats there is no use of debating ether..''

      Not true. I don't want to use a system I know to be insecure, no matter if it has been exploited many times or never at all.