Risk

Flaws in Mobile Point of Sale Readers Displayed at Black Hat

While security is high overall for mPOS tools from companies like Square, PayPal, and iZettle, some devices have vulnerabilities that attackers could exploit to gather data and cash.

Mobile point of sale (MPOS) systems have changed the way business is done for small vendors around the world. These small devices from companies like Square, PayPal, and iZettle allow the smallest businesses to accept credit and debit cards from customers without having to go through the expense and complication of establishing a merchant account with a bank. With millions of these little devices in the market, though, it's reasonable to ask just how secure transactions can be when they come through a device that costs less (in some cases, far less) than $50.

Leigh-Anne Galloway and Tim Yunusov - Positive Technologies' security researcher and senior banking security expert, respectively - sought to answer that question in research presented at Black Hat USA and DEF CON. Galloway and Yunosov chose four providers - Square, iZettle, PayPal, and SumUp - and seven separate readers for their research. "We now have quite a few different vendors who are operating in the marketplace. And we've also noticed from a personal experience that we're starting to see these terminals in many different small businesses," Galloway said in a pre-Black Hat USA interview. "We really wanted to see what the significant differences are between different vendors and different regions."

There is one key difference between the US and Europe when it comes to reducing fraud: in Europe, EMV chip-enabled cards (created to protect against counterfeiting and card-present fraud) are accepted by roughly 95% of all the MPOS devices in service, while in the US, they're accepted by roughly 13% of MPOS devices, according to data cited by Galloway and Yunusov. It's not that EMV cards aren't present in the US; 96% of credit cards in US circulation support EMV, but less than half of all transactions use the chip, say Yunosov and Galloway.

In testing the devices, the researchers sought to send arbitrary commands to the MPOS device, tamper with the amount of the transaction, and perform remote code execution on the device.

The type of attack changes depending on the aim of the theoretical criminal. Sending arbitrary commands can be part of a social-engineering attack in which the customer is asked to re-try a transaction using a less secure method. Transaction amount tampering amounts to a man-in-the-middle attack in which a $1 transaction at the reader becomes a $50 transaction at the financial institution. And remote code execution can give the attacker access to the memory of the device which then becomes a mobile skimmer for the purpose of stealing credit card account information from customers.

It's important, Galloway and Yunusov said, to remember that the MPOS devices are part of an overall financial ecosystem, and that different companies protect devices and transactions in different ways. "We did find some really good examples of anti-fraud protection," Galloway said in the interview. "Some vendors were carrying out very sophisticated anti-fraud detection using forms of correlation to identify bad devices and readers," she explained. The researchers also found a wide variety of anti-fraud activities taking place during the device and merchant enrollment process, with some vetting potential merchants much more heavily than others.

In the test results, Galloway and Yunusov found that Square and PayPal had the most active anti-fraud and security checks during the transaction process, with iZettle monitoring less actively. They also found that the Miura devices used in some instances by Square and PayPal were susceptible to arbitrary commands and amount tampering via remote code execution.

In general, though, "We were impressed by the level of physical security mechanisms in place generally," Galloway said. "Most of the readers that we looked at have good internal protection from tampering. It was very good for a product that retails at that price and we were surprised by that, actually."

The researchers did have suggestions for merchants using MPOS devices. The suggestions included controlling physical access to devices, moving as quickly as possible to EMV transactions, and choosing a vendor with a robust, secure total payment infrastructure.

Related Content:

Learn from the industry's most knowledgeable CISOs and IT security experts in a setting that is conducive to interaction and conversation. Early bird rate ends August 31. Click for more info

Curtis Franklin Jr. is Senior Editor at Dark Reading. In this role he focuses on product and technology coverage for the publication. In addition he works on audio and video programming for Dark Reading and contributes to activities at Interop ITX, Black Hat, INsecurity, and ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Crowdsourced vs. Traditional Pen Testing
Alex Haynes, Chief Information Security Officer, CDL,  3/19/2019
BEC Scammer Pleads Guilty
Dark Reading Staff 3/20/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: This comment is waiting for review by our moderators.
Current Issue
5 Emerging Cyber Threats to Watch for in 2019
Online attackers are constantly developing new, innovative ways to break into the enterprise. This Dark Reading Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at five emerging attack trends and exploits your security team should look out for, along with helpful recommendations on how you can prevent your organization from falling victim.
Flash Poll
The State of Cyber Security Incident Response
The State of Cyber Security Incident Response
Organizations are responding to new threats with new processes for detecting and mitigating them. Here's a look at how the discipline of incident response is evolving.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-10014
PUBLISHED: 2019-03-24
In DedeCMS 5.7SP2, member/resetpassword.php allows remote authenticated users to reset the passwords of arbitrary users via a modified id parameter, because the key parameter is not properly validated.
CVE-2019-10015
PUBLISHED: 2019-03-24
baigoStudio baigoSSO v3.0.1 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary PHP code via the first form field of a configuration screen, because this code is written to the BG_SITE_NAME field in the opt_base.inc.php file.
CVE-2019-10017
PUBLISHED: 2019-03-24
CMS Made Simple 2.2.10 has XSS via the advanced_search.php Name field, which is reachable via an "Add a new Profile" action to the File Picker.
CVE-2019-10010
PUBLISHED: 2019-03-24
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the PHP League CommonMark library before 0.18.3 allows remote attackers to insert unsafe links into HTML by using double-encoded HTML entities that are not properly escaped during rendering, a different vulnerability than CVE-2018-20583.
CVE-2019-9978
PUBLISHED: 2019-03-24
The social-warfare plugin before 3.5.3 for WordPress has stored XSS via the wp-admin/admin-post.php?swp_debug=load_options swp_url parameter, as exploited in the wild in March 2019. This affects Social Warfare and Social Warfare Pro.