W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-payments-wg@w3.org > July 2016

Re: Encrypting basic card data

From: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 15:52:23 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+eFz_+4dVT1tzcix8Zd6GaTT68HzD+SBOu_2uDLtqpQL-cVdw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Erik Anderson <eanders@pobox.com>
Cc: Payments WG <public-payments-wg@w3.org>

How is the current Basic Card mechanism any less secure than what is done
today using web forms to capture card details? At a minimum I don't believe
we are introducing something that is worse than what we have today. In
fact, we at least force this to happen in a secure context so you could
argue it is better (albeit only slightly).


On 11 July 2016 at 15:15, Erik Anderson <eanders@pobox.com> wrote:

> > Let's not do this in v1, it may imply more security than is actually
> being provided and we haven't actually identified the threat > properly to
> evaluate it's value.
> > Rather, let's work out a comprehensive solution for v2 that fully
> mitigates a MiM threat
> Adrian,
> This is a well documented topic in financial standards.
> Specifically the data elements required to be secured are
> Cardholder Data
> - Primary Account Number (PAN)
> - Cardholder Name
> - Service Code
> - Expiration Date
> Sensitive Authentication Data
> - Full Magnetic Stripe Data
> - PIN
> - Encrypted PIN Block
> Once again read over
> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Security_Issues
> X9.119 covers this topic. Visa published best practices and PCI published
> many legal requirements.
> I know that the issues will not be fixed by V1. Many of the browser
> security issues are over 10 years old.
> Fraud is must higher online and I feel W3C will be helping to standardize
> fraud without any security efforts.
> Wendy has published
> https://github.com/w3c/websec/blob/gh-pages/security-roadmap.md
> This is a good beginning.
> To limit W3C liability in event of publishing a standard that leads to
> fraud, I recommend W3C
> 1) publishing a payment security roadmap
> 1) Publish a best practices document to give users points how to work
> around the problems.
> 3) Place a disclaimer in v1 referencing the security roadmap and best
> practices.
> If a v1 is published and W3C makes a call to implementer's without
> anti-fraud/security/privacy measures and without a proper security roadmap
> to address the issues then I am pretty sure the courts will find W3C
> liable. IMO, the world is a big place and there is enough international
> case law around control point & liabilities to make the law suits stick.
> Once again, online security is a HUGE problem. No one is expecting it to
> be fixed in the first pass.
> Erik Anderson
> Bloomberg
Received on Monday, 11 July 2016 14:52:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 11 July 2016 14:52:54 UTC