UCL  IRIS
Institutional Research Information Service
UCL Logo
Please report any queries concerning the funding data grouped in the sections named "Externally Awarded" or "Internally Disbursed" (shown on the profile page) to your Research Finance Administrator. Your can find your Research Finance Administrator at http://www.ucl.ac.uk/finance/research/post_award/post_award_contacts.php by entering your department
Please report any queries concerning the student data shown on the profile page to:

Email: portico-services@ucl.ac.uk

Help Desk: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ras/portico/helpdesk
Publication Detail
Thinking inside the box: System-level failures of tamper proofing
  • Publication Type:
    Conference
  • Authors:
    Drimer S, Murdoch SJ, Anderson R
  • Publisher:
    IEEE
  • Publication date:
    18/05/2008
  • Pagination:
    281, 295
  • ISBN-13:
    9780769531687
  • Name of conference:
    IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy
  • Conference place:
    Oakland, CA, US
  • Conference start date:
    18/05/2008
  • Conference finish date:
    21/05/2008
  • Print ISSN:
    1081-6011
  • Language:
    eng
Abstract
PIN entry devices (PEDs) are critical security components in EMV smartcard payment systems as they receive a customer's card and PIN. Their approval is subject to an extensive suite of evaluation and certification procedures. In this paper, we demonstrate that the tamper proofing of PEDs is unsatisfactory, as is the certification process. We have implemented practical low-cost attacks on two certified, widely-deployed PEDs - the Ingenico i3300 and the Dione Xtreme. By tapping inadequately protected smartcard communications, an attacker with basic technical skills can expose card details and PINs, leaving cardholders open to fraud. We analyze the anti-tampering mechanisms of the two PEDs and show that, while the specific protection measures mostly work as intended, critical vulnerabilities arise because of the poor integration of cryptographic, physical and procedural protection. As these vulnerabilities illustrate a systematic failure in the design process, we propose a methodology for doing it better in the future. These failures also demonstrate a serious problem with the Common Criteria. So we discuss the incentive structures of the certification process, and show how they can lead to problems of the kind we identified. Finally, we recommend changes to the Common Criteria framework in light of the lessons learned. © 2008 IEEE.
Publication data is maintained in RPS. Visit https://rps.ucl.ac.uk
 More search options
UCL Researchers
Author
Dept of Computer Science
University College London - Gower Street - London - WC1E 6BT Tel:+44 (0)20 7679 2000

© UCL 1999–2011

Search by