431 lines
20 KiB
Plaintext
431 lines
20 KiB
Plaintext
|
||
*************** Track Layouts ************************
|
||
This is off the top of my head, but is 99% there. Also I'll ignore
|
||
some obsolete stuff.
|
||
|
||
The physical layout of the cards are standard. The LOGICAL makeup
|
||
varies from institution to institution. There are some generally
|
||
followed layouts, but not mandatory.
|
||
|
||
There are actually up to three tracks on a card.
|
||
|
||
Track 1 was designed for airline use. It contains your name and
|
||
usually your account number. This is the track that is used when
|
||
the ATM greets you by name. There are some glitches in how things
|
||
are ordered so occasionally you do get "Greetings Bill Smith Dr."
|
||
but such is life. This track is also used with the new airline
|
||
auto check in (PSA, American, etc)
|
||
|
||
Track 3 is the "OFF-LINE" ATM track. It contains such nifty
|
||
information as your daily limit, limit left, last access, account
|
||
number, and expiration date. (And usually anything I describe in track
|
||
2). The ATM itself could have the ability to rewrite this track to
|
||
update information.
|
||
|
||
Track 2 is the main operational track for online use. The first thing
|
||
on track to is the PRIMARY ACCOUNT NUMBER (PAN). This is pretty
|
||
standard for all cards, though no guarantee. Some additional info
|
||
might be on the card such as expiration date. One interesting item
|
||
is the PIN offset. When an ATM verifies a PIN locally, it usually
|
||
uses an encryption scheme involving the PAN and a secret KEY.
|
||
This gives you a "NATURAL PIN" (i.e. when they mail you your pin, this
|
||
is how it got generated.) If you want to select your own PIN, they
|
||
would put the PIN OFFSET in the clear on the card. Just do modulo 10
|
||
arithmetic on the Natural PIN plus the offset, and you have the
|
||
selected PIN. YOUR PIN IS NEVER IN THE CLEAR ON YOUR CARD. Knowing
|
||
the PIN OFFSET will not give you the PIN. This will required the
|
||
SECRET KEY.
|
||
|
||
Hope that answers your question
|
||
|
||
************ Deposits at ATMs ************************
|
||
|
||
Deposits on ATM:
|
||
|
||
Various banks have various systems. As an example, at CITIbank
|
||
a deposit was made to a specific account. Your account was updated
|
||
with a MEMO update, i.e. it would show up on your balance. However
|
||
it did not become AVAILABLE funds until it was verified by a teller.
|
||
On the envelope was Customer ID number, the envelope number and
|
||
the Entered dollar amount, the branch # and the Machine #.
|
||
|
||
There was also a selection for OTHER PAYMENTS. This allowed you to
|
||
dump any deposit into the ATM.
|
||
|
||
What are you assured then when you deposit to an ATM ?
|
||
|
||
1) You have a banking RECORD (not a reciept at Citibank). If you
|
||
have this record, there is a VERY high percentage that you
|
||
deposited something at that ATM.
|
||
|
||
2) Some banks have ways of crediting your deposit RIGHT NOW.
|
||
This could be done by a balance in another account (i.e. a long
|
||
term C.D. or a line of credit.) That way they can get you if
|
||
you lied.
|
||
|
||
|
||
************** ATM Splitting a Card in half ***************
|
||
|
||
I've worked with about 75% of the types of machines on the market
|
||
and NONE of them split a card in half upon swallow. However, some
|
||
NETWORKS have a policy of slicing a card to avoid security
|
||
problems.
|
||
|
||
Trusting an ATM.
|
||
Intresting you should bring this up, I'm just brusing up a paper
|
||
describing a REAL situation where your card and PIN are in the clear.
|
||
This involves a customer using a bank that is part of a network.
|
||
All the information was available to folks in DP, if they put in some
|
||
efforts to get it.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Mis-Implementation of an ATM PIN security system
|
||
|
||
|
||
1. Synopsis
|
||
In an EFT (Electronic Funds Transfer) network, a single node which does
|
||
not implement the proper security can have effects throughout the
|
||
network. In this paper, the author describes an example of how security
|
||
features were ignored, never-implemented, and/or incorrectly designed.
|
||
The human factors involved in the final implementation are explored by
|
||
showing several major vulnerabilites caused by a Savings and Loan and a
|
||
regional EFT network's lack of vigilance in installing an EFT network
|
||
node. While using an EFT system as an example, the concepts can be
|
||
extrapolated into the implementation of other secured systems.
|
||
|
||
|
||
2. Background
|
||
A small Savings and Loan was setting up a small (10 to 16 ATMs)
|
||
proprietary Automatic Teller Machine (ATM) network. This network was
|
||
then intended to link up to a regional network. The manufacturer of the
|
||
institution's online banking processor sent an on-site programmer to
|
||
develop the required interfaces.
|
||
|
||
An ATM network consists of three main parts. The first is the ATM
|
||
itself. An ATM can have a range of intelligence. In this case the ATM
|
||
was able to decode a PIN (Personal Identification Number) using an
|
||
institution supplied DES (Data Encryption Standard) key. It was then
|
||
required to send a request for funds to the host where it would receive
|
||
authorization.
|
||
|
||
The second portion of the network is the ATM controller. The controller
|
||
monitors the transaction, and routes the message to the authorization
|
||
processor. The controller would also generally monitor the physical
|
||
devices and statuses of the ATM.
|
||
|
||
The third portion of the network is the authorization system. In this
|
||
case customers of the local institution would have the transaction
|
||
authorized on the same processor. Customers from foreign (i.e. one
|
||
that does not belong to the institution that runs the ATM) institutions
|
||
would be authorized by the regional network. Authorization could be
|
||
from a run-up file which maintains establishes a limit on withdrawals
|
||
for a given account during a given period. A better method is
|
||
authorization direct from the institution which issued the card.
|
||
|
||
|
||
3. Security
|
||
The system has a two component key system to allow access to the network
|
||
by the customer. The first is the physical ATM card which has a
|
||
magnetic stripe. The magnetic stripe contains account information. The
|
||
second component is the Personal Identification Number (PIN). The PIN
|
||
is hand entered by the customer into the ATM at transaction time. Given
|
||
these two parts, the network will assume that the user is the
|
||
appropriate customer and allow the transaction to proceed.
|
||
|
||
The Magnetic stripe is in the clear and may be assume to be reproducible
|
||
using various methods, thus the PIN is crucial security.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Security PIN security
|
||
|
||
3.1. PIN security
|
||
|
||
3.1.1. PIN key validation method
|
||
|
||
PINs can be linked up to a particular card in a number of ways. One
|
||
method puts the PIN into a central data base in a one-way encrypted
|
||
format. When a PIN is presented, it would be encrypted against the
|
||
format in the data base. This method requires a method of encrypting
|
||
the PIN given at the ATM, until it can be verified at the central site.
|
||
Problems can also occur if the institution wants to move the PIN data
|
||
base to another processor, especially from a different computer vendor.
|
||
|
||
Another method is to take information on the card, combine it with an
|
||
institution PIN encryption key (PIN key) and use that to generate the
|
||
PIN. The institution in question used the PIN key method. This allows
|
||
the customer to be verified at the ATM itself and no transmission of the
|
||
PIN is required. The risk of the system is the PIN key must be
|
||
maintained under the tightest of security.
|
||
|
||
The PIN key is used to generate the natural PIN. This is derived by
|
||
taking the account number and using DES upon it with the PIN key. The
|
||
resulting number then is decimialized by doing a lookup on a 16 digit
|
||
decimalization table to convert the resulting hexadecimal digits to
|
||
decimal digits. An ATM loaded with the appropriate PIN key can then
|
||
validate a customer locally with no need to send PIN information to the
|
||
network, thereby reducing the risk of compromise.
|
||
|
||
The PIN key requires the utmost security. Once the PIN key is known,
|
||
any customer's ATM card, with corresponding PIN can be created given a
|
||
customer account number. The ATM allows for the PIN to be entered at
|
||
the ATM in two parts, thus allowing each of two bank officers to know
|
||
only one half of the key. If desired, a terminal master key can be
|
||
loaded and then the encrypted PIN key loaded from the network.
|
||
|
||
The decimalization table usually consists of 0 to 9 and 0 to 5, ("0" to
|
||
"F" in hexadecimal where "F" = 15). The decimalization table can be put
|
||
into any order, scrambling the digits and slowing down an attacker. (As
|
||
a side note, it could be noted that using the "standard" table, the PIN
|
||
digits are weighted to 0 through 5, each having a 1/8 chance of being
|
||
the digit, while 6 through 9 has only a 1/16 chance.)
|
||
|
||
When handling a foreign card, (i.e. one that does not belong to the
|
||
institution that runs the ATM), the PIN must be passed on to the network
|
||
in encrypted form. First, however, it must be passed from the ATM to
|
||
the ATM controller. This is accomplished by encrypting the PIN entered
|
||
at the ATM using a communication key (communication key), The
|
||
communication key is entered at the ATM much like the PIN key. In
|
||
addition, it can be downloaded from the network. The PIN is decrypted
|
||
at the controller and then reencrypted with the network's communication
|
||
key.
|
||
|
||
- 2 -
|
||
|
||
Security
|
||
PIN security
|
||
PIN key validation method
|
||
|
||
|
||
Maintaining the the security of the foreign PIN is of critical
|
||
importance. Given the foreign PIN along with the ATM card's magnetic
|
||
image, the perpetrator has access to an account from any ATM on the
|
||
network. This would make tracking of potential attackers quite
|
||
difficult, since the ATM and the institution they extract funds from can
|
||
be completely different from the institution where the information was
|
||
gleaned.
|
||
|
||
Given that the encrypted PIN goes through normal communication
|
||
processes, it could be logged on the normal I/O logs. Since it is
|
||
subject to such logging, the PIN in any form should be denied from the
|
||
logging function.
|
||
|
||
|
||
3.2. Security Violations
|
||
While the EFT network has potential to run in a secured mode given some
|
||
of the precautions outlined above, the potential for abuse of security
|
||
is quite easy. In the case of this system, security was compromised in
|
||
a number of ways, each leading to the potential loss of funds, and to a
|
||
loss of confidence in the EFT system itself.
|
||
|
||
|
||
3.2.1. Violations of the PIN key method
|
||
The two custodian system simply wasn't practical when ATMs were being
|
||
installed all over the state. Two examples show this: When asked by
|
||
the developer for the PIN key to be entered into a test ATM, there was
|
||
first a massive search for the key, and then it was read to him over the
|
||
phone. The PIN key was written on a scrap of paper which was not
|
||
secured. This is the PIN key that all the customer PINs are based on,
|
||
and which compromise should require the reissue of all PINs.)
|
||
|
||
The importance of a system to enter the PIN key by appropriate officers
|
||
of the bank should not be overlooked. In practice the ATM installer
|
||
might be the one asked to enter the keys into the machine. This indeed
|
||
was demonstrated in this case where the ATM installer not only had the
|
||
keys for the Savings and Loan, but also for other institutions in the
|
||
area. This was kept in the high security area of the notebook in the
|
||
installer's front pocket.
|
||
|
||
Having a Master key entered into the ATM by officers of the bank might
|
||
add an additional layer of security to the system. The actual PIN key
|
||
would then be loaded in encrypted form from the network. In the example
|
||
above, if the installer was aware of the terminal master key, he would
|
||
have to monitor the line to derive the actual PIN key.
|
||
|
||
The use of a downline encrypted key was never implemented, due to the
|
||
potential complications and added cost of such a system. Even if it
|
||
was, once violated, security can only be regained by a complete reissue
|
||
of customer PINs with the resulting confusion ensuing.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
- 3 -
|
||
|
||
Security
|
||
Security Violations
|
||
Network validated PIN Security violations
|
||
|
||
|
||
3.2.2. Network validated PIN Security violations
|
||
Given the potential for untraced transactions, the maintenance of the
|
||
foreign PINs security was extremely important. In the PIN key example
|
||
above, any violation would directly affect the institution of the
|
||
violators. This would limit the scope of an investigation, and enhance
|
||
the chance of detection and apprehension. The violation of foreign PIN
|
||
information has a much wider sphere of attack, with the corresponding
|
||
lower chance of apprehension.
|
||
|
||
The communication key itself was never secured. In this case, the
|
||
developer handed the key to the bank officers, to ensure the
|
||
communication key didn't get misplaced as the PIN key did (This way he
|
||
could recall it in case it got lost). Given the communication key, the
|
||
security violation potential is simple enough. The programmer could
|
||
simply tap the line between the ATM and the controller. This
|
||
information could then generate a set of PIN and card image pairs. He
|
||
would even have account balances.
|
||
|
||
Tapping the line would have been an effort, and worse yet he could get
|
||
caught. However, having the I/O logs could serve the same purpose.
|
||
While originally designed to obscure PIN information in the I/O logs,
|
||
the feature was disabled due to problems caused by the regional network
|
||
during testing. The I/O logs would be sent to the developer any time
|
||
there was a problem with the ATM controller or the network interface.
|
||
|
||
The generation of PIN and card image pairs has a potential for even the
|
||
most secured system on the network to be attacked by the lapse in
|
||
security of a weaker node. Neither the communication key, nor the PIN
|
||
should ever be available in the clear. This requires special hardware
|
||
at the controller to store this information. In this case, the
|
||
institution had no desire to install a secured box for storing key
|
||
information. The communication key was available in software, and the
|
||
PIN was in the clear during the process of decrypting from the ATM and
|
||
re-encrypting with the network key. Any programmer on the system with
|
||
access to the controller could put in a log file to tap off the PINs at
|
||
that point.
|
||
|
||
The largest failure of the system, though, was not a result of the items
|
||
described above. The largest failure in the system was in the method of
|
||
encrypting the PIN before going to the network. This is due to the
|
||
failure of the network to have a secured key between sites. The PIN was
|
||
to be encrypted with a network key. The network key was sent in
|
||
encrypted form from the network to the ATM controller. However, the key
|
||
to decrypt the network key was sent almost in the clear as part of the
|
||
start-of-day sequence.
|
||
|
||
Any infiltrator monitoring the line would be able to get all key
|
||
information by monitoring the start-of-day sequence, doing the trivial
|
||
decryption of the communication key, and proceeding to gather card image
|
||
and PIN pairs. The infiltrator could then generate cards and attack the
|
||
system at his leisure.
|
||
|
||
- 4 -
|
||
|
||
Security
|
||
Security Violations
|
||
Network validated PIN Security violations
|
||
|
||
|
||
The network-ATM controller security failure is the most critical feature
|
||
since it was defined by a regional network supporting many institutions.
|
||
The network was supposedly in a better position to understand the
|
||
security requirements.
|
||
|
||
|
||
4. The Human Factors in Security Violation
|
||
It is important the users of a system be appraised of the procedures for
|
||
securing the system. They should understand the risks, and know what
|
||
they are protecting. The bank officers in charge of the program had
|
||
little experience with ATM systems. They were never fully indoctrinated
|
||
in the consequences of a PIN key or communication key compromise. The
|
||
officers showed great surprise when the developer was able to generate
|
||
PINs for supplied test cards. Given the potential risk, nothing more
|
||
was done to try to change the PIN key, even though, they were quite
|
||
aware that the PIN key was in the developer's possession. They once
|
||
even called the developer for the PIN key when they weren't able to find
|
||
it.
|
||
|
||
The developer had a desire to maintain a smooth running system and cut
|
||
down on the development time of an already over-budget project. Too
|
||
much security, for example modifying I/O logs, could delay the isolation
|
||
or repair of a problem.
|
||
|
||
The regional network was actually a marketing company who subcontracted
|
||
out the data processing tasks. They failed to recognized the security
|
||
problem of sending key information with extremely weak encryption. The
|
||
keys were all but sent in the clear. There seemed to be a belief that
|
||
the use of encryption in and of itself caused a network to be secured.
|
||
The use of DES with an unsecured communication key gave the appearance
|
||
of a secured link.
|
||
|
||
The lack of audits of the system, both in design and implementation was
|
||
the final security defect which allowed the system to be compromised in
|
||
so many ways. An example of the Savings and Loan's internal auditors
|
||
failure to understand the problems or technology is when the auditors
|
||
insisted that no contract developers would be allowed physically into
|
||
the computer room. The fact was, access to the computer room was never
|
||
required to perform any of the described violations.
|
||
|
||
|
||
5. Security Corrections
|
||
As in any system where security was required, the time to implement it
|
||
is at the beginning. This requires the review of both implementation
|
||
ormed to
|
||
verify that the procedures are followed as described in the plan.
|
||
Financing, scheduling and man power for such audits must be allocated so
|
||
security issues can be addressed.
|
||
|
||
For this institution, the first step would have been to indoctrinate the
|
||
|
||
|
||
- 5 -
|
||
|
||
Security Corrections
|
||
|
||
banking officers of the risks in the ATM network, the vulnerabilites,
|
||
and the security measures required.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Custodians of all keys should be well aware of their responsibilities
|
||
for those keys. A fall back system of key recovery must be in place in
|
||
case an officer is not available for key entry.
|
||
|
||
The cost of installing hardware encryption units at the host should be
|
||
included in the cost of putting in the system. The host unit could
|
||
generate down-line keys for both the PIN key and the communication key
|
||
thus making it more difficult to derive these keys without collusion
|
||
from at least three people.
|
||
|
||
A secured communications key should be established between the Network
|
||
and the institution. This would allow for the exchange of working
|
||
communication keys. This key should be changed with a reasonable
|
||
frequency.
|
||
|
||
All these areas should be audited in both the system specification and
|
||
implementation to make sure they are not being abridged in the name of
|
||
expediency.
|
||
|
||
|
||
6. Summary
|
||
In this view of a single institution, a number of failures in the
|
||
security system were shown. There was shown a definite failure to
|
||
appreciate what was required in the way of security for PINs and keys
|
||
used to derive PIN information. An avoidance of up front costs for
|
||
security lead to potentially higher cost in the future. The key area
|
||
was the lack of audits of the EFT system by both the institution and the
|
||
network, causing potential loss to all institutions on the network.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
- 6 -
|
||
|
||
For those of you who would like a deeper view of thes of ATM
|
||
PIN stuff, I'm merging some previous postings along with a paper
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Downloaded from Just Say Yes. 2 lines, More than 500 files online!
|
||
Full access on first call. 415-922-2008 CASFA
|
||
|
||
|