Chip & PIN Security goes on Trial

Alex_LS

Examining the chip is not a sure fire way to show whether it was used in the ATM. The only sure-fire way of showing that is to authenticate the cryptogram returned during the transaction. No cryptogram = no chip. Incorrect cryptogram = wrong chip.

INT1

Point of sale data does exists for ATM machines. An ATM is still a point of sale and yes I did read up on the case.
You cannot replicate a CHIP end of, so if the CHIP was read it was her primary card issued to her.

In that instance I would agree with Abbey to hold her liable.

Paul_Herring

Alex_LS wrote: »

Examining the chip is not a sure fire way to show whether it was used in the ATM.

But it could exclude the card itself if it was not used:

http://pcworld.about.com/od/securit1/UK-Couple-Chases-Bank-Over-ph.htm

Groman said he still has the card but it's in small pieces. But Murdoch said it is possible the microchip, which is much smaller than the silver or gold contact point on the card, could be intact. That chip has information on the number of transactions conducted with the card.

Comparing the number of fraudulent withdrawals versus the number of transactions counted by the card could reveal a discrepancy that would point to a different explanation for the fraud, Murdoch said. The microchip would have to be analyzed by an expert.

Paul_Herring

It would appear, without fanfare, that Emma Woolf got her money back:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/consumer_affairs/article7133318.ece

The bank relented and returned the money more than a year later only when the police arrested a Santander employee for fraud, after finding financial documents of customers in her home. But the bank agreed to pay back the cash only if Ms Woolf signed a confidentiality agreement. The bank also refused to apologise to Ms Woolf and Mr Groman.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article7133452.ece

[...] later, Ms Woolf received a letter from the police saying that her financial documents had been found in the home of a Santander employee, who had been arrested for fraud. Her solicitor then approached Santander, which agreed, after negotiation, to refund the £10,000 plus her legal fees. But the bank said that the money would be repaid without any admission of liability and only if she signed the confidentiality agreement.

Santander has refused to apologise to Ms Woolf and has refused to pay Mr Groman any compensation.

[...]

It appears that the fraud was committed by changing the address on Ms Woolf’s account, sending a new card to that address, obtaining the PIN from Abbey’s records and then withdrawing £500 a day from cash machines.

That bold bit doesn't seem to ring true for some reason - more likely is the PIN was re-sent.

Paul_Herring

Paul_Herring wrote: »

<blah>

Going back to the OP(ish) Has anyone heard about how Mr Job is/did/might be getting on with his case?

The only reason I got Emma Woolf's links above was through google's alert system (yes, Alain Job is 'alerted' as well.)

Nowt about Alain (apart from repeated articles of the original problem.)

Anyone?