|
|
|
|
|
by mseebach
4063 days ago
|
|
There is a major use case around "card not present" transactions. Anything recurring, such as AWS, hotel/car rental express check-out/return, Amazon 1-click and Uber and similar mobile payment use cases will get significantly higher friction if you have to complete a chip-and-pin for each of these. A quite simple fix to these would be to allow storage of a token linked to the PAN which is locked to a specific merchant - so, they're worthless if stolen, but can be used like the PAN is today to perform "card not present" transactions for that merchant. |
|
Most interchange protocols contain flags for recurring payments and standing authorizations. Only the first such transaction contains chip data to prove that the cardholder actually wants to authorize a standing auth/recurring auth.
In these cases, the standing authorization is already tied to the merchant + PAN + address details. Using chip in the first place is what allows a database compromise which leaks the PAN to not enable a criminal to authorize at another merchant: they won't be able to generate the ARQC needed to authorize.
All subsequent standing auths are card not present anyways.