emv payments - secure technology alliance · 2015-10-07 · u.s. emv migration – network roadmaps...

EMV Payments Changes for Acquirers/Processors   Allen Friedman   Associate Product Director   TSYS Acquiring Solutions

Changes for Acquirers/Processors

 Network Timelines

 Platform Changes

 Point Of Sale Changes

 Support

 Risks

U.S. EMV Migration – Network Roadmaps

U.S. EMV Migration – Network Roadmaps

April 2013 Processors must be able to fully process EMV chip-based contact, contactless and mobile transactions

June 29, 2012 Announced their network roadmap for U.S. EMV adoption

Oct 2013 Merchants may be eligible to receive relief from PCI-DSS reporting requirements

Oct 2015 Introduce a fraud liability shift policy that will transfer liability for certain types of fraud away from the party that has the most secure forum of EMV technology.

Automated Fuel Merchant transactions are excluded

Oct 2017 Fraud Liability Shift becomes effective for Automated Fuel transactions

AMEX

Discover March 15, 2012 Announced plans to accelerate chip migration and mobile payment adoption in the U.S. – Strategy involves EMV and NFC

April 1, 2013 Acquirer processors required to support

merchant chip acceptance

Oct 2015 Liability shift for becomes effective – Excludes Petro

Oct 2017 Liability shift effective for Petro transactions

•  D-PAS payment specification •  On-line authentication •  Off-line authentication

•  Accepted U.S. EMV in January •  Globally supported since 2009 •  ATM not clarified

•  Provide choice and flexibility •  EMV cards in U.S. market •  Partner in EMVCo

•  Dual-interface card •  ATM not clarified

Key Themes Primary Focus •  All authentication

channels •  All verification methods •  All commerce channels

Key Themes Primary Focus •  Chip and PIN •  Chip and Signature •  Contactless •  Mobile


 Platform Changes  Authorization

 Field 55 (From the EMVCo Application Specification (EMV 4.3 Book 3))   ISO Field 55 is Tag Length Value (TLV) format. Most required fields are defined by EMVCo, but some are left to

card brands definition. You may also define your own proprietary tags for any data you feel it necessary to receive from the POS in the transaction. Below are the Field 55 POS application Tags defined by EMVCo.

Changes for Acquirers/Processors Other Chip Card supporting fields defined by card brands

 Fallback reason codes  New reversal reason codes

 Device Serial Number  Kernel Version Number  Application Name and Version

 Others to consider


 Platform Changes  Download Systems

 EMV Parameters must be loaded into card reading device  Estate management for key renewal

 Clearing

 POS Changes  Hardware

 EMV Capable  NFC Capable option needs to be considered  Pay-at-the-Table? Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, Mobile  Performance testing recommended

 Software  EMV Parameters  Testing and Certification

 Challenges for multiple VAR applications  Test Tools

 Maintenance  Application and kernel tracking  Certificate expiration  Kernel expiration

 Cloud?  Chip inserted at POS, with remote POS application  Between 60-70 chip to POS interactions to create auth request



  Support  Merchant Helpdesk

 New functionality (PIN on Credit, Insert vs Swipe, et al)  New issues (Fallback, Chip Declines, Device Hand-over, et al)  New training and documentation

 Developer Helpdesk  New levels of support needed  New opportunities?

 Client Helpdesk  Acquirer / ISO support

 Sales Support  Aligning the appropriate level of information

 How much information is enough, and how much is overload?


 Risks  “Regional” PIN Debit networks do not yet have a unified solution.

Without this, implementation could require support of 16 different AIDs, with as many different testing and certification requirements. In addition, this would make host routing of PIN Debit problematic. Key industry stakeholders are working on a solution that accommodates the tenets of the Durbin Amendment as well as the needs of the Payment System. The U.S. EMV implementation must be inclusive of all the players to be successful and timely.

 Smaller merchants may not see a need to migrate to EMV until they receive a bill resulting from the liability shift. As a group, these merchants represent a large implementation effort.

 System Integrators or VARs may defer their development efforts until they perceive a demand from their customers – many of whom are the merchants mentioned above. The resulting delay in implementation could strain processor resources and create a backlog of testing and certification.

 Smart Card Alliance  191 Clarksville Rd. · Princeton Junction, NJ 08550 · (800) 556-6828  www.smartcardalliance.org

Speaker Contact Information [email protected]

emv payments - secure technology alliance · 2015-10-07 · u.s. emv migration – network roadmaps...

Documents