Patent Application
20240062324
The present invention relates to a PIN (Personal Identification Number) entry device and method having enhanced user I/O functionality while retaining strict security and certification framework of such devices.
In the service industry, it is desirable for businesses to receive feedback from customers. Customer feedback may be used by a business to improve the service it offers. Historically, customer feedback was provided in person, by filling out a questionnaire. Alternatively, a business may ask a customer for feedback by emailing the customer after the service has been provided.
The Internet now enables customers to provide their feedback publicly. For example, online review websites enable customers to provide feedback on services such as hotel stays and restaurant dining. Such feedback may be used by the businesses being reviewed, to improve their service, or by the general public, to help make decisions about where to stay.
There is a problem with such feedback methods and review websites. Firstly, feedback is gathered after the event which is far less accurate than at the point of sale. Also, a very small percentage of customers actually engage in the feedback process, which means that results are never representative of the customer base. With review websites, the problem lies in that the credibility of the reviews provided by customers cannot be validated. The so-called 90-9-1 rule is said to apply to such websites. 90% of users view the reviews but never give any of their own. 9% give very infrequent or one-off reviews, and 1% provide regular reviews. The 1% who provide a review have a tendency to be particularly biased. There is also the problem of fake reviews (positive or negative) being given. There is therefore a need for feedback systems which encourage more accurate feedback from a greater number of customers.
The use of PIN Entry Devices (PEDs) as the preferred method of authorising EMV (Europay, Mastercard and Visa) card transactions is now commonplace in many countries. For example, in the UK and many other European countries, the favoured electronic Point of Sale (EPOS) method is Chip-and-PIN, where the PIN is verified using an IC chip on the card. Other techniques include online PIN verification which encrypts the PIN using keys accessed from the card and then sends it to the bank to be checked.
PED systems require the cardholder to enter their PIN into the PED device. The fact that the customer has to physically interact with a PED provides an opportunity to obtain other information from a customer. For example, it is known to ask a customer a question, using the PED about the service provided by the business which led to the transaction. For example, it is known to ask questions such as “Did the fruit look fresh today?”, which require a “Yes/No” response. U.S. Pat. No. 8,510,193 (by Jade-I) proposes asking the user a question using the PED after they have completed their transaction. This has the disadvantage that after completing the transaction the user may be keen to allow other customers to pay for their goods, and causing them to dwell longer at the PED device slows down customer throughput. GB 2456346 (by Waterlow) proposes asking the user a question after they have entered their PIN but before the transaction completes, such as while the PED is waiting for approval of the payment from a remote payment server. This approach is also likely to have disadvantages in increasing a customer's dwell time. Other systems are only implemented within individual businesses on integrated systems.
It is also known to ask a customer to provide a charity donation by rounding the amount of their bill up to the nearest whole unit of currency, or to give a tip or gratuity to the customer service agent.
PEDs are manufactured and tested against a strict security and certification framework. A central component of this is the requirement to protect the cardholder's PIN from rogue exposure. A suite of rules governs the text that can be displayed, such as the questions, and the inputs that the user is able to make in response. PEDs have a keypad comprising numeric keys along with a number of function keys such as “Enter”, “Cancel” and “Clear”. The rules divide the text that can be displayed by the PED into approved text or unapproved text (also known as arbitrary text). User input using the numeric keypad is only permitted in response to approved text. The numeric keypad is normally disabled when unapproved text is displayed to prevent unauthorised PIN capture. The function keys (for example, “Enter”, “Cancel” and “Clear”) can be used in response to approved text and unapproved text. These rules mean that PIN entry is limited to a response to the text “Enter PIN” when it is genuinely requested by the IC chip on the card. Other approved text may include the charity donation or tip to the customer service agent, in which cases the entry is limited to a monetary value.
The set of rules prevents a hacker from commanding the device to display a message, such as “Enter PIN”, in order to fraudulently have the user enter their PIN, which can then be output or stored for later use by the hacker.
U.S. Pat. No. 8,510,193, mentioned above, proposes asking the user a question by using unapproved or arbitrary text. In response the rules above only permit a user input from the function keys so the user may be required to press “Enter” to proceed. At the next screen approved text is displayed so the user can input a rating using the numeric input keys. The approved text would operate in a similar manner to the gratuity input set out above, and the display could be set to “Input rating” so that the user is instructed to provide a rating for the service, such as in answer to the question at the previous screen. This manner of operation has the disadvantage of the user having to go through two screens and inputs to provide the rating.
Alternatively, all of the questions could be approved such that the numeric keypad is activated to receive a response and the user can enter a rating immediately after the question is displayed. Since the questions are likely to be specific to the type of service vendor, a large number of vendor specific questions would be required. It is unlikely that approval would be obtained for such a number of questions because it may be considered to weaken the security of PED devices.
It is desirable to provide an improved PED and/or method of operating such a device that maintains strict security but that is capable of obtaining feedback from a user in response to a question.
According to a first aspect, the present invention resides in a PIN entry device, for example a PIN entry device used to settle financial payments, such as with a payment card. The PIN entry device may comprise an alphanumeric display for displaying text to a user and a numeric keypad. The numeric keypad may comprise ten buttons corresponding to the numbers 0 to 9, although other arrangements are possible. The PIN entry device may further comprise functions keys in addition to the numeric keypad, for example keys corresponding to “enter”, “cancel” and “clear”.
The PIN entry device is configured to operate to display text to the user on the alphanumeric display to prompt a response from the user, wherein the text corresponds to approved text and unapproved text. The approved text may correspond to text strings that have been given approval to be used on the PIN entry device in conjunction with the numeric keypad. For example, the PIN entry device may allow a response to be entered using the numeric keypad when approved text is displayed on the alphanumeric display. An example would be the approved text “Enter PIN”, in which case the numeric keypad will accept entry of a PIN. The unapproved text may correspond to text strings that have not received approval to be used on the PIN entry device in conjunction with the numeric keypad. For example, the PIN entry device may allow a response to be entered only using function keys when unapproved text is displayed on the alphanumeric display. For example, unapproved text may correspond to “Add gratuity? Enter=yes, Cancel=no” in which case the “Enter” function key may be used to indicate a gratuity is to be added to the transaction amount. This may prompt the PIN entry device to display approved text such as “Enter amount” in which case the numeric keypad is rendered operable to allow the user to enter the amount of the gratuity.
It is advantageous to render the numeric keypad inoperable when unapproved text is displayed to avoid the fraudulent acquisition of a user's PIN. For example, a fraudster or hacker could configure a PIN entry device to collect a PIN by inserting an out of sequence question using unapproved text: this text may bear a request such as “PIN please”. To prevent this, the PIN entry device does not allow use of the numeric keypad when unapproved text is displayed on the alphanumeric keypad.
The PIN entry device may be configured to accept the response upon the first key press. Preferably this would be a single numeric key entry. For example, the user may not need to press a function key such as the “enter” button after selecting one of the numeric keys. The PIN entry device may be configured such that once a response has been accepted, a further display of text is provided on the alphanumeric display. However, a time bar may be put in place before the further display of unapproved text, or before a response from the numeric keypad is accepted again. We will now describe these alternatives in turn.
Firstly, the time bar may be put in place before a further display of unapproved text may be provided. That is, the PIN entry device may be configured to display unapproved text, to accept a single key press response, and to display a second instance of unapproved text only after a time delay has expired. Optionally, the PIN entry device may be configured to allow a display of approved text at any time after a response to unapproved text has been entered. Hence, the time delay may not apply to displays of approved text.
The prevention of a sequence of displays of unapproved text provides further protection against fraudulent acquisition of a user's PIN. For example, a PIN device may be hacked or otherwise tampered with such that it displays a sequence of the same unapproved text such as “provide PIN”. After each key press, the same question is redisplayed, but screen refresh times are such that the user will perceive just a single message that remains on the display through multiple key presses.
By creating a delay between successive displays of unapproved text, this potential misuse of the PIN entry device maybe avoided. Any time delay may be used, but time delays of over 5 seconds, over 10 seconds, over 30 seconds and a time delay of 30 seconds are preferred.
Alternatively, the time bar may be put in place after the second instance of the display of unapproved text and before the numeric keypad accepts a response to the second instance of unapproved text. In more detail, the PIN entry device may be configured to display unapproved text, to accept a single key press response and to display a second instance of unapproved text, and to accept a single key press response to the second instance of unapproved text only after a time delay has expired. Hence, a further display of unapproved text maybe provided, but any response may be rejected if entered before the time delay has expired. Optionally, an attempt to enter the second single key press response may cause an error code to be generated and/or may cause the attempt to be reported, for example to allow fraudulent use of the PIN entry device to be monitored. Any time delay may be used, but time delays of over 5 seconds, over 10 seconds, over 30 seconds and a time delay of 30 seconds are preferred.
The second instance of unapproved text may be a message not requiring an input from the user. For example, the message may be “Please wait” or “Thank you”. Hence, it may be desirable that no key press is accepted in response to the second instance of unapproved text. The time bar therefore prevents acceptance of further input to the numeric keypad from the user.
The PIN entry device according to the present invention has advantages in that it permits a question to be asked to a user before the transaction completes, such as during time periods where the user is waiting for the payment process to commence. In this way the dwell time of the customer may be reduced compared to prior art methods that ask a question after the completion of a transaction.
The PIN entry device may comprise memory having stored therein computer program instructions that, when executed, cause the PIN entry device to operate as described above. Alternatively, the PIN entry device may be connected to a server across a network, and the server may be configured to cause the PIN entry device to operate as described above.
The PIN entry device may be used as a means for settling a financial transaction, for example in a store or restaurant. The PIN entry device may be a standalone device, for example such that it is connected only to a financial services provider to allow for the transaction to be completed. Alternatively, the PIN entry device may be connected to a point of sale (POS) system, for example to a till that may be provided with other devices such as a scanner, a printer and a cash drawer.
The PIN entry device may be configured to display on the alphanumeric display unapproved text corresponding to requests to provide customer ratings, such as relating to a product(s), goods or a service(s) they are purchasing. For example, text may be displayed to prompt the user to rate the service they received or the quality of the goods they purchased. The numeric keypad may be used to provide a rating between 0 to 9, where 0 may represent the worst value and 9 the best value. For example, 9 may be used to represent the very best service and 0 to represent the very worst service.
Accordingly the present invention provides a PIN entry device; a method of operating a PIN entry device; a computer program which, when executed, carries out the method of operating a PIN entry device; and one or more computer readable media comprising said computer program code.
The PIN entry device comprises an alphanumeric display for displaying text to a user, a numeric keypad and one or more function keys, and wherein the PIN entry device is configured to operate to display text to the user on the alphanumeric display to prompt a response from the user, wherein the text corresponds to approved text and unapproved text, and wherein the PIN entry device is configured to accept responses entered on the numeric keypad or one or more function keys in response to approved text, and to accept only a single key press response when prompted by a display of unapproved text.
The PIN entry device, configured to display unapproved text, may accept a single key press response and display a second instance of unapproved text only after a time delay has expired.
The PIN entry device, configured to display unapproved text, may accept a single key press response and display a second instance of unapproved text, and may accept a second single key press response to the second instance of unapproved text only after a time delay has expired.
The PIN entry device may be configured to generate an error code and/or report if a second one key response is made before the time delay has expired.
Alternatively, the PIN entry device, configured to display unapproved text, may accept a single key press response and may display a second instance of unapproved text only if the unapproved text of the second instance is different to the unapproved text of the first instance, such as if the display of the second instance of unapproved text is consecutive to the display of the first instance of unapproved text and accepting of the first key single key press response.
The method of operating a PIN entry device comprises: displaying text to the user on an alphanumeric display to prompt a response from the user, wherein the text corresponds to approved text and unapproved text; in response to a display of approved text accepting responses entered on a numeric keypad or one or more function keys, and in response to a display of unapproved text accepting only a single key press response entered on the numeric keypad.
In order that the present invention may be more readily understood, preferred embodiments will now be described, by way of example only, with reference to the accompanying drawings in which:
The present invention implements a new input/output command for a PED to provide additional functionality which may be used to pose a question to user, such as a rating of a service, and the user to provide an input in response to the question.
The new command is used in combination with unapproved or arbitrary text and would preferably be implemented during the payment procedure such as during dead time in the processing of a transaction or before/after PIN entry but before completion of the transaction. For example, before the statement “Remove card” or the like is displayed. If the use of the new command is coupled with the transaction process, the command can be used to obtain reliable information such as rating information from the user on the service they have received. The rating information cannot be falsely provided from someone who has not received the service, and the information is not influenced by time passing between the service being received and the user providing the feedback.
In a first embodiment the new command receives and displays arbitrary text, and then waits for one key press from the user before returning with the value of that key press. The command may be known as “One arbitrary question, one key response” or abbreviated to “AQ1KR”. Importantly the response is limited to a single key press. While it is possible that a rogue user could instruct the arbitrary text to be “Enter PIN”, the command responds to only a single key press from the user. Since all PINs are more than a single key press and almost always consist of four key presses or more the user cannot be misled into entering his PIN because the command does not accept more than a single key press.
The command may be used to ask the user a question about the service they have received from the vendor. Example questions might include “Was the service friendly? Please rate from 0-9” or “Please rate the food from 0-9.” The user would then be able to use the numeric part of the key pad to input a single response from 0-9 as a rating in answer to the question. An entry of “0” could be used to indicate a poor or the worst result, whereas a rating of “9” could be used to indicate that the service was the best possible.
The result of the question is collected and sent to a remote ratings server. The remote ratings server may be held by the ratings service provider to collate the results from the vendor or a range of the vendor's outlets or locations. The ratings service provider then provides feedback to the vendor on a regular basis which could be hourly, daily, and/or weekly etc. Alternatively, the results could be stored at a server provided by the vendor on his premises, such as in his store, the results collated locally and provided to the vendor. In some circumstances it may be desirable that the vendor is provided with real-time feedback in answer to the question.
The AQ1KR command permits the use of an arbitrary question. The questions may be provided from the remote ratings server of the ratings service provider. The question can be selected according to the type of service the vendor provides. For example, the questions asked at a restaurant might be related to the food and the service. At other types establishments the questions could be different. Some establishments might even be provided with multiple questions which can be selectively or randomly provided at the PED device when the AQ1KR command is invoked.
The flow chart in
At the end of the command it may be required that, for example, the “Enter” key is pressed to exit the AQ1KR command at step 106 and return the user's input, such as to the remote ratings server. The pressing of the “enter” also returns to the processing of the payment transaction. Alternatively, the AQ1KR command may return without requiring a press of a key additional to the numeric response.
In a related but alternative arrangement to the first embodiment the application of the delay or timeout in the second operation of the command could be applied before accepting a second one key response from the user instead of being applied before displaying the second instance of unapproved question. Hence, in this arrangement after the first instance of displaying the unapproved question, followed by the first one-key response, the AQ1KR command immediately proceeds to displaying the second instance unapproved question. At this point the delay or timeout is checked and implemented before accepting the second one-key response.
An advantage of using unapproved text for the question is that the questions can be tailored to be applicable to the services provided by the vendor. The manner in which the user responses are input (single key) maintains the security of the PED. The use of approved text for questions, such as in the prior art, is detrimental to the security of the PED and means that questions will likely not always fit with the vendor's services.
In a second embodiment the AQ1KR command is configured to be prevented from being run sequentially without a command involving either card removal or display of approved text occurring between consecutive occurrences of the command. This rule prevents a user from being repeatedly asked for their PIN through the use of the same or similar questions that a hacker could employ to obtain the PIN. For example, a hacker could use unapproved text “Enter PIN” as set out above and accept the first digit of the user's PIN as the single key press. If the hacker were allowed to repeat this unapproved text along with subsequent single key press entries the hacker could build up the PIN. The hacker need not use identical text but could for example use different text having the sequence ““Enter PIN *”, “Enter PIN **”, “Enter PIN ***”. The user would see these changes as natural feedback on their inputs.
The instruction flow for the second embodiment is shown in the flow-chart of
As shown at step 205, to operate the function and the check at step 202 requires an input indicating whether approved text was displayed in the last command that was called.
Not shown in
The alternative of requiring a card removal command to have occurred between sequential operations of the AQ1KR would replace step 202 with a check of whether certain specific commands had been run. It is possible that both the checks for card removal/insertion commands and a display of approved text could both be performed.
Aspects of the first and second embodiments may be combined. For example, the checks in the second embodiment prevent the AQ1KR command from being run sequentially without generating an error (or the resulting input being ignored). When the command is called and permitted to run, the elapsed time since it was last called is checked as per the first embodiment. We have described the above embodiments in relation to PED devices where the payment card is a Chip-and-PIN card which is inserted into a slot in the PED. However, the embodiments are equally applicable for use with contactless card payments, or cards that use PINs stored on magnetic strips.
Those skilled in the art will appreciate that variations may be made to the above embodiments without departing from the scope of the invention that is defined by the appended claims. Although the ten numeric buttons 0 to 9 are proposed for providing the user input, such as a rating, fewer or more buttons could be provided. For example, fewer than ten to represent a smaller range, such as 1 to 5, could be provided.
| Number | Date | Country | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1419547.3 | Nov 2014 | GB | national |
This application is a continuation of application Ser. No. 15/523,845, filed May 2, 2017, which is a U.S. national stage of application No. PCT/GB2015/053292, filed on Nov. 2, 2015, the entire disclosures of which are hereby incorporated by reference. Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a) and 35 U.S.C. § 365(b) is claimed from Great Britain Patent Application No. 1419547.3, filed on Nov. 3, 2014, the disclosure of which is also incorporated herein by reference.
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 15523845 | May 2017 | US |
| Child | 18501533 | US |
