Talk:Chip and PIN 'not fit for purpose', says Cambridge researcher

This happened on Thursday... — μ 18:08, February 13 2010 (UTC)

International Audience
As a U.S. reader, I don't understand if this effects me or not. Is this system just in the UK? Calebrw (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I see now that the paper does mention the U.S. I believe this should be included. Calebrw (talk) 00:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Invalid POS picture description
There is invalid description for POS picture, it claims to show "vunerable terminal", although POS terminal is the last and the least from flawed systems list. The flaw is on the whole system design, while terminal was just used for demonstration. Grain (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC) ut editprotected

Under demonstrated vulnerability, transaction inconsistency were totally missed by all participated computer systems, including smart card (computer system owned by issuer bank), bank's backend servers, and least, a POS terminal.

Original (deceiving) description: An EMV terminal, similar to those found to be vulnerable.

Suggested (correct) description: An EMV terminal, similar to those used in the system vulnerability demonstration.

Please correct my English, if there are errors. Grain (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is already published and archived, such changes can't be done now. Yell at the person who published this piece of c**p :P Diego Grez return fire 01:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)