Reference⚙️ Card processing & networksAdvanced⏱ 23 min read

🛡️ EMV and card security

The EMV standard, ARQC/ARPC cryptograms, CVMs, SDA/DDA/CDA, contactless kernels, PCI DSS, end-to-end encryption, and anti-skimming defenses

The EMV standard

EMV (Europay, Mastercard, Visa; now managed by EMVCo, owned in equal shares by six schemes) is the global standard for chip payment cards. Its core idea is to replace the static magnetic stripe data, which can be copied endlessly, with a dynamic cryptographic exchange between the chip, the terminal, and the issuer that makes every transaction unique and impossible to forge. France rolled out chip cards across the board before other markets, and fraud on in-person payments there has become marginal.

FrontScheme brand · logoEMV chip · contact + NFC antennaPAN · 4970 10•• •••• 9015Expiration date MM/YYCardholder nameBackMagnetic stripe (ISO 7813)CVV2/CVC2 · 3 printed digitsSignature panel · printed noticesIssuer contact detailsBIN/IIN: 8 digitsissuer, country, product: routingLuhn check digitchecks the format, not the accountNEVER storefull track · CVV2 · PIN blockDynamic cryptogramARQC: unique to each paymentCan be displayedBIN + last 4 digitsStatic, so cloneablethe magstripe fades from the fleet, EMV staysCVV2, full track data, and the PIN block are never stored after authorization, even encrypted.
1974
Smart card patent
Roland Moreno files the foundational patent in France.
1992
Nationwide rollout in France
Cartes Bancaires (CB), France’s domestic card scheme, moves its cards to chip (the B0' standard) with PIN on every transaction, ten years ahead of the rest of the world.
1994-1996
EMV specifications 1.0, then 3.0
Europay, Mastercard, and Visa unify the standards for payment chips.
1999
EMVCo is founded
A dedicated governance body, later joined by JCB, Amex, Discover, and UnionPay.
2004-2006
European migration
SEPA-wide switch to EMV, with a liability shift: the non-EMV party bears the fraud.
2015
US liability shift
The last major market to migrate; counterfeit fraud at the point of sale collapses.
2016-2026
Extensions
EMV 3-D Secure, network tokenization, Secure Remote Commerce, a unified contactless kernel (Kernel 8).
≈ 0,010 %
card fraud rate for in-person payments in France
OSMP, 2024 report (2023 data)
≈ 0,16 %
fraud rate for remote payments, the channel where most fraud occurs
OSMP, 2024 annual report
≈ 0,053 %
overall card fraud rate in France, all channels
OSMP, 2024 annual report

An EMV contact transaction runs through standardized steps: application selection (choosing the AID, such as A0000000421010 for CB), reading the card data, offline data authentication (SDA/DDA/CDA), cardholder verification (CVM), and terminal risk management (floor limits, random selection). The last step is cryptogram generation (GENERATE AC), which carries the chip’s decision: request online authorization (ARQC), approve offline (TC), or decline (AAC).

ARQC and ARPC: the cryptographic core

The ARQC (Authorization Request Cryptogram) is a MAC the chip computes with a session key, derived from the card’s master key, which is itself derived from the issuer master key. The calculation covers the critical transaction data: amount, currency, date, ATC counter, the terminal’s unpredictable number (UN), verification results (TVR), and more. The issuer, which holds the same keys, recomputes the ARQC. If the two values match, the transaction came from the genuine card and its data was not altered in transit. The issuer then responds with an ARPC, a response cryptogram that the card verifies in turn. Each side thus authenticates the other.

EMV chipMDK (card master key)POS terminal / SREDIPEK + counter (DUKPT)Acquirer / PSP HSMLMK · BDK · ZPK · ZAKIssuer HSMLMK · MDK · PVK · CVKSession key1 per transaction, from the ATCKey per transactionthe BDK is never in the terminalZone translationPIN block re-encrypted under ZPKChecksARQC, PIN (PVV), CVV/CVCARQC (tag 9F26)PIN encrypted with DUKPTISO 8583 fields 52 / 55ARPC + response codeARQC + transaction dataPIN block translated under the ZPKonline authorizationARPC: the card authenticates the issuer's responseNo key travels in the clear: it stays encrypted under the key one level up,and moves between zones through translation inside an HSM, never by being decrypted in memory.Compromising one transaction compromises no other: that is the whole point of DUKPT.Key in the chip (MDK)Derived per transactionKey under the LMK, in an HSMIssuer verification
The cryptographic loop of an EMV authorization
Terminal
Requests a cryptogram (GENERATE AC)
Sends amount, currency, date, UN, check results (TVR)
Card (chip)
Computes the ARQC
3DES/AES MAC over the transaction data, using the session key (derived from the ATC)
Issuer
Verifies the ARQC, decides, computes the ARPC
Recomputes the cryptogram + standard checks (balance, fraud); the ARPC encodes the decision
Card
Verifies the ARPC and completes the transaction
Second GENERATE AC: the card issues a final TC (approval) or AAC (decline)
EMV data in field DE55 (annotated TLV)
9F26 08 A1B2C3D4E5F60718   ARQC (8 bytes) - the cryptogram itself
9F27 01 80                  CID: 80 = ARQC (online authorization request)
9F36 02 014A                ATC: chip transaction counter (= 330)
95   05 0000008000          TVR: terminal check results
9F37 04 1A2B3C4D            UN: terminal unpredictable number (anti-replay)
9F02 06 000000012550        authorized amount: 125.50
5F2A 02 0978                currency: EUR
9A   03 260711              transaction date: 2026-07-11
9F10 12 0110A00003220000... IAD: issuer discretionary data (CVR...)
82   02 3900                AIP: card capabilities (DDA, CDA...)
🔑
Why replay attacks fail
The ARQC depends on the ATC, a counter that increments with every transaction, and on the terminal’s unpredictable number. Replaying a captured cryptogram produces an invalid value, because both parameters have changed in the meantime. The issuer also flags any abnormal jump in the ATC. The magnetic stripe lacks this protection, and so does a bare PAN + CVV2 in e-commerce. Fraud has therefore moved to remote payments, which 3-D Secure and tokenization are designed to counter.

CVM: verifying the cardholder

The CVM (Cardholder Verification Method) is the method used in a given transaction to verify that the person presenting the card is its legitimate holder. The card carries a CVM list, ranked by preference and subject to conditions (amount, terminal type). The terminal runs the first applicable method it supports.

MethodVerified byTypical useStrength
Online PINThe issuer (encrypted PIN carried in the authorization)ATMs; standard in some countriesVery strong
Offline PIN (enciphered)The chip itselfStandard for in-person payments in France and EuropeVery strong
Offline PIN (plaintext)The chip (PIN sent to the reader in plaintext)Legacy; being phased outStrong (vulnerable to a compromised terminal)
SignatureThe merchant (visual comparison)Legacy markets (US before 2015)Low
No CVMNo oneSmall amounts, contactless cards, unattended terminalsNone; capped (€50 in France)
CDCVMThe cardholder’s device (biometrics or phone passcode)Apple Pay, Google PayVery strong; no contactless limit
Cardholder verification methods
ℹ️
CDCVM: why Apple Pay has no limit
With CDCVM (Consumer Device CVM), verification by Face ID, fingerprint, or passcode happens on the device before the cryptogram is generated. It counts as strong customer authentication under PSD2. A contactless Apple Pay or Google Pay payment is therefore not bound by the contactless card limit, €50 in France. That limit applies only to transactions with no cardholder verification (no CVM), not to NFC technology itself.
  • The CVM list is signed within the offline authentication data: a fraudster cannot quietly downgrade it on a properly verified DDA/CDA card.
  • The verification result is recorded in the CVR/TVR and reaches the issuer in the IAD; an issuer can decline a no-CVM transaction above its own thresholds.
  • In France, three wrong PINs in a row block the chip (response code 75); the card keeps the counter, and the issuer resets it.

SDA, DDA, CDA: authenticating the card offline

Offline data authentication (ODA) verifies that the card is genuine without contacting the issuer. It underpins offline transactions (in-flight, tolls, below authorization floor limits) and fast contactless payments. The standard includes three generations, and the first is no longer allowed for new card issuance.

MethodHow it worksWeaknessStatus in 2026
SDA (Static Data Authentication)The issuer signs the card data once and for all (RSA)Static signature: can be cloned onto a “yes-card” that approves everything offlineObsolete; banned for new issuance for years
DDA (Dynamic Data Authentication)The card has its own RSA key and signs a dynamic challenge from the terminalAuthentication and cryptogram generation are two separate steps (a wedge attack is theoretically possible)Widely deployed standard
CDA (Combined DDA / AC)The dynamic signature also covers the transaction cryptogram (ARQC/TC)–Recommended or required, especially for contactless
SDA vs. DDA vs. CDA
⚠️
The lesson of SDA
The “yes-cards” of the 2000s were SDA clones that answered YES to any offline PIN check and approved transactions below floor limits. They proved that static cryptography protects against tampering, not against cloning. Since then, a payment system’s design has been judged by its resistance to replay, meaning what an attacker gains by reproducing observed data exactly. The same reasoning now rules out the clear PAN in e-commerce, in favor of a token + cryptogram.

The chain of trust rests on a three-tier PKI. The public keys of the schemes’ certificate authorities (CAs) are loaded into terminals; they certify issuer public keys, which in turn certify card public keys. Revoking CA keys, through rotations scheduled by EMVCo, is a recurring task for acquirers and for companies that maintain POS terminal fleets.

Contactless: kernels and mobile tokenization

The kernel is the terminal software that runs the EMV contactless exchange with the card. Historically, each scheme specified its own. The standard has eight kernels, which makes POS terminal certification complex. A French terminal must carry several and pick the right one based on the card’s AID. EMVCo has published Kernel 8, a generic, next-generation kernel (elliptic-curve cryptography, secure channel) meant to gradually replace the proprietary kernels.

KernelScheme / technologyNote
Kernel 1Legacy (early JCB/Visa)Being phased out
Kernel 2Mastercard (M/Chip, formerly PayPass)Full EMV mode, rich offline features
Kernel 3Visa (qVSDC, formerly payWave)Built for speed: single-tap transaction
Kernel 4American Express (ExpressPay)–
Kernel 5JCB (J/Speedy)–
Kernel 6Discover (D-PAS)–
Kernel 7UnionPay (QuickPass)–
Kernel 8EMVCo, next generationUnified, ECC, designed to replace kernels 2–7
EMV contactless kernels

Mobile payments (Apple Pay, Google Pay) add network tokenization on top of contactless. The real PAN is replaced by a DPAN, a device token stored in the Secure Element or via HCE. Every payment generates a dynamic cryptogram, and neither the merchant nor its PSP ever sees the original card number.

Customerenters the PAN onceMerchant / PSPnever stores the PANToken ServiceVisa VTS · Mastercard MDESIssuerapproves the tokenPANtoken requestTARDPAN (network token)bound to one card × merchant pairprovisioningSubsequent paymentstoken + dynamic cryptogramone-click / MITCard reissued or expired: the token staysvalid (updated by the scheme) →+2 to 3 pts of approval rate
ℹ️
Contactless limits in France
The limit is €50 per contactless card transaction without CVM, raised from €30 to €50 in May 2020. On top of that, issuers apply cumulative limits and periodically ask for the PIN, which resets the offline counters. With mobile CDCVM, no regulatory limit applies, because the cardholder is verified on the device.

PCI DSS: protecting card data

PCI DSS (Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard) is the security standard the schemes contractually impose on anyone who stores, processes, or transmits card data. Version 4.0.1 is in force, and its future-dated requirements have applied since March 2025. Twelve requirements (firewalls, encryption, access management, logging, testing, policies, and more) break down into hundreds of controls, with validation levels scaled to volume.

LevelAnnual volume (per scheme)Required validation
Level 1Over 6M transactions (or a confirmed breach)Annual on-site audit by a QSA → ROC + AOC, quarterly ASV scans
Level 21M to 6M transactionsAnnual SAQ (QSA/ISA depending on the scheme), quarterly ASV scans
Level 320,000 to 1M e-commerce transactionsAnnual SAQ, quarterly ASV scans
Level 4Under 20,000 e-commerce or under 1M in totalAnnual SAQ, scans as required by the acquirer
Merchant compliance levels (Visa/Mastercard criteria)
SAQScopeApproximate size
APayment page fully outsourced (compliant redirect/iframe)≈ 30 questions
A-EPE-commerce site whose code affects the payment page (direct post, JS)≈ 190 questions
B / B-IPStandalone dial-up / IP POS terminals, no electronic storage≈ 40–80 questions
C / C-VTConnected payment applications / isolated virtual terminal≈ 80–160 questions
P2PEPCI-validated P2PE point-to-point encryption solution≈ 30 questions
DAll other cases (PAN storage, service providers)250+ questions
Main SAQs (self-assessment questionnaires)
⚠️
What must NEVER be stored
Sensitive authentication data (full track data, CVV2/CVC2, PIN, and PIN block) must never be kept after authorization, even encrypted. If the PAN is stored, it must be rendered unreadable through strong encryption, truncation, or tokenization. Nearly every post-breach fine stems from a violation of these two rules.
  • Reduce scope before securing it: PSP iframe/redirect + tokenization ⇒ SAQ A instead of SAQ D; it is the most cost-effective architecture decision you can make.
  • PCI DSS v4 tightens e-commerce requirements: inventory and integrity of payment page scripts (requirements 6.4.3 and 11.6.1), a direct response to Magecart attacks.
  • Compliance is annual and ongoing: after an incident, the acquirer can hold an expired AOC against the merchant.

End-to-end encryption, skimming, and countermeasures

Between the chip and the back office, card data passes through links that can be attacked: the read head, terminal memory, the store network, and servers. P2PE/E2EE (point-to-point encryption) encrypts the PAN as soon as it is read, inside the terminal’s secure module (SRED). Only the processor holds the decryption key. An attacker who compromises the POS system or the network sees only ciphertext, and the merchant’s PCI scope shrinks dramatically (SAQ P2PE).

🏧
ATM / gas pump skimming
A rogue reader plus a camera or fake keypad to capture the stripe and PIN. Countermeasures: anti-skimming readers (jamming), inspections, geoblocking of magstripe transactions, and above all EMV, which makes a cloned stripe useless at European points of sale.
🔌
Shimming
A thin circuit board inserted inside the chip reader to intercept the EMV exchange. It captures data but cannot clone a DDA/CDA card. The remaining risk lies in magstripe fallback and sloppy implementations.
🕸️
E-commerce skimming (Magecart)
A malicious script injected into the payment page that siphons off PAN and CVV2 in real time. Countermeasures: PSP-hosted iframe, CSP, SRI, script integrity monitoring (PCI v4: 6.4.3/11.6.1).
🎣
Social engineering
Fraud in 2026 no longer breaks the cryptography. It manipulates cardholders (fake bank advisers, parcel delivery texts) into approving SCA themselves. The response: behavioral scoring by issuers, customer education, and stricter wallet enrollment.
🔑
Layers of defense
EMV eliminated counterfeit card fraud at the point of sale, 3DS/SCA contained e-commerce fraud, and tokenization + P2PE reduced the resale value of stolen data to almost nothing. Fraud has shifted accordingly to the human link and to unprotected channels. Risk analysis should therefore focus on the next weak link rather than endlessly reinforcing the last one.