id stringlengths 10 10 | brand stringclasses 2 values | type stringclasses 2 values | category stringclasses 16 values | question stringlengths 47 102 | answer dict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
VI_MC_0001 | VISA | contact | Testing | Why did the transaction fail after GENERATE AC? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A4040007A0000000031010 → R: 6F228408A0000000031010A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:70150877432D1026706D7E805DA846A32C3BB81E3C299000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016B62179273C8EB5BB682575EC87A171AC826A6FCE9000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F260848478DCB74F213459F3602D2CC9000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.337736Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "The GENERATE AC response returned a cryptogram (9F26) but the host or terminal logic interpreted it as a failure. This can happen for multiple reasons: missing PDOL data, incorrect Unpredictable Number (9F37), or mismatch in ATC (9F36)."
} |
VI_MC_0002 | VISA | contact | CVM | Why is Field 55 causing ARQC verification failures at the issuer? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A4040007A0000000031010 → R: 6F228408A0000000031010A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:701538A39D5E0853964B50AF03B971722F244F58D6699000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016CBEE3772A077021721A278F64F7FD633DBDDE1319000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F2608CA3766E4D58E72E39F360210279000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.337789Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "Field 55 TLV encoding may be malformed, missing mandatory tags (9F26, 9F36, 95), or has incorrect length encoding for long values, leading to issuer-side ARQC recomputation mismatches."
} |
VI_MC_0003 | VISA | contactless | Issuer Scripts | Why did the terminal prompt for signature instead of PIN for a contactless transaction? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:70156C15C0C8E9DF469611A11F5125227C3712DA86A79000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:70168C49EA20E32684B27B95E909348334896A68F8129000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F2608D810A485ED03241B9F36024D419000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.337831Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "CVM selection may have favored signature due to TTQ/CVM limits, or CDCVM was not available/recognized. The terminal must follow kernel CVM processing; signature can appear if PIN is not supported or CVM limit thresholds apply."
} |
VI_MC_0004 | VISA | contact | Field 55 | Why did the terminal queue a reversal after approval? (Scenario 4) | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A4040007A0000000031010 → R: 6F228408A0000000031010A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:7015B673BD4755D05AD7853C1F76EB97706CA828BCA09000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016385813DBAD3C681D06BD2AA399DAC946DC59C0999000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F26086DAEEE6F529A27979F360264019000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.337880Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "A reversal was triggered because the terminal did not receive confirmation of capture/settlement from the host, or ARPC/issuer authentication failed after approval. Reversals must reference original STAN and RRN."
} |
VI_MC_0005 | VISA | contact | Terminal Configuration | What causes '6985 Conditions of use not satisfied' during VERIFY? (Scenario 5) | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A4040007A0000000031010 → R: 6F228408A0000000031010A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:7015ED6CFC7403D75E173E4EAEDE5FE878F78E2978AA9000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:70162447C462DDAED16DC0CF0B9CD7F78DF0CAC5E40C9000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F260802D4E518CA6EAAC89F3602D82F9000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.337918Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "This SW indicates that card conditions for the VERIFY operation are not met—commonly due to PIN block format mismatch, blocked PIN, or security status disallowing VERIFY. Check PIN try counter and card CVM capabilities."
} |
VI_MC_0006 | VISA | contact | Field 55 | Why does the contactless flow go online while contact remains offline? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A4040007A0000000031010 → R: 6F228408A0000000031010A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:7015B7210760474F36E8B5359309CC6273931BDB2A0D9000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016F3DBE4D58FED8A728E7ECA0FA5F6B8A880627DF79000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F2608FFE0297C79BFBDAB9F3602E8989000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.337955Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "Contactless kernels often have lower floor limits and different risk parameters; contactless may also be configured to always online for certain AIDs. Compare TTQ and kernel risk settings between contact/contactless flows."
} |
VI_MC_0007 | VISA | contact | Settlement | Why did the transaction fail after GENERATE AC? (Scenario 7) | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A4040007A0000000031010 → R: 6F228408A0000000031010A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:7015A3566F893697B590481194F309FFEA518F32CF219000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016449273D7CEE9D9136682575250DEF91799E2786D9000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F26083748421599E3E9C89F3602FE219000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.338009Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "The GENERATE AC response returned a cryptogram (9F26) but the host or terminal logic interpreted it as a failure. This can happen for multiple reasons: missing PDOL data, incorrect Unpredictable Number (9F37), or mismatch in ATC (9F36)."
} |
VI_MC_0008 | VISA | contactless | Integration | Why is Field 55 causing ARQC verification failures at the issuer? (Scenario 8) | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:70150270815FE85DF2FBDAA35ADF9C1E2A8A3C0ED16B9000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016FE16849EF307590D273E34F98DFF7E4C6428DA809000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F260899F4EFBACEA67C7D9F36021AFC9000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.338061Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "Field 55 TLV encoding may be malformed, missing mandatory tags (9F26, 9F36, 95), or has incorrect length encoding for long values, leading to issuer-side ARQC recomputation mismatches."
} |
VI_MC_0009 | VISA | contact | Issuer Scripts | Why did the terminal prompt for signature instead of PIN for a contactless transaction? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A4040007A0000000031010 → R: 6F228408A0000000031010A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:7015F14A3E3E04D42F8AC2ACAF127972D33E5901A19B9000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016BD47D5552C7F47E8E80E952EB9D8E96CF37CB9909000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F2608C801F97B7684319E9F36021B429000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.338107Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "CVM selection may have favored signature due to TTQ/CVM limits, or CDCVM was not available/recognized. The terminal must follow kernel CVM processing; signature can appear if PIN is not supported or CVM limit thresholds apply."
} |
VI_MC_0010 | VISA | contactless | Terminal Configuration | Why did the terminal queue a reversal after approval? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:7015564B858F9A3E247CB2C083EB8CB37F0A72E9D3419000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:701619F3374CEBD4D3FD81B6EE7B3BB1C863E2601A749000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F260862667A40844853049F36020B7A9000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.338146Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "A reversal was triggered because the terminal did not receive confirmation of capture/settlement from the host, or ARPC/issuer authentication failed after approval. Reversals must reference original STAN and RRN."
} |
VI_MC_0011 | VISA | contact | Settlement | What causes '6985 Conditions of use not satisfied' during VERIFY? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A4040007A0000000031010 → R: 6F228408A0000000031010A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:70154D32FEB3E719E01FCD3FE22A4248AC9ED336DE7D9000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016AECD3ADA8B4F2222D3B41A3DBD199B364F73BB389000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F26087D080589AB054C249F3602026C9000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.338183Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "This SW indicates that card conditions for the VERIFY operation are not met—commonly due to PIN block format mismatch, blocked PIN, or security status disallowing VERIFY. Check PIN try counter and card CVM capabilities."
} |
VI_MC_0012 | VISA | contact | Security | Why does the contactless flow go online while contact remains offline? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A4040007A0000000031010 → R: 6F228408A0000000031010A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:7015B9A2145128EDFED863BD39F917C10696489A30FD9000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:701654C7B2C1D0E2ADCD93C0A5EB2D37DC2C9A7A52369000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F2608BB4734865425FEEA9F3602A4E29000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.338219Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "Contactless kernels often have lower floor limits and different risk parameters; contactless may also be configured to always online for certain AIDs. Compare TTQ and kernel risk settings between contact/contactless flows."
} |
VI_MC_0013 | VISA | contactless | Issuer Scripts | Why did the transaction fail after GENERATE AC? (Scenario 13) | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:701581B29EE11B922CE1E6AF41E3A2517EE5BB9CDA1A9000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:70162A3C984A24B9C429CA42DB0B956AF67442931A4C9000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F26084555E1DB7E9E779F9F36026BEE9000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.338259Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "The GENERATE AC response returned a cryptogram (9F26) but the host or terminal logic interpreted it as a failure. This can happen for multiple reasons: missing PDOL data, incorrect Unpredictable Number (9F37), or mismatch in ATC (9F36)."
} |
VI_MC_0014 | VISA | contactless | Issuer Scripts | Why is Field 55 causing ARQC verification failures at the issuer? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:701556481FB339258E4D27EB0D1CB7C2B70A3A4419F49000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016FE020864D3979317DE23F0749D0B7D52B20CF1CB9000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F260880B2B73A41BA5EF59F360242E19000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.338296Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "Field 55 TLV encoding may be malformed, missing mandatory tags (9F26, 9F36, 95), or has incorrect length encoding for long values, leading to issuer-side ARQC recomputation mismatches."
} |
VI_MC_0015 | VISA | contact | CVM | Why did the terminal prompt for signature instead of PIN for a contactless transaction? (Scenario 15) | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A4040007A0000000031010 → R: 6F228408A0000000031010A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:70151A9CF8169B1A83BDCECA5FFB82D2D59A32A99ED59000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016EBE1BD812CB504E1427BBC14EBBE24BCA87305FC9000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F2608388E69F6342E5E2A9F3602B2999000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.338338Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "CVM selection may have favored signature due to TTQ/CVM limits, or CDCVM was not available/recognized. The terminal must follow kernel CVM processing; signature can appear if PIN is not supported or CVM limit thresholds apply."
} |
VI_MC_0016 | VISA | contact | Keys & Certificates | Why did the terminal queue a reversal after approval? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A4040007A0000000031010 → R: 6F228408A0000000031010A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:7015B73647F0BBE4229CFDD24A2EEB454D134955A7B99000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:70162868492545A102186D0F99F7C9E215EDFE6A4AAB9000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F2608C4B3A7E38E74319C9F3602D75A9000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.338376Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "A reversal was triggered because the terminal did not receive confirmation of capture/settlement from the host, or ARPC/issuer authentication failed after approval. Reversals must reference original STAN and RRN."
} |
VI_MC_0017 | VISA | contact | Testing | What causes '6985 Conditions of use not satisfied' during VERIFY? (Scenario 17) | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A4040007A0000000031010 → R: 6F228408A0000000031010A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:7015FEF9F02CE76B119FF903D48BCB1C16B92CE8343C9000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016BAB46C1114AFE44AA5C9AF9F0BA3D90F871F5C479000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F26081360EAD4D6DF146A9F3602FCA59000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.338430Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "This SW indicates that card conditions for the VERIFY operation are not met—commonly due to PIN block format mismatch, blocked PIN, or security status disallowing VERIFY. Check PIN try counter and card CVM capabilities."
} |
VI_MC_0018 | VISA | contactless | Security | Why does the contactless flow go online while contact remains offline? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:7015B8F67897996FAFB893CCB49192BE8F66884377179000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016713DAF3405DFF69A912715D51CF591093A9EF4E89000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F260863A5E850A965CDA29F3602C3549000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.338468Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "Contactless kernels often have lower floor limits and different risk parameters; contactless may also be configured to always online for certain AIDs. Compare TTQ and kernel risk settings between contact/contactless flows."
} |
VI_MC_0019 | VISA | contact | Reversals | Why did the transaction fail after GENERATE AC? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A4040007A0000000031010 → R: 6F228408A0000000031010A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:701508C7E8A908B713E95C939B774F4EBDF672EB23169000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:701645AE36F2E1E4DE1E90C80621DB212F19D54DBCEC9000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F2608C24B35C47009EDC79F36027EB49000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.338505Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "The GENERATE AC response returned a cryptogram (9F26) but the host or terminal logic interpreted it as a failure. This can happen for multiple reasons: missing PDOL data, incorrect Unpredictable Number (9F37), or mismatch in ATC (9F36)."
} |
VI_MC_0020 | VISA | contact | Card Communication | Why is Field 55 causing ARQC verification failures at the issuer? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A4040007A0000000031010 → R: 6F228408A0000000031010A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:70151D076231E171CE761497AA7947D9815DF1BCADD49000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:70169C5F7794E1DD4C786A2EB2618C1266F6A90663F79000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F26086C7A9CEB98BFE3FA9F36026BAD9000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.338543Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "Field 55 TLV encoding may be malformed, missing mandatory tags (9F26, 9F36, 95), or has incorrect length encoding for long values, leading to issuer-side ARQC recomputation mismatches."
} |
VI_MC_0021 | VISA | contact | Integration | Why did the terminal prompt for signature instead of PIN for a contactless transaction? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A4040007A0000000031010 → R: 6F228408A0000000031010A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:7015408D946A7C7FA8FFE5B54F511210D472406EB1FF9000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:701600D00890D5334768B8C2BCE779212CCCF1052FDA9000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F26083176F812815A064C9F360229579000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.338580Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "CVM selection may have favored signature due to TTQ/CVM limits, or CDCVM was not available/recognized. The terminal must follow kernel CVM processing; signature can appear if PIN is not supported or CVM limit thresholds apply."
} |
VI_MC_0022 | VISA | contactless | Keys & Certificates | Why did the terminal queue a reversal after approval? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:7015C42B13D72ACA08EF7BCD5C2972284C4CAB3209EB9000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:701683425DED302B2AC09DC275C54898F425D8D9F2B89000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F26087F6E3490CACAEAD49F36029A6F9000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.338615Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "A reversal was triggered because the terminal did not receive confirmation of capture/settlement from the host, or ARPC/issuer authentication failed after approval. Reversals must reference original STAN and RRN."
} |
VI_MC_0023 | VISA | contactless | Terminal Configuration | What causes '6985 Conditions of use not satisfied' during VERIFY? (Scenario 23) | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:7015A9F7AC8CB3650E6E92DF49784DC2EFCD1B237B519000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016CAD303877EBCE4B0F39D234B9AE6FBF3EEA291309000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F2608A35755ADE7C55DC09F36026EDC9000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.338659Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "This SW indicates that card conditions for the VERIFY operation are not met—commonly due to PIN block format mismatch, blocked PIN, or security status disallowing VERIFY. Check PIN try counter and card CVM capabilities."
} |
VI_MC_0024 | VISA | contact | Keys & Certificates | Why does the contactless flow go online while contact remains offline? (Scenario 24) | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A4040007A0000000031010 → R: 6F228408A0000000031010A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:70158235BA6E38FACC3BBE5924A37935B4CD4CD5F55F9000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016945AE1B0F46CFDFDEF5207918795EF338B1E6D379000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F260891E8B2E376BD54669F36021B859000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.338697Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "Contactless kernels often have lower floor limits and different risk parameters; contactless may also be configured to always online for certain AIDs. Compare TTQ and kernel risk settings between contact/contactless flows."
} |
VI_MC_0025 | VISA | contactless | Brand-specific | Why did the transaction fail after GENERATE AC? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:70159834D184474A7CF48DCE22C8BEFA02EB2C6D6F8A9000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:70169A4FA113E035EE0D649582B82B51C97D2306F2479000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F2608E00A3D4F27C233AB9F360294C49000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.338735Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "The GENERATE AC response returned a cryptogram (9F26) but the host or terminal logic interpreted it as a failure. This can happen for multiple reasons: missing PDOL data, incorrect Unpredictable Number (9F37), or mismatch in ATC (9F36)."
} |
VI_MC_0026 | VISA | contact | Transaction Flow | Why is Field 55 causing ARQC verification failures at the issuer? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A4040007A0000000031010 → R: 6F228408A0000000031010A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:70155EB64DE62343CBDA4782790966C917FC37F20BA49000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016CDB5F20208611C9DDC24829264AC29D7172D3E199000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F2608530405FB85B4830A9F3602D8289000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.338773Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "Field 55 TLV encoding may be malformed, missing mandatory tags (9F26, 9F36, 95), or has incorrect length encoding for long values, leading to issuer-side ARQC recomputation mismatches."
} |
VI_MC_0027 | VISA | contactless | Brand-specific | Why did the terminal prompt for signature instead of PIN for a contactless transaction? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:70151F5B5833701071FBC451D7A7DA82B31571C2E99A9000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:70162E0B6997EBF6740D07B0A0C9367DF148217DBE239000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F26084C21D4798ACAAE879F360226439000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.338827Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "CVM selection may have favored signature due to TTQ/CVM limits, or CDCVM was not available/recognized. The terminal must follow kernel CVM processing; signature can appear if PIN is not supported or CVM limit thresholds apply."
} |
VI_MC_0028 | VISA | contactless | Card Communication | Why did the terminal queue a reversal after approval? (Scenario 28) | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:7015EAD3B6E9E8325916A427BC19850CE73E343017469000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016CB282026E42A31E15DCF0CD5B6588E4179FDF1289000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F2608C4D670CBFFBAC8509F3602A7089000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.338870Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "A reversal was triggered because the terminal did not receive confirmation of capture/settlement from the host, or ARPC/issuer authentication failed after approval. Reversals must reference original STAN and RRN."
} |
VI_MC_0029 | VISA | contactless | APDU | What causes '6985 Conditions of use not satisfied' during VERIFY? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:7015B75377817CB557AB0B46F95F121770F0A64A5A109000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016443B2BC3A9A45DFA5B75C99450C15A73F4A27BA59000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F26082AE08672B8301CED9F36025DFC9000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.338908Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "This SW indicates that card conditions for the VERIFY operation are not met—commonly due to PIN block format mismatch, blocked PIN, or security status disallowing VERIFY. Check PIN try counter and card CVM capabilities."
} |
VI_MC_0030 | VISA | contact | Brand-specific | Why does the contactless flow go online while contact remains offline? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A4040007A0000000031010 → R: 6F228408A0000000031010A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:7015F75E2190A832A5C522AF0D5D513A66D899731CF49000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:70161B0D29F6306592F39CFF82C5BCB5E18EE87814329000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F2608BD71CDF7F92C143E9F360255669000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.338944Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "Contactless kernels often have lower floor limits and different risk parameters; contactless may also be configured to always online for certain AIDs. Compare TTQ and kernel risk settings between contact/contactless flows."
} |
VI_MC_0031 | VISA | contact | Card Communication | Why did the transaction fail after GENERATE AC? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A4040007A0000000031010 → R: 6F228408A0000000031010A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:7015D648A22CCA8E0D3D443339BD8CFF158C4C1CA71F9000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:70168B0A998F3749EA8D26E6DFB1529C40566171E1B69000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F26088BEC307BFE5FBB589F3602290C9000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.338981Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "The GENERATE AC response returned a cryptogram (9F26) but the host or terminal logic interpreted it as a failure. This can happen for multiple reasons: missing PDOL data, incorrect Unpredictable Number (9F37), or mismatch in ATC (9F36)."
} |
VI_MC_0032 | VISA | contact | Security | Why is Field 55 causing ARQC verification failures at the issuer? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A4040007A0000000031010 → R: 6F228408A0000000031010A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:70157768D00F4507898DCBE86E9C30B993F2A8A889649000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:701671CA40F98DCC16A7FB95593F485A27B79DAB89E39000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F2608F12F63C9D1446ADE9F36024A529000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.339018Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "Field 55 TLV encoding may be malformed, missing mandatory tags (9F26, 9F36, 95), or has incorrect length encoding for long values, leading to issuer-side ARQC recomputation mismatches."
} |
VI_MC_0033 | VISA | contact | Keys & Certificates | Why did the terminal prompt for signature instead of PIN for a contactless transaction? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A4040007A0000000031010 → R: 6F228408A0000000031010A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:7015A10E8655F24DDCDFC016B0A60077B943C952199E9000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016AD4AFB65C07746053B1C8113013DEC38F4609D389000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F26084D33933F6686BD959F36021F6F9000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.339057Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "CVM selection may have favored signature due to TTQ/CVM limits, or CDCVM was not available/recognized. The terminal must follow kernel CVM processing; signature can appear if PIN is not supported or CVM limit thresholds apply."
} |
VI_MC_0034 | VISA | contact | Keys & Certificates | Why did the terminal queue a reversal after approval? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A4040007A0000000031010 → R: 6F228408A0000000031010A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:701523F422387E98E13519BAD331045ABE82BA53CCE89000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016CFD534153DFE5CB04FF3DE128A07A3D7FBC4105F9000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F2608F52FA7A817CC72EE9F3602E2FE9000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.339094Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "A reversal was triggered because the terminal did not receive confirmation of capture/settlement from the host, or ARPC/issuer authentication failed after approval. Reversals must reference original STAN and RRN."
} |
VI_MC_0035 | VISA | contactless | Brand-specific | What causes '6985 Conditions of use not satisfied' during VERIFY? (Scenario 35) | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:701503CD10296EAB17EAFBE3370AB9B315F4D38663C69000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016E6A3D13EE4F01DF5543CACD78CA9E44D9A6669B49000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F26085A3BFD9D030C41169F360285989000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.339140Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "This SW indicates that card conditions for the VERIFY operation are not met—commonly due to PIN block format mismatch, blocked PIN, or security status disallowing VERIFY. Check PIN try counter and card CVM capabilities."
} |
VI_MC_0036 | VISA | contactless | Brand-specific | Why does the contactless flow go online while contact remains offline? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:701561BE37C791CCDA1086E7B669E52553C1D884580A9000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016E414A19FB2A7525DC2B76AAB96F03BE771AC3C899000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F26080BEF196A2350266D9F360236D29000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.339178Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "Contactless kernels often have lower floor limits and different risk parameters; contactless may also be configured to always online for certain AIDs. Compare TTQ and kernel risk settings between contact/contactless flows."
} |
VI_MC_0037 | VISA | contactless | APDU | Why did the transaction fail after GENERATE AC? (Scenario 37) | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:7015122158278DCECDA0C30212B39929ECC0F574C9499000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016B04310C296B6D455786351E292836FAB473926AF9000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F2608EA94BAD50A77D8B49F3602AFEE9000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.339215Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "The GENERATE AC response returned a cryptogram (9F26) but the host or terminal logic interpreted it as a failure. This can happen for multiple reasons: missing PDOL data, incorrect Unpredictable Number (9F37), or mismatch in ATC (9F36)."
} |
VI_MC_0038 | VISA | contactless | Card Communication | Why is Field 55 causing ARQC verification failures at the issuer? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:701535284682200C618F4BC794E2CB0754E554FB17F79000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:701628B716BCFE11A3885CCB28C7CBBFF04E572864559000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F2608B37DA3FFF65D07149F360254149000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.339252Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "Field 55 TLV encoding may be malformed, missing mandatory tags (9F26, 9F36, 95), or has incorrect length encoding for long values, leading to issuer-side ARQC recomputation mismatches."
} |
VI_MC_0039 | VISA | contact | Settlement | Why did the terminal prompt for signature instead of PIN for a contactless transaction? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A4040007A0000000031010 → R: 6F228408A0000000031010A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:7015C0926EFF57D4585AE27CC4306D435F132F40DDB19000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016D7FCB3D48F729D860030C6ADB34D88DB8C6DF5BF9000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F260889BC437E536CA15C9F3602024F9000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.339290Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "CVM selection may have favored signature due to TTQ/CVM limits, or CDCVM was not available/recognized. The terminal must follow kernel CVM processing; signature can appear if PIN is not supported or CVM limit thresholds apply."
} |
VI_MC_0040 | VISA | contactless | Security | Why did the terminal queue a reversal after approval? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:70157B21CC915FE06961751B70528CBCC60229BB876E9000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016C085D329A388ECF7AEE0F382C77ADB08792CA25F9000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F2608AB6856F67786767B9F360243329000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.339327Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "A reversal was triggered because the terminal did not receive confirmation of capture/settlement from the host, or ARPC/issuer authentication failed after approval. Reversals must reference original STAN and RRN."
} |
VI_MC_0041 | VISA | contact | CVM | What causes '6985 Conditions of use not satisfied' during VERIFY? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A4040007A0000000031010 → R: 6F228408A0000000031010A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:7015FBAF8F58C741DF1BC5E3EA006C3AB85878FAB5FD9000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:70166DBBC8E547387DC644F05DF4AF981C35168F3EA89000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F2608BB8B0D3B659BAFE29F3602C9E49000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.339363Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "This SW indicates that card conditions for the VERIFY operation are not met—commonly due to PIN block format mismatch, blocked PIN, or security status disallowing VERIFY. Check PIN try counter and card CVM capabilities."
} |
VI_MC_0042 | VISA | contactless | Field 55 | Why does the contactless flow go online while contact remains offline? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:7015DC225A7AA98C8EBED550478265C332F10C23842C9000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:70169779E44501BAFE8E45ED9BF72E9BD849004B9F0F9000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F2608F90D970B6DDC75CC9F3602782D9000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.339400Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "Contactless kernels often have lower floor limits and different risk parameters; contactless may also be configured to always online for certain AIDs. Compare TTQ and kernel risk settings between contact/contactless flows."
} |
VI_MC_0043 | VISA | contactless | Brand-specific | Why did the transaction fail after GENERATE AC? (Scenario 43) | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:701598D625493EE8F6A041053984E07240F6AD9FBE1A9000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:70162418C2F568C037CE716E36FC9A5138F96B1637DA9000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F26080583C701F4B275F29F3602A11B9000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.339438Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "The GENERATE AC response returned a cryptogram (9F26) but the host or terminal logic interpreted it as a failure. This can happen for multiple reasons: missing PDOL data, incorrect Unpredictable Number (9F37), or mismatch in ATC (9F36)."
} |
VI_MC_0044 | VISA | contact | Keys & Certificates | Why is Field 55 causing ARQC verification failures at the issuer? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A4040007A0000000031010 → R: 6F228408A0000000031010A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:70154F7ABE60CB481FE9F65BAE8524E98BE0C50B7A2C9000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:70166F49ADA332145163F631CF81B7206F2E1BDB18129000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F2608926337C6675D3BED9F3602355C9000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.339480Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "Field 55 TLV encoding may be malformed, missing mandatory tags (9F26, 9F36, 95), or has incorrect length encoding for long values, leading to issuer-side ARQC recomputation mismatches."
} |
VI_MC_0045 | VISA | contactless | Reversals | Why did the terminal prompt for signature instead of PIN for a contactless transaction? (Scenario 45) | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:7015BAABDDA76C8BEEC0190490976A08431EB448B7789000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:701692C62AF5F391C21ABDD370C191A4A741CE27D9C49000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F26084A2F1C82CD44F6FC9F360267729000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.339526Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "CVM selection may have favored signature due to TTQ/CVM limits, or CDCVM was not available/recognized. The terminal must follow kernel CVM processing; signature can appear if PIN is not supported or CVM limit thresholds apply."
} |
VI_MC_0046 | VISA | contactless | Brand-specific | Why did the terminal queue a reversal after approval? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:701523DDBB6AB095BE4E176B42317490A39EF0A6668F9000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:701640C18519681E02C8B309C7C3AF256E0179AFC50B9000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F2608BB97818C0874AC429F3602C7D79000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.339564Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "A reversal was triggered because the terminal did not receive confirmation of capture/settlement from the host, or ARPC/issuer authentication failed after approval. Reversals must reference original STAN and RRN."
} |
VI_MC_0047 | VISA | contactless | Settlement | What causes '6985 Conditions of use not satisfied' during VERIFY? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:7015AE4646494D45A235A40ADD9E846345087770B2F49000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016FB5CFF45671D08D76625EFAE7DC1CAC13EE17C1C9000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F2608169EC99E5D914EE29F3602354C9000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.339601Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "This SW indicates that card conditions for the VERIFY operation are not met—commonly due to PIN block format mismatch, blocked PIN, or security status disallowing VERIFY. Check PIN try counter and card CVM capabilities."
} |
VI_MC_0048 | VISA | contact | APDU | Why does the contactless flow go online while contact remains offline? (Scenario 48) | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A4040007A0000000031010 → R: 6F228408A0000000031010A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:70155E6E28A5323EB2C5CC15A45451D99E95346080EF9000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016F0F76FEDE207861541B1419A213D5595EB129ABC9000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F26082D29F438AD66132F9F36029DA89000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.339639Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "Contactless kernels often have lower floor limits and different risk parameters; contactless may also be configured to always online for certain AIDs. Compare TTQ and kernel risk settings between contact/contactless flows."
} |
VI_MC_0049 | VISA | contactless | Issuer Scripts | Why did the transaction fail after GENERATE AC? (Scenario 49) | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:7015FF5796030E36DD1AB60698299A03AAC056AAFF149000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016F4EAED19A06AB2480AC5C539A18D2F7BE96953B19000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F260862E0F46AF9A434619F3602EC309000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.339677Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "The GENERATE AC response returned a cryptogram (9F26) but the host or terminal logic interpreted it as a failure. This can happen for multiple reasons: missing PDOL data, incorrect Unpredictable Number (9F37), or mismatch in ATC (9F36)."
} |
VI_MC_0050 | VISA | contact | Risk Management | Why is Field 55 causing ARQC verification failures at the issuer? (Scenario 50) | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A4040007A0000000031010 → R: 6F228408A0000000031010A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:7015AE139096A6698AE384583036BA8497529AE140F19000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:70163C12DC5EB9A62E42E3E9EF7748BC5AAEF02F3BFE9000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F260859B43C3A29ECD7759F3602FC2A9000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.339720Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "Field 55 TLV encoding may be malformed, missing mandatory tags (9F26, 9F36, 95), or has incorrect length encoding for long values, leading to issuer-side ARQC recomputation mismatches."
} |
VI_MC_0051 | VISA | contactless | APDU | Why did the terminal prompt for signature instead of PIN for a contactless transaction? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:7015DA752F3EA3E59C23CAF1264044E9CE66A99DB20C9000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016491B10B3907DCACCCD65F46CBD49440204FD424D9000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F2608ED5EDECB75D0F78D9F3602B11F9000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.339757Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "CVM selection may have favored signature due to TTQ/CVM limits, or CDCVM was not available/recognized. The terminal must follow kernel CVM processing; signature can appear if PIN is not supported or CVM limit thresholds apply."
} |
VI_MC_0052 | VISA | contactless | Field 55 | Why did the terminal queue a reversal after approval? (Scenario 52) | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:7015248E227F291A0FEFADB9951981F51909F24288489000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016880354EB587F51A244FDC7E56B18315ECF9F7CCF9000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F260884D09ECA13BD8A889F360238CE9000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.339795Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "A reversal was triggered because the terminal did not receive confirmation of capture/settlement from the host, or ARPC/issuer authentication failed after approval. Reversals must reference original STAN and RRN."
} |
VI_MC_0053 | VISA | contact | Issuer Scripts | What causes '6985 Conditions of use not satisfied' during VERIFY? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A4040007A0000000031010 → R: 6F228408A0000000031010A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:7015A5A0020D33EB7986102163324C53589E2E8DA8529000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:701681CCA1885E2F6C5F34D63E831228E0F401C84AC09000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F2608FFDC270CF3BA9C129F3602BA2E9000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.339832Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "This SW indicates that card conditions for the VERIFY operation are not met—commonly due to PIN block format mismatch, blocked PIN, or security status disallowing VERIFY. Check PIN try counter and card CVM capabilities."
} |
VI_MC_0054 | VISA | contact | CVM | Why does the contactless flow go online while contact remains offline? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A4040007A0000000031010 → R: 6F228408A0000000031010A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:70151C69C3BF2E641607FC29FE01A1A1C36E47214F0F9000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:701617405193E5233F726DACA34A615A2384D5B5E7149000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F26083C50F200529DF4649F36028ED79000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.339874Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "Contactless kernels often have lower floor limits and different risk parameters; contactless may also be configured to always online for certain AIDs. Compare TTQ and kernel risk settings between contact/contactless flows."
} |
VI_MC_0055 | VISA | contact | Settlement | Why did the transaction fail after GENERATE AC? (Scenario 55) | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A4040007A0000000031010 → R: 6F228408A0000000031010A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:70155F29BD07633B7E681634FF5511B96D8AE131550F9000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016327EAD6A73A737D6C72FF1D46E5CB4E6B86A41189000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F260843EED5A795572DF69F3602FE809000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.339925Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "The GENERATE AC response returned a cryptogram (9F26) but the host or terminal logic interpreted it as a failure. This can happen for multiple reasons: missing PDOL data, incorrect Unpredictable Number (9F37), or mismatch in ATC (9F36)."
} |
VI_MC_0056 | VISA | contact | Brand-specific | Why is Field 55 causing ARQC verification failures at the issuer? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A4040007A0000000031010 → R: 6F228408A0000000031010A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:70157AD740D11F1DCF3EF720D64B9720F95E0EE4C5BE9000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:701602CA19D862A1B13CBE1BB5264A73F67AB8D812BB9000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F2608EF3F9EB26E22C5929F360235839000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.339963Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "Field 55 TLV encoding may be malformed, missing mandatory tags (9F26, 9F36, 95), or has incorrect length encoding for long values, leading to issuer-side ARQC recomputation mismatches."
} |
VI_MC_0057 | VISA | contact | Security | Why did the terminal prompt for signature instead of PIN for a contactless transaction? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A4040007A0000000031010 → R: 6F228408A0000000031010A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:701509D4FBDE096207ADAAFEE949587FB914B9E559559000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:701645731A4E8B561AB4BE5930CF4EA40A9F94EA3F149000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F2608390C7EB2A16786029F3602E2C69000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.339999Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "CVM selection may have favored signature due to TTQ/CVM limits, or CDCVM was not available/recognized. The terminal must follow kernel CVM processing; signature can appear if PIN is not supported or CVM limit thresholds apply."
} |
VI_MC_0058 | VISA | contact | Reversals | Why did the terminal queue a reversal after approval? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A4040007A0000000031010 → R: 6F228408A0000000031010A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:7015BC4DBCB09BB9E26EDE95DD42469FA2C20D8D5E469000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:70165C9F199FE700489F39D5F7038F2BFD8F3B08514A9000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F2608E4B518BDB19926539F36025AA99000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.340040Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "A reversal was triggered because the terminal did not receive confirmation of capture/settlement from the host, or ARPC/issuer authentication failed after approval. Reversals must reference original STAN and RRN."
} |
VI_MC_0059 | VISA | contactless | Testing | What causes '6985 Conditions of use not satisfied' during VERIFY? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:70153B4049BFDA5364763DE2340FB9B4EA59037447949000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016642D320FD16311F38129033665B0248BB57230669000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F260895036FB5E35BCD679F3602D3A39000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.340077Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "This SW indicates that card conditions for the VERIFY operation are not met—commonly due to PIN block format mismatch, blocked PIN, or security status disallowing VERIFY. Check PIN try counter and card CVM capabilities."
} |
VI_MC_0060 | VISA | contact | Issuer Scripts | Why does the contactless flow go online while contact remains offline? (Scenario 60) | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A4040007A0000000031010 → R: 6F228408A0000000031010A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:7015FB912AF3C9E9E7D9D62FB50F3CE234CC352B6A6C9000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:701637DF88CBFCF84E338FF740312F05CA4932FE69FF9000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F26088A01D3CEACEE11599F36025FD49000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.340114Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "Contactless kernels often have lower floor limits and different risk parameters; contactless may also be configured to always online for certain AIDs. Compare TTQ and kernel risk settings between contact/contactless flows."
} |
VI_MC_0061 | VISA | contactless | Settlement | Why did the transaction fail after GENERATE AC? (Scenario 61) | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:70153FFF51C8FCB9A1014BB0AC3DBBDB177792293A509000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016A1EDD80F0ACCA3F36AFA59BD6F269819C723A82F9000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F2608D6B299DA6DC8E5059F3602F6E89000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.340153Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "The GENERATE AC response returned a cryptogram (9F26) but the host or terminal logic interpreted it as a failure. This can happen for multiple reasons: missing PDOL data, incorrect Unpredictable Number (9F37), or mismatch in ATC (9F36)."
} |
VI_MC_0062 | VISA | contact | Terminal Configuration | Why is Field 55 causing ARQC verification failures at the issuer? (Scenario 62) | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A4040007A0000000031010 → R: 6F228408A0000000031010A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:70156BE4749DDA26D89587C7346079EFDD16584088519000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016F012A92DB2C47338F273AAC7D643568ED81FB3AD9000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F2608F784BFB901178C9B9F360237EC9000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.340196Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "Field 55 TLV encoding may be malformed, missing mandatory tags (9F26, 9F36, 95), or has incorrect length encoding for long values, leading to issuer-side ARQC recomputation mismatches."
} |
VI_MC_0063 | VISA | contactless | Field 55 | Why did the terminal prompt for signature instead of PIN for a contactless transaction? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:70158927965EAD182FFDAD3582BDAE015E40C69A23579000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:70164DAEF485A962DB5CC70072E6851CD842B530DEF39000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F260876689FC4D6696D5D9F360240989000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.340233Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "CVM selection may have favored signature due to TTQ/CVM limits, or CDCVM was not available/recognized. The terminal must follow kernel CVM processing; signature can appear if PIN is not supported or CVM limit thresholds apply."
} |
VI_MC_0064 | VISA | contact | Certification Logs | Why did the terminal queue a reversal after approval? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A4040007A0000000031010 → R: 6F228408A0000000031010A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:7015BE20F4AC6CD82311A7FB108C9CB41585FAE42AD49000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:701683A14F8BD988AD5AF4E1641751F85ED3F1EBFEF39000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F260843B269558605D27F9F36023A099000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.340269Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "A reversal was triggered because the terminal did not receive confirmation of capture/settlement from the host, or ARPC/issuer authentication failed after approval. Reversals must reference original STAN and RRN."
} |
VI_MC_0065 | VISA | contact | Testing | What causes '6985 Conditions of use not satisfied' during VERIFY? (Scenario 65) | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A4040007A0000000031010 → R: 6F228408A0000000031010A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:7015A402EFE80A1EA4619A12C2C857C2065CC9439FD99000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:70164B3B6FECF8D2DB5DD21AE74F29ED2F94497D91219000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F26083DD3E8B8203E55C19F36022D9A9000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.340305Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "This SW indicates that card conditions for the VERIFY operation are not met—commonly due to PIN block format mismatch, blocked PIN, or security status disallowing VERIFY. Check PIN try counter and card CVM capabilities."
} |
VI_MC_0066 | VISA | contactless | Security | Why does the contactless flow go online while contact remains offline? (Scenario 66) | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:70158A565283D00C305FECF9BC92440630606F47D6299000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016E4FD0354EFF0E769C1A03DDF91FCFF710DA28DF39000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F2608FBED0596FBE77AE49F36029CDB9000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.340342Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "Contactless kernels often have lower floor limits and different risk parameters; contactless may also be configured to always online for certain AIDs. Compare TTQ and kernel risk settings between contact/contactless flows."
} |
VI_MC_0067 | VISA | contact | Issuer Scripts | Why did the transaction fail after GENERATE AC? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A4040007A0000000031010 → R: 6F228408A0000000031010A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:7015692F4565F3DF97610B8B5512AD3737F8AB18431E9000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016E33313536B59EF34BA436ED07FA9528BDB74D74D9000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F2608DDEB0E4022AAC5D19F3602C1419000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.340381Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "The GENERATE AC response returned a cryptogram (9F26) but the host or terminal logic interpreted it as a failure. This can happen for multiple reasons: missing PDOL data, incorrect Unpredictable Number (9F37), or mismatch in ATC (9F36)."
} |
VI_MC_0068 | VISA | contactless | APDU | Why is Field 55 causing ARQC verification failures at the issuer? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:7015AB084CE6EBC6921AC49629A500879D31B8B313E99000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:70160EA77B994C73A6BE34DD221D4F6E2BCC8FDEFD549000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F26084FE436EF15B3D33B9F360291439000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.340421Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "Field 55 TLV encoding may be malformed, missing mandatory tags (9F26, 9F36, 95), or has incorrect length encoding for long values, leading to issuer-side ARQC recomputation mismatches."
} |
VI_MC_0069 | VISA | contactless | Certification Logs | Why did the terminal prompt for signature instead of PIN for a contactless transaction? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:701599F044D19965F03B21DF9EACF44EEE4A2DC7CA1E9000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:70168250932616F0350867E2AC1F0AD5D0AC823359459000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F26088249D51A5019C3A49F3602DA8C9000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.340457Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "CVM selection may have favored signature due to TTQ/CVM limits, or CDCVM was not available/recognized. The terminal must follow kernel CVM processing; signature can appear if PIN is not supported or CVM limit thresholds apply."
} |
VI_MC_0070 | VISA | contact | Field 55 | Why did the terminal queue a reversal after approval? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A4040007A0000000031010 → R: 6F228408A0000000031010A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:70157FC381AED2F0D7083749DE264B57DE10E9501F889000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016CB6915292C348D6AA8E87AA6EA040F005DFC220E9000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F26083BCBC503EB6E07089F3602B6299000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.340495Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "A reversal was triggered because the terminal did not receive confirmation of capture/settlement from the host, or ARPC/issuer authentication failed after approval. Reversals must reference original STAN and RRN."
} |
VI_MC_0071 | VISA | contactless | Terminal Configuration | What causes '6985 Conditions of use not satisfied' during VERIFY? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:7015B18F606C38F5652424878608E0D1ADD83EFB17189000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016DEA0C6A207D2765A9230FD0A873F7A1A72E3E3219000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F26081CA241E19D23119C9F3602C3D79000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.340533Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "This SW indicates that card conditions for the VERIFY operation are not met—commonly due to PIN block format mismatch, blocked PIN, or security status disallowing VERIFY. Check PIN try counter and card CVM capabilities."
} |
VI_MC_0072 | VISA | contactless | Reversals | Why does the contactless flow go online while contact remains offline? (Scenario 72) | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:7015D3A0EA63302648BDFE5741149DB944F9A9B041719000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016DB6662A6FEAA9DA53E1F7077E67FAC6C50B02B039000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F260849E6B106695785A79F360256059000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.340579Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "Contactless kernels often have lower floor limits and different risk parameters; contactless may also be configured to always online for certain AIDs. Compare TTQ and kernel risk settings between contact/contactless flows."
} |
VI_MC_0073 | VISA | contact | Card Communication | Why did the transaction fail after GENERATE AC? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A4040007A0000000031010 → R: 6F228408A0000000031010A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:70154C3A69E7BB5D234466CBAD71694A7184F62F25CB9000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016FE5ABFFF8C1676E7C69DC5B82429EB71EADEEDDB9000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F2608FA8C05E782B292879F3602332B9000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.340618Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "The GENERATE AC response returned a cryptogram (9F26) but the host or terminal logic interpreted it as a failure. This can happen for multiple reasons: missing PDOL data, incorrect Unpredictable Number (9F37), or mismatch in ATC (9F36)."
} |
VI_MC_0074 | VISA | contactless | Issuer Scripts | Why is Field 55 causing ARQC verification failures at the issuer? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:70156A898648099BCC0F4C776F7EEA2A6DD6EE0B44909000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016FBA7DDC9A0144ACC6C2C6F3AE925351F0562C9679000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F260892E1B05ADC534DF29F3602C6469000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.340698Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "Field 55 TLV encoding may be malformed, missing mandatory tags (9F26, 9F36, 95), or has incorrect length encoding for long values, leading to issuer-side ARQC recomputation mismatches."
} |
VI_MC_0075 | VISA | contactless | Integration | Why did the terminal prompt for signature instead of PIN for a contactless transaction? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:7015596E8604E2C7AFEE129EB9C5D75DEC53C17589269000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016FD3B23ADE5861E02ECAC6C10834AEFE227E4F8559000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F260803593C52084EB5619F36026E139000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.340735Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "CVM selection may have favored signature due to TTQ/CVM limits, or CDCVM was not available/recognized. The terminal must follow kernel CVM processing; signature can appear if PIN is not supported or CVM limit thresholds apply."
} |
VI_MC_0076 | VISA | contactless | Field 55 | Why did the terminal queue a reversal after approval? (Scenario 76) | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:7015101C67B7620D00A6273551D3AA66CD3763BA50CA9000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:70160C6E728B126D9F3583AC4A5AF2A0EC7070397D729000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F260814BF964C617EA48A9F36021D909000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.340779Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "A reversal was triggered because the terminal did not receive confirmation of capture/settlement from the host, or ARPC/issuer authentication failed after approval. Reversals must reference original STAN and RRN."
} |
VI_MC_0077 | VISA | contactless | Security | What causes '6985 Conditions of use not satisfied' during VERIFY? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:7015A76177CA5E02F26146425672DE9567D5799E68F29000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016BCC5FEDD4F0CD29458CE9E9CF2A4F64600BFCDCB9000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F2608CF92D13C56D8BFB19F3602CD779000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.340816Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "This SW indicates that card conditions for the VERIFY operation are not met—commonly due to PIN block format mismatch, blocked PIN, or security status disallowing VERIFY. Check PIN try counter and card CVM capabilities."
} |
VI_MC_0078 | VISA | contactless | Certification Logs | Why does the contactless flow go online while contact remains offline? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:7015048E4875032CC26D5D89C9D23B486C905F032DD99000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016D55B546F53E6561568DE35292C382A07FF3018019000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F2608360C8FFADABAA7BC9F3602C1BA9000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.340853Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "Contactless kernels often have lower floor limits and different risk parameters; contactless may also be configured to always online for certain AIDs. Compare TTQ and kernel risk settings between contact/contactless flows."
} |
VI_MC_0079 | VISA | contactless | Brand-specific | Why did the transaction fail after GENERATE AC? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:701540387BEFD60A0B1AE7FC2BDF3C96414F29E5E3F79000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:701676523D05AC878F34F2A72ACCD77839232A63B4AC9000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F26080916CDAB473C0EA49F360297FE9000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.340891Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "The GENERATE AC response returned a cryptogram (9F26) but the host or terminal logic interpreted it as a failure. This can happen for multiple reasons: missing PDOL data, incorrect Unpredictable Number (9F37), or mismatch in ATC (9F36)."
} |
VI_MC_0080 | VISA | contact | Keys & Certificates | Why is Field 55 causing ARQC verification failures at the issuer? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A4040007A0000000031010 → R: 6F228408A0000000031010A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:70151A938F6F9C1A46715FC950CADFBCC2996C34A19E9000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:701654EF946660B34CD513BF513AD4C7137CF95C2EC89000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F2608EB03323F70F835CF9F3602D9439000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.340928Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "Field 55 TLV encoding may be malformed, missing mandatory tags (9F26, 9F36, 95), or has incorrect length encoding for long values, leading to issuer-side ARQC recomputation mismatches."
} |
VI_MC_0081 | VISA | contact | Certification Logs | Why did the terminal prompt for signature instead of PIN for a contactless transaction? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A4040007A0000000031010 → R: 6F228408A0000000031010A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:7015C0CF2363550EA31465281239B5D07919E4FAB6319000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:701671649646B84D288C5CE28D46286B5D4ADC0728339000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F2608D2A2BA847803C7C39F3602359F9000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.340971Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "CVM selection may have favored signature due to TTQ/CVM limits, or CDCVM was not available/recognized. The terminal must follow kernel CVM processing; signature can appear if PIN is not supported or CVM limit thresholds apply."
} |
VI_MC_0082 | VISA | contactless | APDU | Why did the terminal queue a reversal after approval? (Scenario 82) | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:70158315AC5BCF480444C81B7DE5EBE98D7929DA22279000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:701625129F0D4FF3C060DB71E5752B4B1DFC5B3A73999000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F2608F9860C691EF1B0EA9F36029B309000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.341022Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "A reversal was triggered because the terminal did not receive confirmation of capture/settlement from the host, or ARPC/issuer authentication failed after approval. Reversals must reference original STAN and RRN."
} |
VI_MC_0083 | VISA | contact | Risk Management | What causes '6985 Conditions of use not satisfied' during VERIFY? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A4040007A0000000031010 → R: 6F228408A0000000031010A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:7015CB03DF624D3F0487FCB9BD583EE54BD0B636914C9000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016DA156F83DFF4ACC433044B071AD0DF99F2D745789000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F2608387D6F3564734C189F360264D09000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.341064Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "This SW indicates that card conditions for the VERIFY operation are not met—commonly due to PIN block format mismatch, blocked PIN, or security status disallowing VERIFY. Check PIN try counter and card CVM capabilities."
} |
VI_MC_0084 | VISA | contact | Terminal Configuration | Why does the contactless flow go online while contact remains offline? (Scenario 84) | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A4040007A0000000031010 → R: 6F228408A0000000031010A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:7015CD977ADF1D1938B8BD7A15101A69F83D58FBA9339000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:701604ABBB786C2343166E32A9F64146D8BBE3D2FD059000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F2608849116CF25ECCC869F360250569000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.341101Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "Contactless kernels often have lower floor limits and different risk parameters; contactless may also be configured to always online for certain AIDs. Compare TTQ and kernel risk settings between contact/contactless flows."
} |
VI_MC_0085 | VISA | contactless | Security | Why did the transaction fail after GENERATE AC? (Scenario 85) | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:7015897983571791484817630BBA284D9A10B785803C9000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:701686E7A86C4E7DB4F2F5E556F590955C6242D7EC349000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F260803CC0301472840039F3602A2649000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.341139Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "The GENERATE AC response returned a cryptogram (9F26) but the host or terminal logic interpreted it as a failure. This can happen for multiple reasons: missing PDOL data, incorrect Unpredictable Number (9F37), or mismatch in ATC (9F36)."
} |
VI_MC_0086 | VISA | contactless | Security | Why is Field 55 causing ARQC verification failures at the issuer? (Scenario 86) | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:701559AF4718301393D40707DC4B97C3F53739B2A3B29000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016145DA5D499B38FB82044A4CEF23D842A45CBAFDF9000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F2608DA47CDFF7C2D727B9F3602060B9000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.341174Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "Field 55 TLV encoding may be malformed, missing mandatory tags (9F26, 9F36, 95), or has incorrect length encoding for long values, leading to issuer-side ARQC recomputation mismatches."
} |
VI_MC_0087 | VISA | contact | Transaction Flow | Why did the terminal prompt for signature instead of PIN for a contactless transaction? (Scenario 87) | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A4040007A0000000031010 → R: 6F228408A0000000031010A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:70151BB49E4D7671434C0DB132F504B42720D45F49FD9000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016AE093411550CDE897D582C46C17C52EFACC51BD69000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F26088332BA07953260969F360261789000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.341218Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "CVM selection may have favored signature due to TTQ/CVM limits, or CDCVM was not available/recognized. The terminal must follow kernel CVM processing; signature can appear if PIN is not supported or CVM limit thresholds apply."
} |
VI_MC_0088 | VISA | contact | Field 55 | Why did the terminal queue a reversal after approval? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A4040007A0000000031010 → R: 6F228408A0000000031010A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:7015F11A290B9C6ACB43AD340CF1954E227645AE4A9B9000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016D1C7624F30492F3EA59528BB225E8F8E43F1B9CD9000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F26084EBAB2DE811704399F3602C5C29000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.341265Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "A reversal was triggered because the terminal did not receive confirmation of capture/settlement from the host, or ARPC/issuer authentication failed after approval. Reversals must reference original STAN and RRN."
} |
VI_MC_0089 | VISA | contactless | Terminal Configuration | What causes '6985 Conditions of use not satisfied' during VERIFY? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:70152BEEE3253CD6CA2AAF6F38E14F46A1C1BDF6160D9000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:70168852428C29ED68512DA956BDFF5DBC0624AA04E49000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F2608FA3D80E4E3166D5C9F36026B669000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.341301Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "This SW indicates that card conditions for the VERIFY operation are not met—commonly due to PIN block format mismatch, blocked PIN, or security status disallowing VERIFY. Check PIN try counter and card CVM capabilities."
} |
VI_MC_0090 | VISA | contactless | Terminal Configuration | Why does the contactless flow go online while contact remains offline? (Scenario 90) | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:70150993FEDDBBDA35EDB55DC9D932320D3F3E19D67E9000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016C36F3BEDC0B79889D70D1004BAA5D7C6C1D4C5CA9000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F26085D7343C85A6220D09F3602402C9000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.341338Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "Contactless kernels often have lower floor limits and different risk parameters; contactless may also be configured to always online for certain AIDs. Compare TTQ and kernel risk settings between contact/contactless flows."
} |
VI_MC_0091 | VISA | contact | Risk Management | Why did the transaction fail after GENERATE AC? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A4040007A0000000031010 → R: 6F228408A0000000031010A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:7015EB577967C81824033E33498522FB6C3F0D2F26DC9000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016AE5590513ABF058360046B360A472488F62B9EFD9000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F2608C68568C3956FDED89F3602A3CD9000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.341375Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "The GENERATE AC response returned a cryptogram (9F26) but the host or terminal logic interpreted it as a failure. This can happen for multiple reasons: missing PDOL data, incorrect Unpredictable Number (9F37), or mismatch in ATC (9F36)."
} |
VI_MC_0092 | VISA | contactless | CVM | Why is Field 55 causing ARQC verification failures at the issuer? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:70152E518D9BC035AD5B726BB4A30A0A6EA72C9663829000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016DDAA661FF18D33E5AC70900E94C11A02F3D98ABC9000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F26082AF1C9EF3B3071049F36023AD79000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.341412Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "Field 55 TLV encoding may be malformed, missing mandatory tags (9F26, 9F36, 95), or has incorrect length encoding for long values, leading to issuer-side ARQC recomputation mismatches."
} |
VI_MC_0093 | VISA | contactless | Risk Management | Why did the terminal prompt for signature instead of PIN for a contactless transaction? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:7015018131928AC854E34A4DE37FF8AF72892B7622F19000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016606EC6F3A6A9E4347BCE6C628D5934E3370E580F9000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F2608EB832BD64CDA1E8B9F360231CD9000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.341454Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "CVM selection may have favored signature due to TTQ/CVM limits, or CDCVM was not available/recognized. The terminal must follow kernel CVM processing; signature can appear if PIN is not supported or CVM limit thresholds apply."
} |
VI_MC_0094 | VISA | contactless | Risk Management | Why did the terminal queue a reversal after approval? (Scenario 94) | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:701558FD31737311872387CCC378F656B99035F975A29000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:701655AE40FDA058250BF0F7F3109754339AEFB8F8BE9000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F26080B9AF3804D74BF079F3602DB629000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.341491Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "A reversal was triggered because the terminal did not receive confirmation of capture/settlement from the host, or ARPC/issuer authentication failed after approval. Reversals must reference original STAN and RRN."
} |
VI_MC_0095 | VISA | contactless | Terminal Configuration | What causes '6985 Conditions of use not satisfied' during VERIFY? (Scenario 95) | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:701538E58BACD8961A3DEB930F4E4959F9290E16931F9000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:701690DB0184B942846D2971FB7CDC38995DA4684D699000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F2608929E5CD34EABEBDE9F3602DDE09000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.341528Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "This SW indicates that card conditions for the VERIFY operation are not met—commonly due to PIN block format mismatch, blocked PIN, or security status disallowing VERIFY. Check PIN try counter and card CVM capabilities."
} |
VI_MC_0096 | VISA | contactless | CVM | Why does the contactless flow go online while contact remains offline? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:70152497B491C4C0EE12183A39FA13164F474990F6329000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:70160433763F0EC139CF578E3D4054756FF993FB8CC39000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F2608EDD409E3C091E1B49F3602EE809000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.341565Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "Contactless kernels often have lower floor limits and different risk parameters; contactless may also be configured to always online for certain AIDs. Compare TTQ and kernel risk settings between contact/contactless flows."
} |
VI_MC_0097 | VISA | contact | Reversals | Why did the transaction fail after GENERATE AC? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A4040007A0000000031010 → R: 6F228408A0000000031010A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:7015BC254BAE489C2FCF584ABC2105733FFA7735CD219000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:70168312EB05A3EC4668FE9765D62036140BD2A5F66F9000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F2608BB42EDC224933F719F3602A0799000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.341609Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "The GENERATE AC response returned a cryptogram (9F26) but the host or terminal logic interpreted it as a failure. This can happen for multiple reasons: missing PDOL data, incorrect Unpredictable Number (9F37), or mismatch in ATC (9F36)."
} |
VI_MC_0098 | VISA | contactless | Issuer Scripts | Why is Field 55 causing ARQC verification failures at the issuer? (Scenario 98) | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:7015259279C13F801AD86A146A17F21B2D2F48131F7B9000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016DF970106C0F1CC4DD43E3BB6AD177207D10712149000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F2608E591AB794CF322869F3602FB7E9000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.341664Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "Field 55 TLV encoding may be malformed, missing mandatory tags (9F26, 9F36, 95), or has incorrect length encoding for long values, leading to issuer-side ARQC recomputation mismatches."
} |
VI_MC_0099 | VISA | contactless | Transaction Flow | Why did the terminal prompt for signature instead of PIN for a contactless transaction? | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:701578A31BDF82647963B417EE30F188C9218CF0CCE19000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:701676C5D191B0A860ADD13C9ED85CE74088279AC18B9000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F260888039A85EE0E0E1B9F3602F6D19000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.341701Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "CVM selection may have favored signature due to TTQ/CVM limits, or CDCVM was not available/recognized. The terminal must follow kernel CVM processing; signature can appear if PIN is not supported or CVM limit thresholds apply."
} |
VI_MC_0100 | VISA | contactless | Field 55 | Why did the terminal queue a reversal after approval? (Scenario 100) | {
"details": [
"Step 1: Verify APDU trace for missing or malformed PDOL/GET PROCESSING OPTIONS exchange.",
"Step 2: Parse the Field 55 TLV payload and ensure mandatory tags are present and correctly encoded (e.g., 9F26, 9F36, 95, 5F2A).",
"Step 3: Check terminal unpredictable number generation entropy (9F37) and ATC monotonicity.",
"Step 4: Correlate STAN/RRN with host traces to determine whether host-side ARQC recompute failed.",
"Step 5: If issuer authentication (ARPC) is present, validate ARPC format and confirm the terminal's ARPC verification logic if implemented."
],
"example_log_snippet": "C: 00A404000E325041592E5359532E4444463031 → R: 6F228408325041592E5359532E4444463031A5138801015F2D04656E6672\nC: 80A8000002830000 → R: 770A82023800940208010100\nC:00B2010C00 → R:70152E5888F475417315EA171880B17B32E3276ABD2D9000\nC:00B2020C00 → R:7016940ABADBF905B194036AB6C14C227D31FEA8697A9000\nC:80AE800000 → R:770A9F26087B7EA37EDB2B2BF79F3602ED749000",
"notes": "Generated for certification batch; created_at: 2025-10-29T06:36:17.341744Z",
"resolution_steps": [
"Resolution 1: Reconstruct Field 55 from raw APDU traces using a canonical TLV encoder and resend to host for validation.",
"Resolution 2: Ensure GET PROCESSING OPTIONS includes required PDOL elements; update terminal config if fields missing.",
"Resolution 3: Use test CAPKs in certification environment; confirm CAPK RID/Index and modulus/exponent match issuer test keys.",
"Resolution 4: If ARPC is returned and verification fails, escalate to issuer with logs including 9F26, 9F36, 95, and 9F10."
],
"summary": "A reversal was triggered because the terminal did not receive confirmation of capture/settlement from the host, or ARPC/issuer authentication failed after approval. Reversals must reference original STAN and RRN."
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.