Skip to content

Product Not yet confirmed elsewhere1 publisher 2 min read Published

Expired Visa cards can still pay, which makes the expiry date a label and not a control

Researchers relayed dead cards through a pair of phones. Whether the payment cleared came down to the issuing bank, not to the date printed on the plastic.

The Product Desk

How we use AI Send a correction

What happened

  • University of Massachusetts Amherst researchers told Usenix that expired Visa-issued cards can still authorise contactless payments.
  • The method relays the card's data through a man-in-the-middle app running across a pair of phones.
  • Visa did not respond to requests for comment from The Register, which covered the research.

Why it matters

  • constraint Expiry can no longer be used as a lifecycle boundary in fraud rules or customer messaging without first proving your own issuer declines the relayed transaction.
  • exposure Cardholders on the permissive side of the issuer split are reachable through cards they have already thrown out, and have no way to find out which side they are on.
  • cost The remedy offered sits with the customer and a pair of scissors, so the cost of a protocol gap lands on people who never see the failure.
  • decision Issuers now have to choose between testing their own decline behaviour and continuing to assume the scheme handles it for them.

A relay setup forges nothing. The card is proxied through a man-in-the-middle app that carries its data between two phones [6], so the terminal is holding a conversation with a real card that happens to be somewhere else and out of date [5].

What settled the outcome was not the date. The researchers found that whether an expired card's transaction gets disallowed had been left to cryptography that various card issuers implemented differently [1], and Visa's own check carried a flaw that let out-of-date cards pass [2]. As the researchers describe it, Visa had effectively handed the job of authenticating these transactions to the cardholder's bank [3]. Some banks stopped the revived cards. Others did not [4].

That is the part worth sitting with if you build or run a card product. Expiry is a field you can read off the plastic and out of a token record. The decline is a behaviour, and on this evidence it is a property of the issuing bank rather than of the card or the network [12]. Any rule, reissuance schedule or customer-facing promise that treats the printed month and year as a boundary is inheriting whichever half of that split its issuer landed in, and nobody downstream can see which half that is.

The attack itself is unglamorous and cheap. It wants a card that was discarded intact or left lying around [8], and a checkout with no human at it to notice a phone rig standing in for a card [7]. Neither of those is a rare condition. The mitigation on offer to the cardholder is a pair of scissors [9], which is a reasonable piece of advice and also a statement about where the residual risk has been parked.

Two gaps in the record matter for how hard you should read this. Visa did not respond to requests for comment from The Register, which covered the research [10]. And the account does not name the banks that blocked the technique or say how many issuers were tested [11]. So the defensible conclusion is narrower than "expired Visa cards work everywhere": it is that expiry enforcement cannot be assumed from outside a specific issuer's decline logic, and the network was not the place it was enforced [3][12]. For a control that appears on every card in the wallet and in every product spec that references card lifecycle, that is a large amount of load resting on something no single party owns.

What to watch

  • Any scheme rule change that makes the expired-card decline mandatory at the network rather than optional at the issuer.
  • Publication of named issuer results from the UMass Amherst paper, which would let cardholders and acquirers tell who declines revived cards.
  • Whether operators of unattended terminals add their own checks, given that the attack depends on no one watching the checkout.

Clarity's read

What the record supports and how the coverage leans. The claims behind it follow.

Reality

Evidence52
Adoption
Insufficient
Hype gap+22
Incentives38
Confidence55
Why these scores

Claim ledger

Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.

  1. [1]

    Due to issues in the authentication chain of contactless payments, whether an expired card's transaction would be disallowed was left to cryptography implemented differently by various card issuers.

  2. [2]

    Visa's cryptography had a particular flaw allowing out-of-date cards to pass its check.

  3. [3]

    As the researchers describe it, Visa essentially passed the task of authenticating these transactions to the cardholder's bank.

Sources

1 independent publisher whose own reporting we read for this story.

  1. wired.com

    1 article · August 22, 2026

    Your Expired Visa Card Could Be ‘Zombified’ to Make Contactless Payments

Share your take

Let Clarity write the post for you.

Signed-in readers get a short post drafted on this story in the register they choose — narrative, analytical, or a direct position — editable to the last word before it goes anywhere. The share buttons at the top of this story work without an account.

Topics and entities

Follow any of these and your For You feed starts watching them — no settings page required.

Topics

Loading related stories