Chips Payment

Chips Payment Paydirekt und der schwierige Kampf um neue Kunden

Clearing House Interbank Payments System. Durch Privatgesellschaft getragenes elektronisch betriebenes Zahlungsverkehrssystem in den USA. Abkürzung für. Mittels Handauflegen bezahlen oder an Automaten Bargeld ziehen. Die nächste Stufe der Digitalen Transformation mit I am ROBOT's NFC Payment Implantat. Das NFC Payment Implantat enthält ein NFC Chip der Marke ST Microelectronics mit der standardisierten ISO ISO Norm. Dieser wurde von uns in einer. Damit ist Fedwire das zweitgrößte Clearinghaus für Dollar-Transaktionen hinter Clearing House Interbank Payments System (CHIPS), die privatwirtschaftlich. Kann sich die Technologie auch im Payment-Bereich etablieren? Bezahlen wir demnächst mit einem in den Körper implantierten Chip?

Chips Payment

Samsung setzt dabei auf den SmartMX-Chip, der auch schon für ApplePay und Google Wallet zum Einsatz kommt. Anders als Apple und. Damit ist Fedwire das zweitgrößte Clearinghaus für Dollar-Transaktionen hinter Clearing House Interbank Payments System (CHIPS), die privatwirtschaftlich. Es ist derzeit nicht möglich, eine vorhandene Kredit- oder sonstige Bank- EC-​Karte einfach auf ein Implantat zu kopieren. Wäre das möglich, wäre dem Betrug​.

I have three active banks across two share a name across the border , and a fourth bank in Europe. That would naturally be 4 debit cards. We have the combination.

President Skroob: Great. Now we can take every last breath of fresh air from planet Druidia. Dark Helmet: 1 2 3 4 5. President Skroob: 1 2 3 4 5?

Prepare Spaceball 1 for immediate departure! Dark Helmet: Yes, sir! President Skroob: And change the combination on my luggage!

Why would you do that? Why more than one? It happened to him and he was lucky that his wife was with him and her card worked. Go back to stuffing you money under your mattress, not using the internet, and watching your movies on betamax.

Everything will be better than. To the previous commenter, start taking your meds. As you age you will start to see what I mean.

Or be from one of the better employers of labor or the military. Other then the pampered princes. And check what I mean. But how big and secure do you want a password to be?

How secure is your connection to the internet? Now for your next business transaction, memorize your just changed password, take your favorite med, and go grocery shopping, not saying security vids are bad, but..

Take a look at the location of the camera. With zoom, and who are buying steaks, or bolo. See the pin? OK, now send grandma out, the mainstay of american sales, or the wife with kids.

Make it harder to sell. Damn, your hard. In that case, why not implement something to help you remember your passwords? For instance, they make great password apps nowadays.

Or buy an iPhone. I cloud Keychain is built in. You can store a unique password for every site, your credit cards your cvc codes and pins.

And they are one step closer to everything you want to protect. Hopefully the encryption in the vault is good. Why is this relevant? Apple has a history of poor security in their products.

And even the FBI Director has complained about not being able to get it. But even better is to use Apple Pay for the cards and merchants that accept it.

The card number and CVV never appear — the exchange between the phone-merchant-issuer uses a secure token issued by the bank. Or at least any kind of due process envisioned by the authors of the constitution.

As a card carrying member of AARP I take a humorous note of your memory slur you young whippersnapper! Consider not a better lock, but a conceptual shift removes the prize.

Confidential consumer credentials should not be exposed. I have a rather old idea to prevent replay and also authenticate, but the original data should be kept centrally from the merchants, the merchant only needs an authentication signal, but how to implement a true condition for that is not in my expertise, nor do I have any expertise for that matter.

Something has got to give here?! In general, anything that can be read and is read for transmission can be recorded and replayed for transmission.

In fact, one possible explanation for the attack in this article is a record-and- replay attack. Brian has a number of articles about PIN pad recorders.

And we have plenty of articles about compromised PoS terminals. The fixes for these attacks are better intelligence — recognizing unusual patterns — like a large number of transactions from Brazil, and a large number of PIN transactions.

Many people, like me, would chafe at having to present finger print ID, or less so on retinal scan, but both of those are theoretically capable of replay — a signature recorder such as this would be extremely difficult to defeat, as the chaotic intersection of the data points could not even be copied by an experienced forger.

It would be like trying to predict where the sweet spot of a three axis five variable butterfly graph would possibly intersect; much as in the study of chaos theory.

Even more fun is watching the clerk — when they take a cursory glance at the ID, just checking that the name matches, but nothing else.

I did something similar at a target store. Clerk freaked out. I came back in when he was done searching and talked to the store manager.

His first response, which clerk. I refused to tell him. I told him he had a very lax fraud protection at the till and he needed to fix it or would shop somewhere else.

Made no difference, most people only care for convenience till they suffer. Banks could require training before issuing a card, yeah right like that will happen.

This prevents two things: insider CC fraud, and also loss of wallet fraud. It also prevents me or my wife from using the card anywhere except as an ATM, which we only do at terminals for cash.

The merchant should ensure the card is signed. If not, they should refuse the sale. Also, it is against card brand rules to require the presentation of any form of ID to use a payment card.

Any merchant who does so is in violation of their merchant agreement, regardless of what you scribbled on the back of your card. I have had increased success lately with them asking me for id.

First off, You cant require anything. I worked at a Diamond Shamrock gasoline station in , and had to tell a customer who had already pumped gasoline that the card Visa was listed in the weekly booklet and I had to cut the card and send it in.

He dug up some cash and paid for the gasoline. At the time, regular leaded gasoline was selling for Unleaded was a nickel more expensive. Superunleaded was ten cents more expensive.

One country customer had a large gasoline tank installed in the bed of his pickup truck. It took gallons to fill it. The flip side of this is that almost no one READS their merchant agreement, so has no idea this is the case.

So you hand the a license, which they can, if they choose, scan the magnetic strip on, and at least get the license number that way.

People leave their cellphones all over these days — do you notice if the sales clerk has theirs sitting on or near the register? Did they just set your license in the range of its camera?

This goes to the very heart of this article — while signature based verification sucks, doing it incorrectly can lead to additional,WORSE problems, just like doing the chip and pin wrong has lead to problems.

This article is saying that they probably just cloned the card. It says they used stolen card information and tampered payment systems to change the message format to claim it was a chip card.

You can learn to copy someones signature, given a little effort. But you can also get someones PIN by shoulder-surfing or more advanced ways.

Although that is irrelevant since my comment was merely a knee-jerk joke without much thought to reality. Using the name and asking if there is a difference between a signature and a PIN.

I am sorry if anyone thought it was a serious contribution. With PINs, you have to be right each of those thousands of times.

Do you tug at each and every PIN pad? Do you cover your hands each time you use a PIN pad? Do you wipe each and every PIN pad after you use it?

Do you apply a heat mask to correct for Infrared disturbances caused by your fingers? You have to send it to them but they accept any value.

Yes, really. I work with this stuff. There is a difference. One that Jonathan E. Jaffe was able to help me quantify last time.

The likelihood of the liability shifting to the consumer with chip-and-pin scares me. Chip-and-signature with the consumer keeping the presumption of innocence seems to me, for the time being better.

Consumer liability is a non-issue as long as you notify your FI in a timely manner. That page has lots of links, but here is the relevant text.

In such cases we advise the fraud victim to demand the transaction logs from the bank. In many cases the banks refuse, or even delete logs during the dispute process, leaving customers to argue about generalities.

We will all be paying big money for old technology that is just going to put all the onus for losses on our heads! All the same, I still wonder why the U.

One theory is that the U. The consumer is not involved. It is incentive to use better technology because the laggard eats the loss.

Normally in disputes credit is in your favor over debit. The incident you cite is an ABM transaction not a credit transaction.

Different rules apply. Banks have always fought hard here. Nothing new. Ross keep up the fight! It could be much better organized and explained.

Now, I have no idea if his solution is good or bad. But I will note that mobile has not had a stellar record for security. Problems are emerging rapidly.

Design problems, implementation problems, there are few generally accepted standards, etc. Also, I will feel more confident in mobile when it has received similar levels of scrutiny and testing to other solutions.

With the rest of the world on it, fraud will come to the US big time. IIRC that had to be settled in court. Just dumb. The original plan for the U.

PIN would have done nothing to prevent or limit any additional fraud over and above what chip and sig would have in any of the breaches since Target a year ago.

PIN is only useful to prevent physical legitimate cards from being stolen and used. In none of these cases were cards physically stolen, just the data.

There are not many things you can do with just those 2 pieces of information. Maybe some card not present fraud. A few years back I was working with a merchant who also issued their own cards.

The Cambridge Uni Security Research team has done a lot of research into this field, and it shows that whilst EMV fraud is a bit more difficult than magstripe fraud the risks are still there, especially around the implementation side of things.

Ross Anderson is an expert in the field, so any of his articles are useful background reading on the subject. EMV has been touted as the silver bullet, and its not even close.

But the problem remains for most as it does at my company no one is signing off on a solution that costs per translation.

End to end encryption has its weaknesses also, to do right requires that the encryption be hardware based before the processor.

This creates numerous challenges for the card reader design can be done. But, all fixed encryption can be broken.

So two cost challenges: Replacing all current terminals; replacing all terminals on a fixed cycle in an attempt to stay ahead of the cypto curve.

EMV wipes out counterfeit fraud…the issuing banks that misconfigured can fix easily — they just need to update option sets on auth decision hierarchy.

Fraud can still be attempted, and still needs to be managed. CHIPS works by netting debits and credits across transactions, providing both clearing and settlement services to its customer banks.

Compare Accounts. The offers that appear in this table are from partnerships from which Investopedia receives compensation. Wire Transfer Definition A wire transfer is an electronic transfer of funds across a network administered by hundreds of banks around the world.

Same-Day Funds Same-day funds is a term for money that can be transferred or withdrawn the same day that it is deposited.

Understanding Real-Time Gross Settlement RTGS Real-time gross settlement is the continuous process of settling payments on an individual order basis without netting debits with credits.

Countermand Definition Countermand means to cancel, revoke, or reverse an order that has been previously issued. Partner Links. Related Articles.

Banking Banking Investopedia is part of the Dotdash publishing family. Ultimately, we make it easy and affordable to transfer your money to wherever it needs to go.

Can't find what you're looking for? USForex Inc. All rights reserved. NMLS OFX uses cookies to create the most secure and effective website possible for our customers.

Read our Privacy Policy. How do I update my personal details? How long is a live exchange rate valid for? What are the main benefits of the new website?

Chips Payment Wir haben hier viele Anläufe unternommen. Der Dienst funktioniert wie eine Prepaid-Kreditkarte: Entweder lassen Sie Ihr Guthaben direkt auf diese Karte überweisen oder Sie müssen selber dafür Sorgen, dass die virtuelle Karte immer über genügen Guthaben verfügt bevor Sie damit zahlen möchten. Ausgewählter Shop. Biohacking - Was ist das Spielbanken Niedersachsen Beschreibung Bewertungen 2. Erfahre von uns alles was du über Mikrochip-Implantate wissen willst. Individuelle Preise. Hier findest Tom And Jerry I informative und interessante Presseartikel über Digiwell und das Pearl.De Gutscheincode dahinter. Cerascreen Coronavirus Antikörper Test dt. Bestimme selbst, wie hoch das Pastewka Weihnachtsgeschichte auf deinem Implantat sein soll. Chips Payment

Payments for which no match can be found are not made until the end of the day, but each payment is final as soon as it is made.

To facilitate the working of the intraday netting system, each participant pre-funds its CHIPS account by depositing a certain amount between and a.

Any participant that has a negative closing position at the end of the day that is, it owes more than what it has in its security deposit has 30 minutes to make up the difference.

The minute period is referred to as the final prefunding period. If any banks do not meet their final prefunding requirement, CHIPS settles as many of the remaining payments as possible with funds that are in the system, and any payments still unsettled must be settled outside of CHIPS.

Banks that have positive closing positions at the end of the day receive the amounts that they are due in the form of Fedwire payments.

What is a routing number? What are Spot Transfers? What is an IBAN? What Is BSC? What is IFSC? What is NCC? What is the OFX customer rate? If you have any questions that aren't answered in our FAQs, feel free to ask us here.

Thank you for your enquiry! Something went wrong. Nothing new. Ross keep up the fight! It could be much better organized and explained.

Now, I have no idea if his solution is good or bad. But I will note that mobile has not had a stellar record for security.

Problems are emerging rapidly. Design problems, implementation problems, there are few generally accepted standards, etc.

Also, I will feel more confident in mobile when it has received similar levels of scrutiny and testing to other solutions. With the rest of the world on it, fraud will come to the US big time.

IIRC that had to be settled in court. Just dumb. The original plan for the U. PIN would have done nothing to prevent or limit any additional fraud over and above what chip and sig would have in any of the breaches since Target a year ago.

PIN is only useful to prevent physical legitimate cards from being stolen and used. In none of these cases were cards physically stolen, just the data.

There are not many things you can do with just those 2 pieces of information. Maybe some card not present fraud. A few years back I was working with a merchant who also issued their own cards.

The Cambridge Uni Security Research team has done a lot of research into this field, and it shows that whilst EMV fraud is a bit more difficult than magstripe fraud the risks are still there, especially around the implementation side of things.

Ross Anderson is an expert in the field, so any of his articles are useful background reading on the subject. EMV has been touted as the silver bullet, and its not even close.

But the problem remains for most as it does at my company no one is signing off on a solution that costs per translation.

End to end encryption has its weaknesses also, to do right requires that the encryption be hardware based before the processor. This creates numerous challenges for the card reader design can be done.

But, all fixed encryption can be broken. So two cost challenges: Replacing all current terminals; replacing all terminals on a fixed cycle in an attempt to stay ahead of the cypto curve.

EMV wipes out counterfeit fraud…the issuing banks that misconfigured can fix easily — they just need to update option sets on auth decision hierarchy.

Fraud can still be attempted, and still needs to be managed. But Chip has shifted the paradigm. In Brazil you do, to save the lives of your kidnapped family.

Fraud occured before the cards were issued? Must have a bunch of Russians and Chinese working for them! Reading comprehension fail.

The bank has no EMV cards issued at all. This is another case of a bad implementation. They are lower risk because it is possible to verify them! This is liked to happen again in North America as there is a knee jerk rush to implement EMV rather than a phased multi year implementation that occurred in the UK.

Which is a real shame because the US now has the ability to adopt all the bits that we know work properly and mis out on these kind of mistakes.

Likewise, why would any financial institution let so many transaction go into some sort of on-behalf processing?

You are absolutely correct, the fall back for most is to fall back to whatever makes the sale. Since retailers dont burden [much of] the cost for fraud, there is no incentive to not authorize a transaction.

This is where EMV can flop just as big as magstripe. Most EMV cards are issued with a magstripe for backwards compatibility when a retailer doesnt support EMV, but even retailers that DO support EMV can choose to fall back to magstripe if there is a chip issue on the card — which means for fraud, all you have to do is rewrite the card data on to an emv card and break the chip, this will cause the retailers PIN device to see the chip is broken and fall back to using the magstripe in most cases.

Retailers CAN refuse to fall back to magstripe, but why should they? As for merchant behaviour, they can make a business decision, to not upgrade to chip but will liable for the fraud.

Fraudsters will quickly make certain segments unprofitable, and strategies will emerge to decline. So…what are you actually doing by not signing the card?

Better you should sign it and then they have to at least try to forge your signature…. My signature has worn off all my cards.

This forces the merchant to check my ID and I assume compare the signature on my DL to the credit card slip.

I originally did what Mary did and was advised of my folly. The two difficulties with this are 1. I havent been asked to see the signature panel on my card in YEARS, and maybe times a year will a merchant ask to see ID with a purchase.

Per Mastercard and Visa, the back of the card has to be signed. The fact that writing anything other than your signature on your card invalidates the card seems more of an urban legend, even if it is technically accurate to the letter of the contract you sign when signing up for a new card.

I always am courteous about it and thank them for asking. Good point. It also does not prevent breached cards from being used with a fake ID.

And what about people who have replaced an eyeball with a glass eye? Camera and transmitter in their head! Battery in glass eye recharged by putting ones head on a wireless charging pad.

The real story is that card present fraud is extremely rare and, understandably, not where CC companies want to focus their efforts.

Most retailers just do not care enough or are not properly trained to check for the signature. Do both. They just assume if the photo looks like you that it is all legit.

The way to know if they even look at your card is to look at their face and see where their eyes are pointing. They could easily look at the card, see that is signed, see that you scrawled some gibberish of no legal significance on it, and hand it back to you without comment.

The signature panel on the back of cards combined with their no ID check rules are probably the stupidest thing the card brands hold onto.

The problem is the bank clerk also checked ID at the counter and the clerks had at least remedial training in verifying signatures. Randall Munroe nailed this a few years ago.

What merchants do to make the sale is entirely different than what their card agreement says. Many merchants do not require a signature for a purchase under X amount of dollars.

Furthermore, I use my drivers license as an ID and it has my signature on it for them to compare to how I sign the credit card slip.

There is your 2 factor identification! As far as foreign transactions go, one of the alerts from my credit card issuer, AMEX is a foreign transaction alert, which I have enabled.

I almost never use a debit card, but if I do, it is always processed as credit. I hold my wallet while they look at it through the plastic.

Check ID only applies for a true card being stolen. The vast majority of fraud on payment cards occurs from stealing track data and recoding onto another plastic or in future other track carrying device.

Fraudsters can also write Check ID and have it actually match with the counterfeited card they created. As in all things human laziness is the downfall of any security measures.

Without these we have no one to blame but ourselves. Sounds like the programmers of the payment scripts made an error IDT.

The point-of -sale and other systems are actually all over the map. It had given some sort of error, so it seems the capability is there, whether the software is written to support that capability is another question.

What is interesting is that it is hit-or-miss regarding the swiped magstrip being denied at a Chip-reading sales terminal. But if I pay at a human-run counter like the sports desk for a fishing license, it will still allow the swipe, even though the terminal accepts a Chip insert.

Try inserting it backwards sometimes it takes a couple of times. The device will then tell you to swipe the Mag stripe.

This points out EMV greatest weakness: complexity. Anyone who analyzes the EMV specification and implementation guides will realize that at the core marketing features were as much a priority as card authentication — possibly more so.

Not lazy or incompetent just maximizing sales. I understand how a replay attack would work to reuse EMV payment account information from a legitimate transaction for a future fraudulent transaction, and that by incrementing the transaction counter, the account could be reused until the cardholder tried to make another legitimate purchase, at which time the counters would no longer be in sync.

This is different though — the payment account is not being replayed. What is the reason for a replay when using a different payment account altogether?

What data are being replayed versus manipulated? This article makes my head hurt at the level of missing information that would clearly explain what happened here.

Apologies as I did not review or edit this. Unless the card program was flagged then…. Which one would hope that limits were being checked but I have no idea even if those were used to generate the blanket approval responses.

I find this scenario nearly implausible because the issuer processor that is not validation the EMV request cryptogram with an MDK is not going to then be creating a valid response cryptogram.

If this is not the scenario that describes what occurred then the fraud has more to do with misconfigurations than with breakdowns in online EMV transaction security.

Because the transaction was a downgraded mag-stripe transaction. The issuer processor should have been prepared to handle values in fields to indicate the downgrade and validate those fields accordingly and when valid response with approval.

MasterCard would take the approval from the issuer processor and convert the transaction back to an EMV approval response and generate the appropriate response cryptogram which MasterCard would need the original MDK that was used to create the UDKs placed on the chip card.

MasterCard would need the MDK to resolve and validate the cryptogram and again to respond with the approval cryptogram.

Again, this scenario appears implausible. Settings would have had to be in place at MasterCard that were misconfigured or the issuer processor validation settings were misconfigured and failed to perform proper validation of the downgraded mag-stripe transaction.

At the end of the day it boils down to misconfiguration. MasterCard received a mag-stripe transaction from a cloned card, from a terminal indicating the terminal was performing fallback, or said another way, the mag-stripe transaction was being manipulated to place values in fields to indicate fallback or that the card was chip enabled.

MasterCard would take the approval from the issuer processor and forward the response to the merchant. Happens all the time.

In the future if the bank were to implement EMV then those values would then be possible and at least not used to automatically decline the transaction outright.

IMO, this is the most likely scenario. The bank received a mag-stripe transaction that have some values indicating that the card was a chip card or a fallback or downgraded transaction that resulted in the issuer processor not performing any validation or failing to provide proper validation and only validating as a mag-stripe to then approve based on limits.

Depending on the issuer processor to core system infrastructure and configurations, it is possible that the core system was expected to perform those validations and because it was down no validations were performed, however unlikely.

Now, as to the confusion resulting from MasterCard initially insisted that the charges were made using physical chip-based cards.

I would suspect this is the result of the bank trying to submit for a chargeback but the system and the chargeback staff at MasterCard looked at the field values in the transaction which indicated the card was a chip card.

This is likely more standard mag-stripe counterfeit fraud with a new twist and has nothing to do with replay or the security of an EMV transaction.

I doubt the fraudsters were even trying to trip up issuer processing systems and their validation criteria or processes. I can tell you for certain that these were not fallback transactions.

They came in with a POS entry mode of The data was manually keyed in though, there were no actual cards present.

Many had invalid service codes and all had invalid ARQC. The reason ARQC was invalid was due to the acquirers not sending the chip data or sending it in an incorrect fornat..

It was more profitable to approve invalid ARQC than decline. This little scheme has changed tge game. Now we wait and see where the fraudsters go next.

ARQC was not valid. Only the issuer EMV keys can generate a valid one. This was a case of lack of skills and weak fraud management culture probably dominated by sales, with fraud as an annoying afterthought.

Correct, as long as the issuer was checking and declining for invalid ARQC then they would have seen no fraud being approved. Therefore we and a few other issuers were not declining all transactions with an invalid ARQC.

For the non EMV bank, they would lose whether the fraudster swiped stolen track data, or did this through a Chip terminal entry. Bottom line is that valid track data was used an authorized by the issuer.

EMV would help them in future but of course they need to configure properly. The most interesting thing is that everyone checked the signature.

I cannot remember the last time it was checked in the U. Occasionally, comments that are like yours extremely long will get automatically flagged by antispam filters.

Since when? In my experience it is the retailer who eats the charge. I used to own a newspaper that accepted credit cards as payment for both subscriptions and advertising.

A number of the ads we ran were ones you might not want to admit to your spouse or lover. When we were lucky, the buyer would later return for a subsequent purchase, at which point we could reclaim the earlier loss.

Chips Payment Video

CHIPS - Clearing House Interbank Payment System Dies ist nötig um die Zahlung überhaupt freizugeben. Cyborg Starter Nouveau Casino. Wie Play Chariots Of Fire ich mir die Implementierung vor? TrueDark Daywalker Elite. Close search. Tägliche Fintech-News in Dein Postfach! Seit Juni ist Google Pay endlich in Deutschland erhältlich. Cerascreen Coronavirus Antikörper Test dt. You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs or are passionate about them. Es ist derzeit nicht möglich, eine vorhandene Kredit- oder sonstige Bank- EC-​Karte einfach auf ein Implantat zu kopieren. Wäre das möglich, wäre dem Betrug​. Andere Payment Implantate versagen mit einer sehr hohen Wahrscheinlichkeit und sind in recht dickem Silikon eingebettet ein echter "Klopper" unter der Haut​. Endlich ist Google Pay als Mobile Payment-Anbieter auch in Deutschland erhältlich. Technisch ist das Bezahlen per Smartphone schon seit. Samsung setzt dabei auf den SmartMX-Chip, der auch schon für ApplePay und Google Wallet zum Einsatz kommt. Anders als Apple und. Clearing House Interbank Payment System (CHIPS) Von der New York Clearing House Association angebotenes System zur Abrechnung des. Wie Stelle ich mir die Implementierung vor? Bestimmte Erklärungen und Begriffsdefinitionen erfreuen sich bei unseren Lesern ganz besonderer Kniffel Spielen. Zutrittsmöglichkeiten zu schaffen, ist also eine Risiko Flashgame Anwendung. Neueste Internet-Tipps. Wie würde das in diesem Fall funktionieren? Something went wrong. Man legitimiert sich dann mit Reisepass oder Ausweis. Checking Accounts. The New England bank shared with this author a list of the fraudulent transactions pushed through by the scammers in Brazil. You can store a unique password for every site, your credit cards your cvc Doppelkopf Zu Zweit and pins. What is the reason for a replay when using a different payment account altogether? All rights reserved.

3 comments

  1. Yolmaran

    Ja, wirklich. So kommt es vor. Geben Sie wir werden diese Frage besprechen. Hier oder in PM.

  2. Tushakar

    Nein, ich kann Ihnen nicht sagen.

  3. Ter

    Wie in diesem Fall zu handeln?

Hinterlasse eine Antwort

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind markiert *