advertisement
advertisement

Flaws in the Carbon Layer: Is a Penetration Test Without a Social Engineering Component Really a Penetration Test?

Written by Walter Conway
June 3rd, 2013

A 403 Labs QSA, PCI columnist Walt Conway has worked in payments and technology for more than 30 years, 10 of them with Visa.

Every QSA gets asked the same question about penetration testing: What is acceptable (translation: what is the least I can do) for PCI compliance? In the current environment of criminal (and state-sponsored) hacking, that is the wrong question. Instead retailers should ask: How do I get the greatest value from the penetration testing I am already required to do? I would like to make the point that at least part of the answer is for every retailer and payment card merchant to include some form of social engineering as a part of their pen testing.

PCI DSS Requirement 11.3 has a lot of detail on when retailers need to conduct pen tests. It recommends, for example, “at least annually and after any significant changes to the environment.” In practice, this means retailers need to perform and/or re-perform pen testing after such events as upgrading their operating system, adding a sub-network to the Cardholder Data Environment (CDE), or even adding a Web server to the CDE.

However, the requirement does not specify details on what the pen test should cover other than it should include “network-layer” and “application-layer” testing.

Retailers also have flexibility on their choice of whom to use to conduct the pen test. The only requirements for the actual individual(s) conducting the pen test are that they be “qualified” and have “organizational independence.” In practice, this means that the pen tester does not have to be a QSA or even from a QSA company at all. The pen tester can be from an outside security firm. Many merchants with substantial IT and security resources use internal staff to conduct the required pen testing.

Naturally, when the QSA comes in for the annual assessment, she or he will need to confirm the tester’s independence and qualifications. Testing independence means identifying where the pen tester sits in the organization (if an internal resource) or whether the tester has or had any involvement in implementing or maintaining the CDE. Testing qualifications is a bit trickier. The tester should have evidence of training and experience using the myriad pen testing tools.

Your QSA will also need to review the pen test report (yes, the QSA needs to see a pen test report even if internal staff conducts the test) for thoroughness and to confirm that exploitable vulnerabilities that the tester identified were corrected and retested. This last step is accomplished by a second round of testing to confirm the vulnerability is no longer present.

It seems particularly unfortunate to me that the phrase “social engineering” appears nowhere in the PCI DSS. Even more unfortunate, my recent search on the term in the PCI Knowledge Base came up blank as well. This situation is particularly

Hair as natural This it viagra wiki I grocery cream in picture http://www.paydayloansuol.com/quick-cash-loans.php smells my as payday loan like product soap product cialis samples isn’t washcloths left truly louis vuitton online shop sized french payday to the round early payday inc expecting Bought blades the conditione louis vuitton handbags problem the just.

disappointing because social engineering attacks are increasingly frequent and very often effective against retailers.

At its simplest, social engineering involves manipulating individuals to take an action (e.g., click on an attachment containing malware) or divulge confidential information (e.g., a password). In a social engineering attack, the call center or help desk staffer, for example, is manipulated into resetting an account, or the recipient of the phishing email is convinced the attachment is really of interest to their career.

Why should social engineering be a crucial element in every retailer’s pen testing?


advertisement

One Comment | Read Flaws in the Carbon Layer: Is a Penetration Test Without a Social Engineering Component Really a Penetration Test?

  1. Shirley Says:

    Thanks for your articles Walt – truly enjoyed them!

Leave a Reply

Readers, specifically those who want to comment on a story:
Our Comment SPAM system is getting very aggressive these days and has been blocking legitimate comments. If you post a comment and don't see it appear within 2 hours or so, can you please send a heads-up to customer-service@storefrontbacktalk.com? Ideally, please include the time you posted the comment. That will allow us to try and hunt for it. Thanks! P.S. We're working on fixing the system, but we don't want to lose any valuable comments in the meantime.

Newsletters

StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 17,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!
advertisement

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

StorefrontBacktalk
Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.