advertisement
advertisement

This is page 2 of:

PCI Council: Don’t Go Mixed-Mode In Virtualization

June 15th, 2011

This being PCI, the guidelines then go on to explain what’s required if a merchant decides to try mixing in-scope and out-of-scope components on the same hardware anyway—drilling down to the controls required for out-of-band communication channels and virtual storage. But it’s clear, from the point of view of these recommendations, that’s the wrong way to go.

The guidelines take the same harder-than-usual line on cloud computing services. After laying out how hard it is to make sure an in-scope application in the cloud is secure, the guidelines said: “These challenges may make it impossible for some cloud-based services to operate in a PCI DSS compliant manner. Consequently, the burden for providing proof of PCI DSS compliance for a cloud-based service falls heavily on the cloud provider, and such proof should be accepted only based on rigorous evidence of adequate controls.”

How heavily? “The cloud provider should be prepared to provide their hosted customers with evidence that clearly indicates what was included in the scope of their PCI DSS assessment as well as what was not in scope; details of controls that were not covered and are therefore the customer’s responsibility to cover in their own PCI DSS assessment; details of which PCI DSS requirements were reviewed and considered to be ‘in place’ and ‘not in place’; and confirmation of when the assessment was conducted,” the clarification said.

Admittedly, it’s a little easier for PCI guidelines to avoid waffling when it comes to virtualization. This is largely a matter of reshuffling applications to consolidate existing hardware, and all the old PCI rules about securing and isolating in-scope systems are already in place. So are the lists of PCI-compliant applications.

That means the working group could focus just on the new layer of technology—technology that, in the case of virtualization, has been in use in many datacenters for years. That practical experience translates into PCI recommendations that, for once, are clean and clear. You can actually hand the guidelines to datacenter operations people and they’ll have a prayer of understanding them.

Enjoy those very specific (and very helpful) recommendations while you can. An upcoming major set of PCI guidelines for a hot new technology will be those for mobile payments—an area that involves new applications, technology that’s in the hands of users and almost impossible to control, and a widespread lack of consistent understanding of how to make it secure for payments.

When those recommendations arrive next year, you’ll need all the help you can get.


advertisement

Comments are closed.

Newsletters

StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 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.