PCI’s New P2PE Rules Won’t Kick In Until Spring 2012 Or Later

Written by Evan Schuman
September 15th, 2011

The PCI Council on Thursday (Sept. 15) will detail its initial guidelines for point-to-point encryption (P2PE), but retailers need not—and should not—take any near-term action. Nor should they sign any imminent contracts involving P2PE. Why? The Council will stress that the document—a 96-page detailed description of various P2P approaches and common-sense security processes for each—is only “the first set of validation requirements” and that key parts of the program won’t even be in place for six to eight months and might be delayed even further.

Why such delays? First, the Council wants retailers to contract only for P2PE applications that appear on a Council list of applications validated to be PCI compliant. The problem? That list doesn’t yet exist, and the list’s creation is “targeted for Spring 2012,” according to a draft copy of the Council’s document.

A second reason for the delay is PCI training of assessors. The Council isn’t promising to identify the testing procedures until “the end of 2011” and “training opportunities” (which we assume means classes) won’t be detailed until “Spring 2012.”

The report will say that the guidelines—even if perfectly followed—won’t offer a path for a retailer to be considered out-of-scope. The best that a chain can hope for, according to the document, will be “reduced scope.” But nowhere does the document say what exactly that would and wouldn’t include. Even a 10-page glossary in the document doesn’t define “reduced scope,” although it does take the time to define “authorization,” “clear text” (we kid you not. Its full definition is “See Plain Text.”), “password” and “software.” But reduced scope? Everyone obviously knows exactly what the Council meant by that.

The document will also bring new levels of bureaucracy, including creating special P2PE QSAs. “Not all QSAs are P2PE QSAs—there are additional qualification requirements that must be met for a QSA to become a P2PE QSA,” the report said, although it doesn’t list what those additional requirements will be. Presumably, that is part of next year’s training plans.

The guidelines—a copy should be available here on the PCI Council Web site—only deal with “Encryption, Decryption and Key Management within Secure Cryptographic Devices (Hardware/Hardware),” which is also the catchy name of the report.


Comments are closed.


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!

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...

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.