advertisement
advertisement

The New SAQ C Complicates PCI For Some Retailers, Franchises

Written by Walter Conway
May 23rd, 2011

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

PCI version 2.0 brought several changes, most of which are evolutionary and not particularly dramatic. There was, however, one subtle but important change that will significantly complicate how some Level 2 (and smaller) retailers and franchises validate their PCI compliance. Interestingly, this change seems to have sailed under most retailers’ (and most QSAs’) radar so far.

The change is in the new version of self-assessment questionnaire (SAQ) C. It now stipulates that retailers can use this SAQ only if their payment application serves a single store location. In other words, any retailer that connects a branch or an additional location to their POS system, or any franchisee (or franchisor) that processes payments for more than a single location, can no longer use a simplified SAQ.

In practical terms, this change means that instead of using the old SAQ C, which had about 50 items, these retailers and franchise operators will need to complete SAQ D, which includes all 280-ish requirements of the PCI DSS. For these retailers, validating PCI compliance will take more time and likely cost a lot more money, too.

The PCI Council developed SAQ C to simplify compliance validation for merchants who have POS systems that connect to the Internet to authorize card transactions and that do not store any electronic cardholder data. The general idea is that this type of merchant has a payment application on a “personal computer,” and that payment application connects to the processor via the Web.

SAQ C previously had five requirements: the payment system and an Internet connection had to be on the same device; that device was not connected to any other system in the merchant’s environment; the merchant kept only paper reports or receipts; the merchant stored no electronic cardholder data; and remote vendor support was managed securely.

The payoff for meeting these requirements was that a retailer could qualify to use the simplified SAQ and avoid the much longer, more involved and significantly more costly process of using SAQ D. I personally know of many merchants who changed their business operations, reconfigured their POS systems and even signed tokenization contracts to qualify for SAQ C.

Unfortunately some of these retailers and franchises will no longer qualify to use SAQ C. The reason is that SAQ C now includes an additional sixth requirement: “Your company store is not connected to other store locations, and any LAN is for a single store only.”

This change means a retailer that supports a branch or a second (or more) location using its single POS system would need to use SAQ D. The same goes for franchisees and franchisors that may share the POS system across several stores (or even brands). I find myself thinking a franchisee with more than one franchise operating out of a single physical location might not even qualify to use the new SAQ C. The impact is not restricted to retailers. The change to SAQ C will affect many universities that have retail or food-service operations and support multiple campus locations with a single POS system.

My guess is that the PCI Council does not view the change as significant. From its perspective, the Council likely sees SAQ C as appropriate to small Web entrepreneurs running a business from their laptops.


advertisement

One Comment | Read The New SAQ C Complicates PCI For Some Retailers, Franchises

  1. Lem Says:

    PCI is like banging your head on the wall. When you complete the SAQ, it feels good stopping.

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.