advertisement
advertisement

This is page 2 of:

The PCI SAQ Problem: Versions Are Much Too Incomplete

September 20th, 2011

Visa noted that “Merchants using this type of configuration are being targeted by criminals who gain unauthorized access to the merchant’s Web site by directly exploiting vulnerabilities in either a merchant’s Web site or in the merchant Web server. Once compromised, hackers will modify the merchant’s code, which links to the hosted payment page, redirecting customers to a counterfeit page that looks identical to the third-party’s authentic hosted payment page.”

That is, the bad guys hack your server and instead of directing your customers to your payment processor, you end up sending them to badguys.com—or at least badguys.com sees the transaction. Now your customers’ card data has been well and truly breached.

Currently, SAQ A does not require that the merchant’s Web site be located behind an effective firewall (Requirement 1) or that the server be scanned (internally and externally) and penetration tested (Requirement 11) to identify vulnerabilities that make the bad guys’ job easier. SAQ A merchants should comply at least with these two additional PCI requirements. It should not matter that these are not in the SAQ. Just because merchants do not store cardholder data does not mean they are invulnerable to a cardholder data breach.

I know some SAQ A merchants do have their servers behind an effective firewall, and I even know a few who perform quarterly internal and external scans. None of these requirements is in their SAQ, but they take these steps because they want to be secure.

SAQ B is for merchants who use dial-out POS terminals or imprinters (a.k.a., zip-zap machines or knuckle-busters). This SAQ has 29 questions, and it includes all the PCI requirements in SAQ A plus three more: parts of Requirement 3, for protecting cardholder data and not storing sensitive authentication data like the mag stripe; one part of Requirement 4, so you don’t E-mail or text unencrypted PANs; and parts of Requirement 7, which restrict data and system access to staff whose job requires it. There also are additional subsections of Requirement 12 in SAQ B covering security policies and staff training.

I’d say SAQ B is pretty complete. If a merchant only has POS terminals connected to dial-out phone lines (no Internet, remember), then this SAQ looks to do a pretty good job. I would add one item that is good security even though it appears nowhere in PCI today: requiring regular physical inspection of POS devices to identify evidence of tampering.

POS devices are vulnerable to tampering and even replacement by criminals. Smart retailers train their staff and managers to report when they observe changes (“Golly, the terminal wasn’t green yesterday, was it?”). Really smart retailers monitor their POS devices with an automated system that alerts them when a device is turned off or disconnected.


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.