advertisement
advertisement
advertisement

Oops! My Customer Just Made Me Non-Compliant With PCI

Written by Walter Conway
July 13th, 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.

Merchants everywhere love to connect with their customers by E-mail, Twitter and SMS. Such regular and personal communication helps build a strong relationship and loyalty. The problem is that customers sometimes take this communication a bit too far. They can E-mail, tweet or text their payment-card information to a merchant without being asked. When this happens, the merchant is left with a very painful, but very straightforward question: What do I do with that transaction?

If a merchant rejects the transaction, the customer may be offended, confused or just go away. These are bad outcomes for the business, whether it is a retailer or a charity. On the other hand, processing the transaction means the particular communication system (and everything connected to it) is now transmitting cardholder data. This is the case even if the customer wasn’t asked to provide the information. Processing the transaction can increase the merchant’s PCI scope, thereby leading to an even worse outcome with broad implications for the enterprise.

To solve this problem, we need to understand PCI scoping, the merchant’s own policies and its procedures when unwanted data comes streaming over an open public network.

Every merchant knows one of the most important steps in managing PCI compliance (and maintaining sanity) is to limit scope. That is, minimize the number of systems that store, process or transmit cardholder data (a.k.a., the cardholder data environment), along with any systems that connect to them. The next step is to isolate these systems and processes from the rest of the environment.

This is a great plan that can—but does not have to be—easily defeated by customers’ unsolicited E-mailing or texting of their payment-card information (i.e., the primary account number [PAN]). Everything depends on what the merchant does right after that unsolicited data comes into its network.

The first step is to look at the merchant’s policies. Does it state explicitly what are the approved payment channels? I like to see a statement like: “Mega Corp. accepts card present, mail order, telephone order and Web transactions at company locations.” That is, does the merchant exclude channels like E-mail and/or even fax?

The next step is to check the actual practices. Here is the painful, but unavoidable part: The merchant cannot process the errant transaction. If it does, then regardless of the policy, that merchant is actually accepting and processing E-mail, text or Twitter transactions. That means those systems are in the merchant’s PCI scope.

I see this situation all the time.


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.