advertisement
advertisement

This is page 3 of:

New PCI Edict: Tokens Can Be Out-Of-Scope

August 12th, 2011

Like any security application, IT management of tokens must consider that cyberthieves are going to be constantly updating their attack methodologies, especially when tokens become more popular and, as a result, more profitable targets.

“If a token is generated as a result of using a hash function, then it is a relatively trivial effort for a malicious individual to reconstruct original PAN data if they have access to both the truncated and hashed version of the PAN,” the guidance says. “Where hashed and truncated versions of the same PAN are present in the environment, additional controls should be in place to ensure that the hashed and truncated versions cannot be correlated to reconstruct the original PAN. Because it contains PANs as well as tokens, the data vault often presents the most attractive target for attackers. Compromise of the data vault could potentially result in the compromise of the entire tokenization system, and additional security controls above and beyond those required in PCI DSS may be warranted.”

A token strategy will also change retail contractual issues and bring in a new player—the token vendor—to the security mix.

“Some PCI DSS requirements will apply to the merchant even when a tokenization [approach] is outsourced or hybrid. For example, PCI DSS controls apply wherever PAN is processed, stored or transmitted—such as at the point of capture—as well as at any de-tokenization points. Additionally, the merchant is required to implement and maintain policies and procedures to manage service providers whenever cardholder data is shared,” the guidance says. “Ensure that proper contractual agreements are in place, with the tokenization service provider acknowledging that the service provider is responsible for the security of cardholder data processed, stored and/or transmitted by the service provider. Review logs of the merchant’s interaction with the tokenization systems and processes on a regular basis to ensure that only users and system components authorized by the merchant have access to the tokenization/de-tokenization processes.”

Another line should probably be added to contracts, one addressing the fact that the token vendor “supports the assignment of PCI DSS responsibilities between the [token vendor] and their customers. For example, the solution should not return PANs to a customer without the customer’s express permission and acknowledgement of how this action might affect the customer’s responsibility for securing cardholder data and for validating PCI DSS controls.”


advertisement

2 Comments | Read New PCI Edict: Tokens Can Be Out-Of-Scope

  1. Steve Sommers Says:

    We have several issues with the Tokenization Guideline as published by PCI SSC. Basically they took a simple concept that helped merchants with security and compliance, added some lard, and now the “simple concept” allows for “valuable tokens”, opening security holes and complicating compliance. Not good. On page 20, we find this little gem: “Additionally, tokens that can be used to initiate a transaction might be in scope for PCI DSS.” Might? Wasn’t the whole purpose of this document to take what “might” be true and determine what really is true? What was released today was not an industry standard, and it was not a guideline. It was an eloquently worded, poorly veiled passing of the buck from the PCI SSC to individual acquirers and QSAs.

  2. Sue Zloth Says:

    Well, I don’t think I would speak as harshly about the guidelines as Steve. I think they are a good first step. However, I do have an issue with the last section, which as it is currently written will introduce a lot of fear, uncertainty and doubt into many merchant’s minds regarding how to keep the systems they have which are storing only tokens out of scope. For solutions which support these types of tokens, the guidelines state that there must be additional controls in place to detect and prevent fraudulent transactions. This is where I feel the Council’s document fell short…when they introduced this concept that tokens may potentially be back in scope without providing guidance as to how to keep them out of scope.

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.