PCI’s New PIN Rules: A New Document Is Issued To Require You To Create A New Document

Written by Evan Schuman
June 12th, 2013

When the PCI Security Council issued new rules for PIN transactions on Friday (June 7), beyond the usual small tweaks and updates, there was essentially only one new rule impacting retailers: Device manufacturers need to specify how retailers need to use the devices to stay PCI compliant.

Andrew Jamieson, security laboratories manager for Underwriters Laboratories Transaction Security in Australia and a noted follower of PCI PIN procedures, said the new rule is actually a wise move.

“The purpose of this document is to define the scope of the approval of the device, such that it is very clear what scenarios and environments the device is approved for use in. Conversely, which situations the use of the device steps outside of its approval, therefore negating its PCI PTS compliance,” Jamieson said. “The most obvious example of this would be the requirement that the device has a privacy shield to prevent someone overseeing customer PIN entry, if the device is not handheld. Currently, under previous versions of the PCI PTS standard, it is not clear if a device was approved for use only with a PIN shield, or if it is allowed to be deployed without such a deterrent to visual observation. However, under v4, the requirement for a privacy shield would be clearly outlined in the security policy if the device was not approved for handheld use. Therefore, it can now be very clear to the acquirer / ISO / merchant that such a privacy shield is necessary – and perhaps more importantly that use of the device without such a shield is violating the devices approval.”

The idea that the only change is this public policy document is fair only from a retailer’s perspective. But deeper down in the weeds, from a vendor’s testing perspective, the new document has many important but narrow changes, Jamieson said.

“These testing requirements, specifically for the ‘core’ module that covers PIN protection, have been completely rewritten to provide the device vendors more visibility into the testing process that will be performed by the laboratories,” Jamieson said. “There is an increased focus on the logical security of the devices. This recognizes that we are moving into a more ‘connected’ world than we had back when these types of device standards were first created, with the original versions of ISO13491 or the ‘pre-PCI’ device standards, and therefore the types of attack vectors are changing.”


One Comment | Read PCI’s New PIN Rules: A New Document Is Issued To Require You To Create A New Document

  1. Christine Speedt Says:

    A few years ago the privacy shields on some signature capture devices mysteriously stopped shipping with the units, with no satisfactory answer from manufacturers as to why. The shields were problematic and broke off, and eventually many did away with the piece and switched to a recessed pad instead.
    I wonder many retailers are at risk today of non-PCI Compliance because a privacy shield is missing?
    An enterprising person could start a new business: inspecting and installing privacy shields on pin devices.


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.