Survey: Level 4s Recognition Of PCI High, Understanding Of It Almost Nil

Written by Evan Schuman
August 13th, 2009

When the National Retail Federation released a report on Monday (Aug. 10) that said smaller retailers—Level 4s—now said they were “familiar” with PCI, it was hailed as a major step forward. That’s setting the bar mighty low, even for the smallest of retailers.

But the more important question raised in the report is whether those merchants have an unrealistic sense of how vulnerable they are to data breaches. The problem is that the report didn’t sufficiently track who said what, making it impossible to determine whether any one merchant’s appraisal was legitimate or not.

(Related Stories: In his column this week, StorefrontBacktalk PCI Columnist David Taylor—who happened to have been involved in the research for the NRF report—puts the survey results into a more meaningful context from a small business perspective. Also, our new Franchisee Columnist this week looks at PCI struggles from small merchants that are part of large merchant chains: The worst of both worlds?)

That perception is based on whether the question is meant to ask if Level 4s in general are at risk or whether the surveyed store is at risk. Some small retailers—especially the smallest mom-and-pops that may have minimal systems–are candidly not that much at risk depending on their transaction levels and security approach while others are at extreme risk.

The report draws no distinctions between an independent mom-and-pop and a franchisee using a national brand that might attract a lot more cyberthief attention. The person who headed up the report’s research, Heather Varian Foster, the VP of marketing for ControlScan, said there are reasons—pro and con—for Level 4 merchants to be split into separate groups depending on likely exposure.

“I think that the PCI Council may have to start evaluating this group as not just one group. It’s a group that really hasn’t been scrutinized a whole heck of a lot,” Foster said. But she added that it still might not be a good idea to split them: “You want to make sure that these businesses follow best practices. If we hold them to a different standard, that could be dangerous, too.”

Some interesting notes from the report:

  • How Much Level 4s Are Spending For PCI
    The largest slice (31 percent) was spending between $1 and $500 and the second largest slice (29 percent) spent between $501 and $5,000. One level down, equal-sized slices (each at 10 percent) said they were spending “nothing” and that they were spending between $5,001 and $20,000. An additional 8 percent said they had coughed up more than $20K and 12 percent admitted that they had no idea.
  • Is PCI Mandatory?
    Given that the surveyed all accepted payment cards, the answers should have been “yes, it’s mandatory.” And that was the answer from a comforting 70 percent of respondents. The next largest slice (15 percent) said it was optional and 8 percent said that they were unsure. Our favorite answer: 7 percent said “neither.” The question was “is PCI compliance mandatory or optional for your company?” Yes and No and “I don’t know” make sense, but how could it possibly be neither?
  • Why Have You Not Completed PCI Compliance?
    “Still working on it” was the choice of 44 percent, “don’t have the financial and technical resources” was the choice of 26 percent and “don’t understand it” was the selection for 19 percent. Even better answers: “It’s too hard” got five percent of the vote and “Don’t care” got six percent.
  • What Has To Be Purchased To Become Compliant?
    The answers here were difficult to evaluate because respondents were allowed to check all that apply. Also, it’s unclear if someone felt they didn’t need to buy something because it is not necessary to have or because they already had it. That said, the top answers in sequence were “implement security policies and procedures” (not sure how that’s an answer to “what did you have to purchase to meet PCI compliance guidelines?” but I digress), “conduct vulnerability scanning,” “purchase security products (e.g., antivirus software, firewall, etc.)” and “implement security awareness training.” Other answers were “upgrade out E-Commerce,” “change our business procedures to stop storing credit card data after authorization,” “purge all credit card data we were storing,” “upgrade POS” and our personal favorite: “Nothing. Just complete the paperwork.”

  • advertisement

    One Comment | Read Survey: Level 4s Recognition Of PCI High, Understanding Of It Almost Nil

    1. ElementPS Says:

      There is still a long way to go in regard to educating small retailers. It’s interesting to note, also, that the survey suggests that small retailers don’t believe they’re even at risk.


    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.