advertisement
advertisement

This is page 2 of:

The Latest PCI Compliance Stats Disappointing For Level 3s

April 14th, 2010

We’d love to know which are the 15 or so L1 merchants that are not compliant (4 percent of 360, for those of you who are not former math teachers), and the bad guys would like to know this information, too—that is if they don’t already.

For analysis purposes, the lack of specifics makes meaningful conclusions impossible. It’s accepted fact—especially with Visa—that there’s a huge difference between a retailer being truly compliant and being certified as compliant.

What’s the difference? The certified chain hasn’t been breached yet. Yes, the compliance certification is only good until it’s actually needed.

Quick quiz: How many PCI-certified retailers in the last few years did not quickly lose their compliance shortly after a breach? They had to. How else could Visa keep saying that no PCI-compliant merchant has ever been breached if it didn’t quickly cancel the certification after a breach?

Still, a rate of 96 percent PCI compliance is pretty good, so for L1 retailers we give the industry a Pass.

The story with other large merchants is similarly positive. These are the Level 2 merchants with between 1 million and 6 million Visa transactions annually. Here, PCI compliance increased even faster—rising from a dismal 62 percent at the end of 2007 to a whopping 94 percent by the end of 2009. Once again, 94 percent is an “A” in anybody’s book: hence, our Pass assessment. We have to credit Visa’s CAP in 2008 with stimulating compliance. This program offered a series of carrots and sticks aimed particularly at L1 and L2 merchants to encourage them to validate their PCI compliance. The results speak for themselves: L1 merchant compliance increased to 91 percent and L2 was at 87 percent by the end of 2008, each higher than the 2007 figures of 77 percent and 62 percent, respectively.

In the prohibited data realm, the numbers are somewhat better, but the conclusions are ambiguous. At the end of 2007, Visa reported that 99 percent of Level 1 and Level 2 merchants told Visa they did not store prohibited data. At the end of 2008, Visa reported the identical 99 percent for the same groups. At the end of 2009, the percentages for both Level 1 and Level 2 were bumped up to 100 percent.

First, everyone is going to raise their eyebrows at any report claiming 100 percent of anything. Second, Visa has introduced a subtle wording change. In the 2007 and 2008 reports (with 99 percent), it reported the retailers “confirmed that they do not store prohibited data.” In 2009, Visa said “validated not storing prohibited data.” Validated by whom? And how? In some cases, the retailer reported it directly; other times, confirmation came from an assessor.

If asked the question, “Are you still retaining stuff that you’re not allowed to retain?,” who’s going to reply, “Yep, we sure are.” (It’s like walking into an IRS audit and being asked, “Is there any significant source of revenue you’re not reporting?” and replying, “OK. You got me. Yep. May I go now?”)

But that scenario still assumes the person answering the compliance question even knows the answer.


advertisement

4 Comments | Read The Latest PCI Compliance Stats Disappointing For Level 3s

  1. cestmoi Says:

    Why would companies be jumping to get PCI compliance if it is not mandated by law? Especially when they can hold off as long as possible and then get compliance without wasting each year’s audit fee since 2007 (per article’s start date)… so companies who got on board back to 2004 got screwed by paying yearly fees since then.

  2. Walt Conway Says:

    @cestmoi, Thanks for your comment, but I have to disagree with such a cynical view of PCI and the benefits of compliance. Companies should want to be compliant to protect their customers and their brand. If you are going to take payment cards then you have an obligation to be secure. Being PCI compliant and – more importantly – being secure is important to your business and your customers. Rather than being a waste, PCI compliance is a smart investment.

    I guess you could avoid compliance and try to fly under your acquirer’s radar, or you could lie on your SAQ. But you do not really benefit by such action. You increase your risk of an expensive data breach which is more expensive than being compliant and, hopefully, secure. In other words, if you think compliance is expensive, noncompliance can cost more.

  3. Cindy Valladares Says:

    PCI can unlock IT budgets, so it’s important to determine the cost of compliance. However, I’m with you, Walt, that the cost of non compliance is way higher than that of compliance. Surveys show the average cost of a data breach being $6.6 million. With this info, it’s very easy to argue that compliance is not expensive.

    One of the reasons why a breach is so expensive is because breaches go undiscovered and uncontained for weeks or months. Imagine leaving the door to your home wide open, and not finding out what robbers stole for months! It could get very expensive. Close that breach to detection gap and you can control the damages to your organization much quicker.

  4. nick Says:

    PCI compliance is a money making thing for scan companies and Visa/MC is in bed with these companies. Getting scanned and submitting a report to the banks will not stop a hacker. If you still get hacked even though you have every safety element possible on your site, the banks will still fine the merchant. Period. Where are the banks saying that if you submit PCI scan and self assessment to then quarterly, then you are off the hook if you get hacked? They will still find a reason to fine the merchant. Why are merchants going to pay for scumbags crimes?

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.