Tokenization: You Can’t Protect Data You Don’t Have

Written by Evan Schuman
February 8th, 2008

Guest Columnist David Taylor is president of the PCI Security Vendor Alliance and a former security analyst with Gartner.

Not enough merchants know about Tokenization – the automated replacement of a credit card number with another (non-sensitive) number at the POS. I say that because, I’ve been talking to a lot of merchants who are members of the PCI Knowledge Base and only about 20 percent are familiar with the term and maybe 10 percent know enough to discuss its pros and cons. Yet, this is a technology (and a process) which I see as virtually the only way to get Level 3 and Level 4 merchants into PCI compliance.

It’s not about RSA. Most merchants I ask about "Tokenization" think of RSA Security’s key fob tokens used for remote system access. For that, we can probably blame Shift4, who claims to have coined the term. At this point, the few vendors who have offerings in this space each have their own unique term: Shift4 talks about 4GO with SafeSwipe, EPX calls their offering BuyerWall, and MerchantLink’s product is called Transaction Vault, but as a generic, non-trademarked term, "Tokenization" seems to work as well as anything – but more awareness is needed.

It’s about reducing merchant risk. The point that these vendors make is that if you don’t have the data, then you’ve outsourced your risk. But I’ve always lived by the principle that "you don’t outsource risk" because when it comes time to file lawsuits, the merchant will still get named. The good news is, I’ve talked to several assessors and they are generally supportive of merchants using Tokenization. Some see Tokenization like network segmentation, as a way to move card data "out of scope" of the assessment. Others see it as a type of "Compensating Control." Either way, when the card data’s no longer in your POS or other systems, the need for other controls is either greatly reduced or eliminated entirely.

It’s about saving money. The few merchants I’ve spoken with who have implemented tokenization say that the primary motivator was cost savings, followed by PCI compliance and risk reduction. A simple A/B comparison of transaction fees, with and without tokenization, indicated that the ongoing fees for tokenization were low enough to justify switching away from larger, more established card processors, who are typically less flexible in negotiating transaction charges. So, Tokenization has sometimes been driven by, or is at least supported by, the CFO.

Is Tokenization a silver bullet? I spent too long as Gartner analyst to believe in such things. The merchants I’ve spoken with have encountered resistance to Tokenization, from several sources. Internally, there are a bunch of applications that use or store card data, from the POS to the data warehouse, as well as Sales Audit, Loss Prevention, and Finance, so making the switch to Tokenization will probably require some programming changes. There are also going to be lots of discussions about how to ensure POS performance and the fear that Tokenization can create a small number of extremely attractive targets for data theves. But we believe that for many merchants these issues can be addressed with less cost and effort than they are spending now on PCI compliance.

In coming weeks, we’ll be examining the differences and implications of the four new PCI Self-Assessment Questionnaires (SAQs), the impact of server Virtualization on PCI compliance. We’re interested in any suggestions re: Emerging Technologies that Impact Compliance, and if you’d like to discuss Tokenization or any other issue related to PCI Compliance or security, send me an E-mail at

P.S. I need your help on a project I’ve been working on to get better information about how PCI is truly working in the real world. To do that, we’ve set up an anonymous place to find out how your peers are achieving compliance. We’ve called this the PCI Knowledge Base. In return for anonymously discussing your own experiences with PCI compliance, you can learn what your peers are doing. You can also get advice from our Panel of Experts, which is made up of PCI Certified Assessors, Chief Technology Officers who know the PCI-related technologies and other PCI Experts. There’s never a charge to join nor to search the PCI Knowledge Base for best practices, spending plans, ROI justification, vendor and product feedback, experiences with assessors, etc.


One Comment | Read Tokenization: You Can’t Protect Data You Don’t Have

  1. Branden R. Williams Says:

    Tokenization is a strategy that we have recommended to many of our customers, and it works well when implemented correctly. I think that companies are hindered by decision paralysis when it comes to deciding the strategy they will take towards compliance.


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.