Visa to Global Payments: Strike One, You’re Out

Written by Walter Conway
April 4th, 2012

A 403 Labs QSA, PCI Columnist Walt Conway has worked in payments and technology for more than 30 years, 10 of them with Visa.

This week, Visa removed, at least temporarily, Global Payments from its list of PCI-compliant service providers. That decision tells every processor and merchant that if it suffers a data breach, at least one card brand may declare the company to be noncompliant with PCI and, therefore, subject to sanctions, fines and possible loss of business. This action reflects a subtly different position than any card brand has taken in the past, and the decision has implications for every merchant and service provider.

The PCI Council states that no breached merchant or processor has been found to be PCI compliant at the time of the breach. I never liked that statement. It seems to be either tempting fate or challenging the bad guys. Although it stopped short of promising a safe harbor, at least the statement acknowledged the possibility of suffering a data breach while still being PCI compliant. Visa’s suspension of Global Payments has swept aside that distinction.

The card brands enforce PCI compliance. Visa or any card brand is within its rights to impose sanctions on any processor or merchant that does not comply with PCI DSS. The PCI Council has no role to play in the Global Payments situation.

However, Visa’s decision to act quickly leaves me with some questions. My first question: Is PCI a data protection standard or is it a security standard?

The difference may be subtle, but it is significant. I can imagine situations where a processor or merchant could be breached while it remained PCI compliant. For example, PCI doesn’t protect a merchant or processor from a compromised or rogue insider with privileged access (Think of “The Lavender Hill Mob”). Similarly, if the individual encryption key custodians collude, they could compromise the cardholder database. An insider, or the bad guys, could tap into the internal network where PCI does not require encryption. Maybe the bad guys found a new vulnerability that we have not seen before and that PCI (which is subject to being amended and updated) does not address. Lastly, let’s say the authorities confiscate (or image) a hard drive with cardholder data as part of a criminal investigation and either they lose custody of the data or a compromised insider copies the data (which may be safer and more lucrative than stealing confiscated drugs from the evidence room).

These examples illustrate what I mean when I refer to PCI not being a security program. Every QSA I know and everyone involved in PCI emphasizes security first, and then compliance follows. In each case above, it seems as if there exists at least the possibility that a merchant or processor could be breached while being PCI compliant.

Visa’s banishing of Global Payments from its list of compliant service providers tells the world that if a merchant or service provider suffers a data breach, it could not have been PCI compliant at the time. Period. Perhaps Visa has evidence the rest of us don’t, or it has taken a leap that says a security breach constitutes PCI noncompliance.

Another question: Would Visa react similarly if Global Payments was a merchant?

My answer is that I doubt it.


Comments are closed.


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.