advertisement
advertisement

This is page 2 of:

Why PCI DSS Compliance Is Not Like The Flu

February 20th, 2013

To my knowledge, the cloud guidance was the first document to tell merchants and their QSAs that they need to go beyond checking the service provider’s AOC. The guidance instructs merchants to review “applicable sections” of the report on compliance (ROC), including “the Executive Summary and Scope of Work sections.”

The Cloud SIG provides merchants (and service providers) with a comprehensive responsibility matrix (Appendix C) that details what a merchant needs to know from its cloud service provider. Section 6.1 of the guidance is a virtual “how-to” list for risk management, due diligence and SLA construction.

My question is worth repeating: If this due diligence is needed for cloud service providers, should it not also be needed for all of a merchant’s service providers?

The third, and most recent, recommendation for merchants to know about their service providers is the PCI SSC’s Mobile Payment Security Guidelines for Merchants. You have only to read Appendix C to know merchants are going to need a lot more than a service provider’s AOC to validate their PCI compliance. Yes, the first item on the list essentially tells the merchant to review the vendor’s AOC. The advice then proceeds to instruct merchants to document their mobile vendor’s warranties, logging, training and reporting. None of the latter items is in the AOC.

The unasked issue in all three documents is whether service providers will deliver the information. Smart service providers offer the necessary documentation, and they do it happily. They view evidence of their PCI compliance, security and cooperation with their customers as major selling points that differentiate them from their competitors. These service providers are true partners with their merchant customers.

Merchants whose service providers are not in this group may want to note that one of the two SIGs this year is addressing third-party—i.e., service provider—compliance. No member of that SIG (including me) can discuss any of our deliberations. The important message, though, is that participating organizations around the world saw the need for further guidance and voted for this SIG. Hopefully, the existence of this SIG will be further support for service providers and their merchant customers to work more closely together to create powerful and secure long-term partnerships.

What do you think? I’d like to hear your thoughts. Either leave a comment or E-mail me.


advertisement

Comments are closed.

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.