Tag: PCIDSS (Page 1 of 5)

Recap on PCI v4.0: Changes in The 12 Requirements

So here we are in 2023 and PCIv4.0 is on everyone’s thoughts. Most of our customers have finished their 2022 cycle; and some are going through their 2023 cycle. Anyone certifying this year in general, means that for the next cycle on 2024, they will be certified against v4.0. V3.2.1 will be sunset in March 2024, so as a general rule of thumb, anyone going for certification/recertification in 2024 – hop onto v4.0.

Take also special note of the requirements where statements are “Best practices until 31 March 2025, after which these requirements will be required and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment “.

It doesn’t mean that you can actively ignore these requirements until 2025; rather, to use this period of around 2 years as a transition period for your business to move into these newer requirements. So, to put it short: start even now. One of the requirements that gets a lot of flak is 3.5.1.2 which is the disk level encryption; in other words, technology like TDE being used to address encryption requirements. This is no longer a get out of jail free card because after March 2025, you will need to implement (on top of TDE, if you still insist on using it), if you are not using it on removable media – the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse – Truncation, Tokenization, Encryption or Hashing. And before you get too smart and say yes, you are using Encryption already, i.e transparent or disk-level encryption; PCI is one step ahead of you, you Maestro of Maleficant Excuses, as they spell out “through truncation or a data-level encryption mechanism“.

So, for v4.0 it’s probably easier to just break it up into

a) SAQs v4.0 – Self assessment

This is straight forward – a lot of changes have occurred to some of the venerable SAQs out there, such as SAQ A. I’ll cover that in another article.

b) ROC v4.0 – from QSA/ISA

Most QSAs should be able to certify against v4.0. You can check on the PCI-DSS QSA lists, they have ” ** PCI DSS v4 Assessors  ” under their names. There also may be some shakeout that some underqualified QSAs may not go through the training to upgrade to v4 assessors. On another note, ISAs don’t generally have these requirements to upgrade to v4.0; although it’s recommended.

Now, perhaps is a good time to just go through a very big overview of V4.0 and explain why some of these changes had been effected.

Changes to Requirements

For this overview, we will first look at the 12 requirements statements and see where the changes are. In a big move, the council has updated the main requirements (not so subtly), getting rid of many of the tropes of previous incarnation of the standard. Let’s start here.

Requirement 1 is now changed to “Install and Maintain Network Security Controls” as opposed to “Install and maintain firewall configuration to protect CHD.”

This is a good change; even if the wordings are still a little clumsy. After all Network Security Controls are defined so broadly and may not just be a service or product like a firewall or a NAC or TACACs. It could be access controls, AAA policies, IAM practices, password policies, remote access controls etc. So how do you ‘install’ such policies or practices? A better word would be to “Implement” but I think that’s nitpicking. Install is an OK word here, but everytime I hear that, I think of someone installing a subwoofer in my car or installing an air-cond in my rental unit. But overall, it’s a lot better than just relying on the firewall word – since in today’s environment, a firewall may no longer just function as a firewall anymore; and integrated security systems are fairly common where multiple security functions are rolled into one.

Requirement 2 now reads as “Apply Secure Configurations to All System Components.” Which is a heck better than “Do not use vendor supplied defaults for system passwords and other security parameter.” The latter always sounded so off, as if it’s like a foster child that never belonged to the family. Because it reads more like a control objective or part of a smaller subset of control area as opposed to an overarching requirement. It just made PCI sounds juvenile compared to much better written standards like the ISO, or NIST or CIS.

Requirement 3 changes are subtle from “Protect stored cardholder data” to “Protect stored account data” – they removed cardholder data and replace it with “account” data. It generally means the same thing; but with account data, they possibly want to broaden the applicability of the standard. Afterall, it may be soon that cards may be obsolete; and it might be all information will be contained in the mobile device, or authenticated through virtual cloud services. Hence a traditional person ‘holding a card’ may no longer be a concept anymore.

Requirement 4 reverts back to cardholder data, with the new 4.0 stating “Protect Cardholder Data with Strong Cryptography During Transmission Over Open, Public Networks”. Which is sometimes frustrating. If you have decided to call account data moving forward, just call it account data and not revert back to cardholder data. Also this requirement changed from the older “Encrypt transmission of cardholder data across open, public networks”. It may sound the same, but it’s different. It removes the age old confusion on, what if I encrypt my data first and then only transmit it? In the previous definition, it doesn’t matter. The transmission still needs to be encrypted by the way it is written. However, with the new definition, you are now able to encrypt the data and send it across an unencrypted channel (though not recommended) and still be in compliance. Ah, English.

“Requirement 5: Protect All Systems and Networks from Malicious Software” is a definite upgrade from the old “Requirement 5: Protect all systems against malware and regularly update anti-virus software or programs”. This gives a better context from the anti-virus trope – where QSAs insist on every system having an antivirus even if its running on VAX or even if it brings down the database with its constant updates. Now, with a broader understanding that anti-virus is NOT the solution to malicious software threats; we are able to move to a myriad of end point security that serves a better purpose to the requirement. So long, CLAMAV for Linux and Unix!

Requirement 6 reads about the same except they changed the word ‘applications’ to software i.e “Develop and maintain secure systems and applications” to “Develop and Maintain Secure Systems and Software”. I am not sure why; but I suppose that many software that may serve as a vector of attack may not be classified as an application. It could be a middle ware, or an API etc.

By the way, just to meander away here. I noted that in V4.0 requirements, every word’s first letter is Capitalised, except for minor words like conjuctions, prepositions, articles. This seems to be in line with some of the published standards such as CIS (but not NIST), and its basically just an interesting way to write it. This style is called “Title Case”, and It Can Be Overused and Abused Quite a Lot if We Are Not Careful.

Requirement 7: Restrict Access to System Components and Cardholder Data by Business Need to Know vs previous version Requirement 7: Restrict access to cardholder data by business need to know. Again, this is more expansionary; as system components (we assume those in scope) may not just be containing cardholder data; but have influence over the security posture of the environment overall. Where previously you may say, well, it’s only access to the account data that requires ‘business need to know’ or least privvy; now, access to authentication devices; or SIEM, or any security based service that influences the security posture of the environment – all these accesses must be restricted to business need to know. Again – this is a good thing.

Requirement 8: Identify Users and Authenticate Access to System Components vs previous version “Identify and authenticate access to system components”. This seems like just an aesthetic fix. Since, yes, you probably want to identify USERS as opposed to identify ACCESS. It could mean the same thing, or it may not. A smart alec somewhere probably told the QSA, hey, we identified the access properly. It came from login 24601 from the bakery department at 6 am yesterday. Do we know the user? No, but PCI just needs us to identify the ‘access’ and not the user, right? OK, smart alec.

Requirement 9: Restrict Physical Access to Cardholder Data is the only one that does not have any changes, except for the aforementioned Title Case changes.

Requirement 10: Log and Monitor All Access to System Components and Cardholder Data vs Track and monitor all access to network resources and cardholder data. So two things changed here. “Log” vs “Track” and System Components vs Network Resources. I personally find the first change a bit limiting when you are saying to just log instead of ‘track’. But I know why they did it. Because Tracking is redundant, if you are already Monitoring it. So in another dimension somewhere, the same smart alec may state, no where did it tell us to ‘log’ or keep logs in this statement – they just want us to Track/Monitor users. So its just for clarity that from here on, you log and monitor, not just track/monitor. The second change is very good, because now, there is no ambiguity for non-network resources. It’s true when one day, we actually came across a client stating this does not apply to them because they do not put their critical systems on the network and they only use terminal access to it, therefore there’s no need to log or monitor. The creativity of these geniuses know no bounds when it comes to avoiding requirements.

Requirement 11: Test Security of Systems and Networks Regularly vs Regularly test security systems and processes. Switching the word regularly is done just for aesthetic reading, but the newer word strings better and again, removes ambiguity. I mean first thing, the older requirement tells us to test ‘security systems’. Now most of the workstations et al may not be defined as ‘security systems’. I would define security systems as a system that contributes to the security posture of a company – an authentication system, a logging system, the NAC, the firewall etc. Of course, this isn’t what PCI meant and they realised, snap, English is really a cruel language. “Security systems” does not equal to “Security of Systems”. That two letters there changed everything. Now, systems are defined as any system in scope – not just one that influences security. We need to test security of all systems in scope. The second change to remove processes and insert in Networks is better, I agree. I did have a client asking me, how do we ‘test processes’ for PCI. Do we need to audit and check the human process of doing something? While that is true in an audit, that’s not the spirit of this requirement. This is for technical testing, i.e scans, penetration testing etc. So rightly, they removed ‘processes’ and inserted Networks; which also clears the ambiguity of performance of a network penetration testing, as well as application penetration testing.

Again, I just want to add, all these are actually clarified in the sub controls in the both v3.2.1 and v4.0 but if someone were just to skate through PCI reading the main requirements titles – I can see where the misunderstanding may occur with the old titles.

Finally, Requirement 12 Support Information Security with Organizational Policies and Programs is an upgrade from the previous Maintain a policy that addresses information security for all personnel. The previous title was just clumsy. Many clients understood it to be a single policy, or information security policy that needs to be drawn up, because it states Maintain A Policy. One Policy to rule them all. And this policy governs information security for all humans. Which doesn’t make sense. Unless the ‘for’ here was to mean that this policy needs to be adhered by all personnel; not that the personnel were the subjects of the information security. Yikes. The newer route makes more sense. Have your policies and programs support information security overall. Not information security of your people; but information security, period.

So just by reading the titles (and not going deep dive yet), we can see the improvement in clarifying certain things. There is more function in the sentence; there is more of an overarching purpose to it and most of all, it looks and reads more professionally that puts PCI more into the stately tomes of ISO, CIS or NIST.

While waiting for the next deep dive article, drop us a note at pcidss@pkfmalaysia.com if you have any queries at all about PCI, ISO27001, NIST, SOC or any standard at all. Happy New Year, all!

PCI-DSS Card Data Discovery Scans

pci-compliance

For PCI-DSS, there are some fairly obvious requirements that are set in stone in order for you to pass PCI-DSS. ASV scans quarterly. Internal vulnerability scans – quarterly. Annual penetration testing. Half yearly reviews of firewall config and policies. Annual training awareness. These are biblical principles of the gospel of PCI.

And then again, there are other areas where interpretation is a little more of a touch and go; up in the air; subjective to the wind; sort of the things where there are as much disagreements and controversies as whether Han shot first or Greedo was just an absolute tool who misses from two feet.

And while most arguments often stems from our clients and us as we try to explain some concepts to them, there comes once in a while a subject where we find ourselves against the explanation of QSAs. Now, not all QSAs are created equal. When I say QSAs here, I refer to the individual QSA, not the organisation QSA. As in the human being who are QSAs for the QSA-C (QSA Company). We’ve worked with some who are technically well versed; we’ve worked with some who are strong in documentation and theory, we’ve worked with some who can communicate well but not so technical, and those who are opposite. But every once in a while, we come across QSAs who think they know everything (they don’t), and they stubbornly stick to a point of argument even when we have exhausted all avenues to show them their point is flawed. The more we argue, the more adamant they take their stance even if their justifications seem to be plucked directly out of their …. posterior appendages.

One of the items you will often see coming up in PCI-DSS is this thing called the Credit Card Discovery Scanner (CDD). What is this? In PCI-DSS standard pg 10:

To confirm the accuracy of the defined CDE, perform the following:
The assessed entity identifies and documents the existence of all cardholder data in their environment, to verify that no cardholder data exists outside of the currently defined CDE.

PCI DSS v3.2.1

The CDD process is basically just a process using a tool usually to identify whether card information is stored in the clear within the organisation. These are usually regular expressions based applications; where it can categorise the type of card based on BIN or the initial numbers. These tools are often quite useful as well to find other forms of information like personal information etc, as long as you can identify filters and regular expressions for them. Some tools out there are from Groundlabs, Managed Engine, ControlCase etc. We also have free CDD tools like Pan Buster, Credit Card Scanner etc. The free tools are a little bit more difficult to use in our opinion and there seems to be less support for database scans and more false positives overall, so you may spend a longer time cleaning up the results.

Whether commercial or free tools, what PCI has been fairly silent about is whether these are mandated in the standard to be done. Unlike ASV scans or penetration testing, the standard doesn’t specifically state the need to run these tools for a normal PCI-DSS standard. When I say ‘normal’; I refer to a set of additional requirements under Appendix A3: Designated Entities Supplemental Validation (DESV) . These are specially assigned entities that has large volume of card data or has suffered significant breaches. This is designated by payment brands or acquirers, and it’s not something a QSA or even the audited entity decides on.

So looking into the card data scan requirements; we only have the Pg 10 scoping requirement and in the DESV portion , A.3.2.5 – “Implement a data-discovery methodology to confirm PCI DSS scope and to locate all sources and locations of clear-text PAN at least quarterly and upon significant changes to the cardholder environment or processes”

In most cases, CDD scans are done on an annual basis for normal PCI-DSS (non DESV), or at times half-yearly as required by the QSA.

So along came another QSA who stoutly declares that all companies are required to do a quarterly CDD scan regardless of size for all systems in scope. When politely reminded that he seems to be mixing up the DESV quarterly scan requirements; he says no. He is highlighting requirement 3.1: “A quarterly process for identifying and securely deleting stored cardholder data that exceeds defined retention.”

When pressed to explain why this is a CDD scan, he states its obvious, that everyone needs to run the CDD scanner every quarter to address this requirement.

OK. We disagree. Completely. This is one of the instance, where QSA super-imposes requirements on each other just because it sounds the same.

Let’s break it down by looking at the PURPOSE of the CDD scan. And the best way is to go back to the standard and pick up the part where the standard states a ‘data-discovery’ method in DESV A3.2.5.

Implement a data-discovery methodology to confirm PCI DSS scope and to locate all sources and locations of clear-text PAN

A3.2.5 PCI-DSS V3.2.1

It’s clear that the CDD purpose is to locate where CLEAR-TEXT PAN is found in the CDE (and non-CDE) environment. Why is this important? Because in the CDE, there should never be any clear-text PAN found in storage. All PANs must be protected by either of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: Encryption, Truncation, Hashing or Tokenization. A failed CDD means there are card PAN found in clear text within the CDE.

So with that in mind, lets go back to requirement 3.1. This is nothing to do with identifying clear PAN. It talks about identifying AND deleting EXPIRED card data (based on retention policies). That’s it. If the PAN is encrypted or tokenized but its stored beyond its retention period; requirement 3.1 tells you to delete it. It talks about retention period and storage beyond it. Which part of it talks about doing a card data scan to identify clear text card information?

In the description, it further states: A quarterly process for identifying and securely deleting stored cardholder data that exceeds defined retention requirements.

So QSA, please RTFM; requirement 3.1 isn’t talking about the need to run CDD quarterly to identify clear-text PAN storage; it is to run something (script) or manual; to identify PAN storage that is already expired. It is to discover duration of storage; not security of storage. Running a shell script may be good enough to get the timestamp of files; or checking the timestamp on the database entries to ensure that all card data is removed or anonymized after a period of say, 7 years.

If you need assistance in PCI-DSS or any other compliance standards like the ISMS or ITSM, drop us a note at pcidss@pkfmalaysia.com. We can help clarify some of these annoying requirements that even QSAs (as experienced as they are) are plucking out of their rear appendages.

PCI-DSS and Card Storage

pci-compliance

We had an interesting discussion a few weeks back about storage in PCI-DSS. We disagreed with an acquirer’s position in how PCI-DSS views storage and therefore opened a whole can of … interesting debate.

The problem the acquirer had with our position was simple. We have a client who is currently doing a data migration import from another service provider to their document management system. Amongst the terabytes of data were possible scanned copies of credit card information, either in forms or actual card photo-copies themselves. Now, we are talking about terabytes.

Our position was fairly straightforward. Do you need these card data? We asked. No, said our client. We don’t need the card data as we do recon and backoffice operations on other form of identification. Can these information be removed or redacted? Bemused, they said, possibly, but the problem is that there are going to be millions of records to be dealt with.

Well, is there a way we can sanitize the data before it enters into your environment?

Yes, possibly, we need to ask the acquirer to ask their current provider to do it for us.

The provider you are taking business away from?

Yes.

Good luck…

And sure enough, the acquirer responded and asked us, “Shouldn’t PCI-DSS allow the storage of these card information, and how your client is able to deal with it? Why do you insist on us redacting and removing the card information? What then is the purpose of PCI-DSS??”

Now, on the surface, that argument does make sense. After all PCI-DSS applies to entities who store, transmit and process credit card information right? Why then wouldn’t we want our client to store credit card information if they are going through PCI-DSS?

Unfortunately, this is a case of getting the solution (PCI-DSS) mixed up with the problem(storing card data). In other words, in a more current analogy, just because I got vaccinated doesn’t mean I would purposely go out and try to get infected so that the vaccine has something to do. The purpose of PCI isn’t for you to store credit card. It’s for you to manage the storage of credit card IF you store it. Storing credit card isn’t a PCI-DSS objective, its an issue that PCI-DSS tries to solve.

So back to this little kerfuffle; if they pass us terabytes of information with card data, our client will need to figure a way to protect this data. Likely encryption of any information that card data is present, which includes key management etc. If they can redact it and remove it before it enters into our client’s environment, then we avoid it. We are basically following the concept of PCI-DSS :

Requirement 3 addresses protection of stored cardholder data. Merchants who do not store any cardholder data automatically provide stronger protection by having eliminated a key target for data thieves. Remember if you don’t need it, don’t store it!

PCI-DSS Prioritized approach

If we don’t need it, don’t store it. In this case, we don’t need it, so we are trying to escape storing it. However, if this cannot be done (which likely it won’t be), then we just need to put controls in there. We’re trying to get our clients to do less and we are also trying to remove card footprints in other areas, thus reducing the risks to the card brands, and likely save the world from impending disaster and destruction.

However, we do have another issue.

Because there is potentially CVV storage (photocopy of cards front and back) and scanned into softcopies, we have a bit of a problem. CVV cannot be stored in any format or in any media post authorisation. So therefore, if this is being dumped into our client’s environment, it’s imperative someone removes this information. To us, its a lot easier to remove it at source; but unfortunately that means there is an effort to be spent on it, which no one is willing to do.

How the CVV got stored in the first place is a question that we don’t have an answer to. However, we do know that if CVV is present, we cannot just encrypt it and be done with it. We will need to remove these information one by one. There are a few solutions out there that can do auto redaction and be applied to a massive amount of files, provided that the files are in a sort of standard fashion. That could be a solution on this, but again, it’s beyond what we are discussing for this article.

The point is, having PCI-DSS doesn’t automatically mean we MUST store card data. It simply means IF we store card data we are applying PCI-DSS controls to that storage of card data.

Let us know if you need more information about PCI-DSS or any IT standard compliance like ISO27001 or CSA/SOC, we are ready to assist, just contact us here. Stay safe everyone!

Hardening Checklist

Requirement 2.2 has been often deliberated by customers undergoing PCI-DSS. To recap, the requirement states:

Develop configuration standards for all system components. Assure that these standards address all known security vulnerabilities and are consistent with industry-accepted system hardening standards.
Sources of industry-accepted system hardening standards may include, but are not limited to:
• Center for Internet Security (CIS)
• International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
• SysAdmin Audit Network Security (SANS) Institute
• National Institute of Standards Technology (NIST).

Requirement 2.2

So often, customers go ahead and download the CIS hardening documents at https://www.cisecurity.org/cis-benchmarks/ and copy lock stock and barrel into their policies and send it in. Now all this may be well and good, but now you have around 1,200 page tome with guidelines like 14 character alphanumeric password, as opposed to what PCI requires (7 Alphanumeric). This is where our customers get stuck, and some even send in a 1000 page hardening document to us to review, only for us to find that they have not implemented even 1% of what is noted in their hardening document.

After that, the hardening documents get re-jigged again until it meets a reasonable, practical standard that is implementable, usually in the form of a checklist. For a very quick hardening checklist, this is the initial one we often end up using, just to get our clients up to baseline speed, whether it’s PCI or not:

Hardening ItemServersNetwork DevicesDatabases
Assign individual server for each critical role (App, Web, DB, AD, AV, Patching etc)YNAY
Disable/Rename/Remove default user accountsYYY
Assign role based access to usersYYY
Disable insesure or unnecessary servicesYYNA
Use Secure Versions of Remote Access Services (SSH, RDP over SSL)YYY
Install well known Anti Virus with latest signaturesYNANA
Install latest OS / Firmware / Software security patchesYYY
Disable inactive users automatically after 90 daysYYY
Ensure Following Password Policies –
1. Use Complex Password with 7 characters or more
2. Remember minimum last 4 Passwords
3. Require passsword change within 90 days
4. Require password change upon password reset and first logon
YYY
Ensure following account policies –
1. Account lockout threshold – Max 6 attempts
2. Account lockdout duration – 30 mins or until admin unlocks
3. Idle Session Timeout – 15 Mins or less
YYY
Ensure passwords are stored securely with encryptionYYY
Enable Audit logging to Capture at minimum following events –
1. Successful Login
2. Failed Login
3. Administrative Actions
4. User Creation
5. User Deletion
6. User Updates
7. Escalation of Privileges
8. Access to Audit Trails
9. Initialization or stopping auditing
YYY
Configure NTP and time syncronizationYYY
Implement File Integrity Monitoring`YYY

Now obviously this doesn’t cover all the requirements of PCI (testing, scans, retention etc) but this should give us a fair idea of how ready our systems are for an audit or assessment.

If you have any queries on PCI or ISMS or any other security related standard, drop us a message at avantedge@pkfmalaysia.com.

Do or Do Not – ASV for SAQ A

pci-compliance

I would have thought this debate died out with the extinction of dinosaurs, but apparently, we are still at this subject in 2021. Still. Going. On.

So in the past weeks, there were some debate between us and some consultants as to whether the SAQ A requires an ASV scan or not. Our position was No. Their position was yes. So let’s look at it.

Now, keep in mind, we aren’t talking about best practice. We are talking about PCI-DSS v3.2.1 and what it says about ASV scans being mandatory for SAQ A. That’s it. That’s the statement. Now, debate.

There is actually no debate. This isn’t some sort of grey area, hard to explain, obscure rule in Sanskrit and written on the Sankara stones. This is just: Look at SAQ A, search for ASV, don’t find it. Thank you.

The ASV requirement is present in item 11.2.2 of PCI-DSS.

SAQ A does not have it.

So why do consultants still insist people do ASV scans for SAQ A?

There could be a lot of reasons, ranging from ‘guideline’, ‘best practice’ and so on. No doubt, having a scan (which isn’t expensive in any case) would be the least effort of security done by the merchant if they are hosting an e-commerce website that is redirecting customers to their payment processor once the “Click here to pay” is clicked. I mean, even if it has nothing to do with PCI, it may seem like common sense to have at least a scan done on your site to ensure it passes the very minimal requirement of security. So do we advocate an ASV scan to be done on any e-commerce site that deals with payment options (not necessarily payment data)? Yes, we do. There are many ways a site may get compromise. A coding error may allow data to be siphoned off, or passwords may be compromised. A re-direct may be vulnerable to man in the middle attacks; or even a total redirect to another page altogether where payment data is inadvertently entered. While the e-commerce site may be outsourcing the payment part to a processor, it still has the job of redirecting traffic to it.

Think of it as an usher (not the singer, but the job); where you enter into a dark auditorium, let’s say Royal Albert Hall to watch Ed Sheeran – and the usher takes you through this row of lights to what is supposedly your seat which you paid RM10,000 for.

When the lights come on, you find yourself in nice cosy room and in front of you someone who seemed to resemble Ed Sheeran but slightly off. His hair isn’t ginger and he isn’t as chubby as you see that guy on TV and he speaks with a slight Indian accent. And isn’t the Royal Albert Hall a HALL? Why are you in this room that resembles a glorified grandmother’s living room? You find out later that the usher had led you through the wrong Hall into a neighboring pub attached to the side of the hall and you are listening to the wonky music of Eddy Shiran.

The point is, the usher is pretty important in leading people to their seats. So as a redirect, even though you aren’t the main draw, you could end up leading your customers to Eddy Shiran instead.

But back to the main debate, whether it is required for SAQ A customers to go through ASV? No, it’s not.

However, there is always a but in everything. There are exceptions.

Some acquirers make it a point to state that they still require an ASV report even if merchants are going through SAQ A. That’s completely fine because the guidelines from Visa/Mastercard are just guidelines. At the end, the acquirer or payment brands may make individual decisions based on merchants, so it’s not written in stone. However, if there are no such requirement, we’re left to interpret the SAQ as it is, and it doesn’t state anything there.

Some may point out within the SAQ A under part 3a, there is a statement

ASV scans are being completed by the PCI SSC Approved Scanning Vendor (ASV Name)

Triumphantly being pointed out as proof of ASv requirement

Take note however, that above, under Part 3a, the instructions do state:

Signatory(s) confirms:
(Check all that apply)

the realisation that asv is still not needed for Saq A (or B)

Even under the title “PCI DSS Self-Assessment Completion Steps” of the SAQ:

Submit the SAQ and Attestation of Compliance (AOC), along with any other requested documentation—such as ASV scan reports—to your acquirer, payment brand, or other requester.

It does seem to be grappling at straws if this sentence was used to justify the requirement for PCI-DSS. “Such as” generally denotes an example, which may or may not exist or is required.

In previous requirements of merchants from Visa, there used to be statements describing merchant levels such as

 * Merchant levels are based on Visa USA definitions
** The PCI DSS requires that all merchants perform external network scanning to achieve compliance. Acquirers may require submission of scan reports and/or questionnaires by level 4 merchants

And perhaps there is where the myth was perpetuated from. In recent times Visa has updated its site (https://www.visa.com.my/support/small-business/security-compliance.html) to reflect a better understanding, stating:

“Conduct a quarterly network scan by an Approved Scan Vendor (“ASV”) (if applicable)”

In conclusion, SAQ A and B do not require ASV scans. If it’s required by the acquirer then so be it. If it’s supposed to be done out of best practice requirements, so be it. But you don’t want to hear an ASV/QSA telling you that you need to do something that is above and beyond your PCI requirement without them pointing to something in the standards that states so.

Finally – for SAQ B, which usually applies to POS terminals dialing up to the bank for authorisation; we’ve even seen some consultants requiring the merchant’s website to undergo ASV, which has nothing to do with their POS Terminals. Why ASV the website? Don’t know. So the merchants go about scanning their website that hasn’t been updated since 2012 and wonder, what sort of nonsensical requirement is this from PCI-DSS that needs them to pay just to scan something that is built by an 18 year old intern who had left the company 10 years ago? You don’t need to. So don’t do it.

Anyway, that’s it for now. Let us know your thoughts or questions and send to us at pcidss@pkfmalaysia.com and we will get back to you ASAP. Now, back to listening to our Spotify for Eddy Shiran!

« Older posts

© 2023 PKF AvantEdge

Up ↑