Tag: Visa

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 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!

The Myths of the Top 10 Myths of PCI-DSS Part Two

pci-compliance

Continuing where we left off yesterday, let’s jump right into the next Myth

Myth 6 – PCI requires us to hire a Qualified Security Assessor

Technically true. Once again for merchant level 3 and below, SAQs are good enough to be compliant. Here’s how it works: merchants complete an SAQ, the management signs it off and they pass the Attestation of Compliance (AoC) over to whoever is asking – generally either the acquiring bank, or the payment gateway. Some of these SAQs are easy. Which SAQ you choose is a little bit more work. While we are not going into SAQ in this article, a quick comparison of SAQ A (mainly for Ecommerce merchants that outsource all processing functions) and SAQ D-MER (generally for merchants who store, process and transmit card data): 14 questions for SAQ A vs 326 questions for SAQ D-MER. That’s right. It’s 23X more work.

So while this Myth is generally true, for a merchant to undergo SAQ D-MER, most do not have the capacity to do it themselves, hence require expertise from either QSAs or consultants outside of the company. What about this Internal Security Auditor (ISA) option?

Here’s where it gets a little strange. In 2012 Mastercard released a statement stating:

“Effective 30 June 2012, Level 1 merchants that choose to conduct an annual onsite assessment using an internal auditor must ensure that primary internal auditor staff engaged in validating PCI DSS compliance attend PCI SSC ISA Training and pass the associated accreditation program annually in order to continue to use internal auditors.”

And

“Effective 30 June 2012, Level 2 merchants that choose to complete an annual self-assessment questionnaire must ensure that staff engaged in the self-assessment attend PCI SSC ISA Training and pass the associated accreditation program annually in order to continue the option of self-assessment for compliance validation. Alternatively, Level 2 merchants may, at their own discretion, complete an annual onsite assessment conducted by a PCI SSC approved Qualified Security Assessor (QSA) rather than complete an annual self-assessment questionnaire.”

What they effectively are saying is that Level 1 to 4 merchants CAN have an option not to engage a QSA, but the caveat is that for level 1 and 2, they need to be ‘validated’ by internal auditors. Not just any internal auditors, but auditors certified as “ISA”, by the PCI council. Yes, it’s a certification that is created to sign off SAQs.

If you do not have an ISA, you are stuck, and you will need a QSA to validate your SAQ. In most cases, having a QSA validate is as much work as having them certify the environment, so you do end up ‘hiring’ a QSA to validate it.

Why not all join in the ISA bandwagon then?

Well, you need to cough out around USD500 for the PCI Fundamentals course, then around USD3,000 – USD4,000 for the ISA course and then every year USD1,000 for requalification training fee. Only companies going for PCI-DSS can have ISA so if you are consultants like us, you are out of luck.

Large merchants probably might want to invest in an ISA. But note of caution, ISA is NON transferable. So if you are an ISA for Company A, and you move to Company B, your ISA status does not go with you. If Company B wants you to be their ISA, you need to go through the entire course again. Yes, even the fundamentals course again.

It is certainly less expensive to get an ISA to validate your SAQ compared to having an external QSA, so large merchants might opt to have one or two ISAs in their stable and invest in them yearly.

Myth 7 – We don’t take enough credit cards to be compliant

PCI likes to state, even if you take ONE credit card, you are supposed to be PCI certified/compliant. But honestly, unless that one credit card transaction is to buy a Bugati Veyron, the acquirer is likely not going to come knocking on your door to ask you to become PCI compliant. The theory is that everyone who deals with credit cards will happily agree to invest in time to go through the SAQ and 12 requirements. The reality is starkly different. Businesses have 600 different things to look into daily, and most business turn a blind eye to PCI as long as there is no burning platform or pressure from above. The card brands push the acquirers, the acquirers push the payment processors and gateways and large merchants, and the payment processors push their service providers. Somehere down the line, the little travel agency around the corner that collects credit card information, jots down the the PAN and CVV on a log book for recording purposes so they can book online flights in behalf of the customer, is overlooked. As long as there is no massive exercise to push everyone to be PCI compliant, there will be organisations that continue to operate outside the PCI requirements. Yes, your CVV will still be kept in a log book by that little travel agency – still oblivious to why storing CVV is such a big deal.

Myth 8 – We completed a SAQ so we’re compliant

Well – technically, you are. Again “being compliant” is not really an end state itself. How can anyone sustain compliance 100%? When Target was breached, they were just re-certified as compliant. Hence, the word compliant is generally just used as punchline for businesses. For instance – Ecommerce starts online payment system. They register with acquirer, acquirer tells them to be ‘PCI Compliant’. They finish their SAQ and submit. Acquirer is happy with the signoff and allows them to connect. Ecommerce proudly displays “PCI Compliant” Logo (which is not allowed, by the way) prominently on their website. They have actually successfully completed an SAQ and they are ‘compliant’ because the acquirer tells them that they are. If they are not compliant, they wouldn’t be able to connect. By the fact that this is allowed, shows that Myth 8 is actually true!

Myth 9 – PCI makes us store cardholder data

It’s true that PCI would rather you NOT store cardholder data. But this myth doesn’t make any sense. It’s not because of PCI that businesses shape their business processes after. It is because of the business processes, that there is a need for PCI. So, it’s up to the business to store, transmit or process cardholder data or not. Nobody goes into PCI-DSS saying, oh, because of PCI-DSS we now need to store data and need to invest in HSMs and key management, encryption etc. Because of PCI, we now need to have a payment business. I have never seen such a client. It’s always the other way round. Based on your business, PCI might or might not apply.

Myth 10 – PCI is too hard

This is the same argument as Myth 5. The PCI SSC makes a good point by saying, it’s good practice regardless to have controls in place, aside from PCI-DSS compliance. But the myth is here because they are actually stating PCI is not hard, simply because you should be practicing good security in the first place. To many, good security is hard! Turnover of staffs, zero day attacks, business as usual priorities, advancement of technologies, software and hardware being obsolete, pressure from management, costing issues, new vulnerabilities and exploits discovered (and not discovered yet) – and the fact that in the cybercrime world, the bad guys are miles ahead of the good guys – security is hard, make no mistake about it.

So there you have it. You would think with a post like this, PCI-DSS is a fruitless endeavor. Far from it. It’s an excellent repository of security practices that all organisations should consider. While some of the standards in there show their age (Anti virus, anyone? Please.), overall, it’s one of the more direct, implementable standards we have experienced (compared to the labyrinth we know as the ISO27001). The point of the post is to clarify that sometimes, standards in practice can turn out quite different from standards in documentation.

Now – should you check if your CVV is stored by your travel agency?

PCI-DSS V3.0 Training

PCI

We had our first PCI-DSS V3.0 training, with a total of 15 participants from various industries ranging from Oil and Gas, Payment (of course) and service organisations participating. It was held in our Training area in PKF HQ at the penthouse floor of 1 Mont Kiara.

We spent the day covering various topics, from the basics of PCI-DSS, its history, history of breaches, a deep dive into the 12 requiremens, V3.0 differences and changes and more importantly, implementation scenarios. SAQs (Self Assessment Questionnaires), a constant source of consternation amongst our clients were also covered in detail, and examples of which industry or business model would fit which SAQ was given.

The final part was probably the most fun. We went through scenario by scenario and broke down the attack and defence scenarios of the Target Retail Breach in 2013.

Thank you, all participants for making the training interesting and fun, especially not an easy task given the dryness of PCI requirements – specifically after a heavy lunch.

Additional training materials for V3.0 is found at this link.

Agrobank Launches Agro Visa Debit-i Card

debitc

Today, we attended Agrobank’s launch of their Visa Debit-i Card at Wisma Tani, Putrajaya. It was an early event, at around 9 am, but even so, the hall was packed with media, vendors (like ourselves) as well as Agrobank’s personnel. It was a big event.

The fact of the matter was that we’ve been with Agrobank on this journey for more than a year. I recall when we first met and I sat opposite a panel of evaluators and them asking me why our compliance program was the best. I answered frankly, because we are completely devoted to our services to our clients. We might not always make all the right moves all the time, and there might be some hiccups along the way of a very long compliance journey for a bank – but what we can guarantee is a fanatical customer support and customer experience. That’s all we have. We are not a big company with a big name to hide behind.

To me – the satisfaction of being invited to one of their biggest event of the year is a testament to their satisfaction of us.

After the event, our Agrobank account manager heading the card services thanked us personally despite her being pulled by other urgent matters, and media activities.

Sometimes, simple thank yous are good signposts and indications that we are doing something right in our business. Here’s looking to a great 2015.

© 2023 PKF AvantEdge

Up ↑