full-disclosure - Re: Compliance Is Wasted Money, Study Finds

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 13:35:23 -0700
From: J Roger <securityhocus@...il.com>
To: ull-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Compliance Is Wasted Money, Study Finds

>
> If a business wants to accept credit cards as a means of payment (based on
> volume) then part of their agreement is that they must undergo compliance to
> a standard implemented by the industry
>

PCI (Payment Card Industry) compliances is what people HAVE to do, as in
> FORCED to do whether they want to or not, in order to be able to process
> credit cards.


 the problem is that without this compliance you can't work with CC !!!


While I have heard the same thing repeated many times, I've never found a
> credible source for the claim that "all breaches involved fully PCI
> compliant processors."
>
> According to the 2009 Verizon Business Breach Report, 81% of the attack
> victims were not PCI compliant:


Is PCI Compliance a giant bluff from VISA? Have any large companies ever
been forced to stop processing CCs because they failed to be PCI compliant?

According to the Verizon report 81% of attack victims were not PCI
compliant. Ok then how is that they were still processing the CCs that
became compromised?

Or does VISA come in after a large company has PCI data breached and then
claim "oh but they're not compliant because of X that wasn't correctly
identified during their last audit"? How many of those breached companies
were PCI certified at the time of the breach only to have it taken away post
mortem.



On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Michael Holstein <
michael.holstein@...ohio.edu> wrote:

>
> > My point isn't about a particular section, nor whether the amount of
> > experience I have in PCI DSS compliance (which is next to novice).
> >
>
> So we can agree that you're arguing about something with which you have
> no experience?
>
> > The point is, what s PCI aiming at?
> >
>
> It's on the first substantive page of the document .. to wit :
>
>  "The Payment Card Industry (PCI) Data Security Standard (DSS) was
> developed to encourage and enhance cardholder data security and
> facilitate the broad adoption of consistent data security measures
> globally."
>
> > Real security
>
> Again, I ask "what is 'real security'?".
>
> > or just a way companies can excuse their incompetence by citing full PCI
> compliance?
> >
>
> If you "self-audit" and just check the boxes because you have a box that
> says "firewall" on it and another that says "IDS" and so forth, then yes
> .. it's just excusing incompetence .. but any "real" auditor would be
> asking you about change management for those assets, who has access to
> them and why, how logs are reviewed and by whom, etc.
>
> There's 12 basic points in the 1.2 spec, none of which contradict
> current best-practice for network design.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Michael Holstein
> Cleveland State University
>
> PS: This is starting to sound like the discussion many of us have with
> Mac end-users .. the one that goes "but Mac's don't get viruses".
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>

Content of type "text/html" skipped

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/