Message-ID: <y2oa3c2e9651004231040m671983e5g66244f138fb3403f@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 13:40:01 -0400
From: Stephen Mullins <steve.mullins.work@...il.com>
To: "Thor (Hammer of God)" <Thor@...merofgod.com>
Cc: full-disclosure <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>,
	"security-basics@...urityfocus.com" <security-basics@...urityfocus.com>
Subject: Re: Compliance Is Wasted Money, Study Finds

>I don't see what the hubbub is

Some people in the information security industry actually care about
securing systems and the information they contain rather than filling
in check boxes.  Compliance may ensure a minimum standard is met, but
it does not ensure or imply that real security is being maintained at
an organization.

As you say, PCI has become a cost of doing business whereas having a
secure network is apparently not a cost of doing business.  This is a
problem.

Crazy notion, I know.

On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Thor (Hammer of God)
<Thor@...merofgod.com> wrote:
> How can you say it is “wasted”? It doesn’t matter if you are a “fan” of it
> or not, in the same way that it doesn’t matter if you are a “fan” of the 4%
> surcharge retail establishments pay to accept the credit card as payment.
> Using your logic, you would way it is “wasted money,” and might bring into
> question the “value” of the surcharge, etc.  It is simply a cost of doing
> business.
>
>
>
> If you choose to offload processing to a payment gateway, then that will
> also incur a cost.  Depending on your volume, that cost may or may not be
> higher than you processing them yourself while complying to standards.  The
> implementation of actual security measures will be different.  But you can’t
> “handle” credit cards in the classic sense of the word without complying
> with PCI.  If you pass along the transaction to a gateway, you are not
> handling it.  If you DO handle it, then you have to comply with PCI.  If you
> process less than 1 million transactions a year, you can “self audit.”  If
> you process more, you have to be audit by a PCI auditor.
>
>
>
> None of this MEANS you are secure, it means you comply.  If you don’t like
> PCI, then don’t process credit cards, or come up with your own.  I still
> don’t really see what all the hubbub is about here.
>
>
>
> t
>
>
>
> From: Christian Sciberras [mailto:uuf6429@...il.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 9:29 AM
> To: Thor (Hammer of God)
> Cc: Christopher Gilbert; Mike Hale; full-disclosure;
> security-basics@...urityfocus.com
> Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Compliance Is Wasted Money, Study Finds
>
>
>
> it is simply part of the cost of doing business in that market.
> A.k.a. wasted money. Truth be told, I'm no fan of PCI.
> Other companies get the same functionality (accept the storage of credit
> cards) without worrying about PCI/DSS (e.g. through Payment Gateways).
> In the end, as a service, what do I want, an inventory of credit cards, or a
> stable payment system? The later I guess.
> As to security, it totally depends on implementation; one can handle credit
> cards without the need of standards compliance.
>
> My two cents.
>
> Regards,
> Christian Sciberras.
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Thor (Hammer of God) <Thor@...merofgod.com>
> wrote:
>
> Another thing that I think people fail to keep in mind is that when it comes
> to PCI, it is part of a contractual agreement between the entity and card
> facility they are working with.   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.  I
> don’t know why people get all emotional about it and throw up their hands
> with all the “this is wasted money” positioning – it’s not wasted at all; it
> is simply part of the cost of doing business in that market.
>
>
>
> t
>
>
>
> From: full-disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk
> [mailto:full-disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk] On Behalf Of Christopher
> Gilbert
> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 4:48 PM
> To: Mike Hale
> Cc: full-disclosure; security-basics@...urityfocus.com
> Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Compliance Is Wasted Money, Study Finds
>
>
>
> The paper concludes that companies are underinvesting in--or improperly
> prioritizing--the protection of their secrets. Nowhere does it state that
> the money spent on compliance is money wasted.
>
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Mike Hale <eyeronic.design@...il.com>
> wrote:
>
> I find the findings completely flawed.  Am I missing something?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>

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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists