Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 00:01:53 +0200
From: Christian Sciberras <uuf6429@...il.com>
To: Mike Hale <eyeronic.design@...il.com>
Cc: full-disclosure <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>,
	"security-basics@...urityfocus.com" <security-basics@...urityfocus.com>,
	"Thor \(Hammer of God\)" <Thor@...merofgod.com>
Subject: Re: Compliance Is Wasted Money, Study Finds

If you strive for security, and weave that into your network,
complying with PCI should be cake.

Uhm.. No. NO. PCI is an unnecessary hassle. What makes signing a document
any more secure then having server facing the wild of the net?

Truth is, PCI doesn't help in security at all. It at most a sense of false
security (and at least serves as a recreational exercise for auditors).

Thor, I'm not arguing with the article, since I didn't read it, and I won't
bother to. I just want to point out some hard facts about PCI/DSS which you
call "no big deal".
I surely agree with that, but what is not a big deal for you doesn't mean it
ain't for the rest of the world.
What stops an uninformed programmer from complying with PCI/DSS (or at
least, think to) and leave  RFI/XSS/whatever holes everywhere?
That said, security flaws are just about everywhere so no need to get
critical about it. For now at least.

The point isn't "who" should be using credit cards or not, it's a matter of
security.

I find it strange that you're excusing marketing propaganda.

Sincere regards,
Christian Sciberras.



On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Mike Hale <eyeronic.design@...il.com>wrote:

> Look at the PCI requirements.
>
> What's unreasonable about them?  Which portions are *NOT* part of
> having a secure network?
>
> If you strive for security, and weave that into your network,
> complying with PCI should be cake.
>
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Stephen Mullins
> <steve.mullins.work@...il.com> wrote:
> >>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/
> >
>
>
>
> --
> 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists