Message-ID: <m2p3af3d47c1004270134t964c89acr588c0b363f7a35e2@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 10:34:22 +0200
From: Christian Sciberras <uuf6429@...il.com>
To: Shaqe Wan <sha8e@...oo.com>
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Compliance Is Wasted Money, Study Finds

"Where did I say that its a waste of time and money? "
Here you go:
"I 100% agree with you about most of the companies seek the paper work and
get PCI certified and don't really bother about true security measures, but
in the end if a breach is discovered they are the ones who shall get the
penalty in the face, not us :)"


"BTW: I argued a lot with my managers about the PCI stuff, but no one gives
you an ear, so let me be categorized in category #2 of yours :D"
Then I'm afraid this argument ends here.


Cheers.



On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Shaqe Wan <sha8e@...oo.com> wrote:

> Where did I say that its a waste of time and money?
>
> Hmmm, strange !!!
>
> BTW: I argued a lot with my managers about the PCI stuff, but no one gives
> you an ear, so let me be categorized in category #2 of yours :D
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Christian Sciberras <uuf6429@...il.com>
> *To:* Shaqe Wan <sha8e@...oo.com>
> *Cc:* full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
> *Sent:* Tue, April 27, 2010 11:22:59 AM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Full-disclosure] Compliance Is Wasted Money, Study Finds
>
> In short, you just said that PCI compliance _is_ a waste of time and money.
>
> Why else would you protect something which is bound to fail anyway?!
>
> This is a lost battle, as I said no one cares about the arguments because
> these people fall into three categories:
> -they believe the illusion that PCI by itself enhances security
> -they do there job and don't give a f*ck about it
> -they are arguing for the fun of it without any real arguments (why else
> prove me right on my arguments and later on deny it?)
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Shaqe Wan <sha8e@...oo.com> wrote:
>
>> You won't know not now, not ever. Maybe they do get a commission for your
>> AV installation, who knows ! But maybe they think it is something that
>> everybody needs so the force it. To get to know the true answer, we need to
>> sit down with the guys who wrote the requirements and brainstorm with them
>> those issues. We shall keep just running around and around in a circle here,
>> because no one here "if no CC company guy is around" can give a definite
>> answer. Just our simple argues !
>>
>> As I said before, I have to use it on a windows box, because its a
>> requirement, its not my opinion at all.
>>
>> I 100% agree with you about most of the companies seek the paper work and
>> get PCI certified and don't really bother about true security measures, but
>> in the end if a breach is discovered they are the ones who shall get the
>> penalty in the face, not us :)
>>
>> NB: I don't use an AV, never did, and never will :p
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Christian Sciberras <uuf6429@...il.com>
>> *To:* Shaqe Wan <sha8e@...oo.com>
>> *Cc:* full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
>> *Sent:* Tue, April 27, 2010 10:37:24 AM
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Full-disclosure] Compliance Is Wasted Money, Study Finds
>>
>> Surely being forced to install an anti-virus only brings in a monopoly?
>> How do I know that PCI Standards writers are getting a nice commission off
>> me installing the anti-virus? (I know they don't, I'm just hypothesizing).
>>
>> You stated it yourself, an anti-virus may not do any difference, it is
>> there as per PCI standard.....so what is it's use? Why the heck do I have to
>> install something useless?
>>
>> Lastly, that is where you are wrong, there is no "base starting point"
>> companies don't give a shit about proper security measures, they get
>> PCI-certified and all security ends there.
>> That is the freaken problem.
>>
>> NB: I do use anti-virus software, what I specified above is not in any way
>> my opinion about anti-virus vendors, etc.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Shaqe Wan <sha8e@...oo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I don't actually beleive there is a "democratic society". No such thing
>>> exists. If it does? Then ask the organizations who made the compliance
>>> requirements drop them and make audits based on some other measure that you
>>> believe is more secure and has less flaws in it. Finally, regarding the AV
>>> issue that I wish I end here, is that "I don't believe that an AV shall make
>>> your box secure, but its a requirement to be done - Added by PCI"
>>>
>>> And yes I have noticed that FD is for such security measures discussion,
>>> but never thought of joining it and discussing with others until a couple of
>>> days ago when I saw this topic.
>>>
>>> Finally, the compliance can be taken of as a base starting point, and
>>> then moving further, like that it shall not be a waste of money !
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> *From:* Christian Sciberras <uuf6429@...il.com>
>>> *To:* Shaqe Wan <sha8e@...oo.com>
>>> *Cc:* full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
>>> *Sent:* Tue, April 27, 2010 9:59:59 AM
>>>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Full-disclosure] Compliance Is Wasted Money, Study Finds
>>>
>>> Perhaps you haven't noticed, this is Full-Disclosure, which at least, is
>>> used to discuss security measures.
>>> As such, it is only natural to argue with PCI's possible security flaws.
>>>
>>> Besides, in a democratic society (where CC do operate as well), you can't
>>> "force" someone to install an anti-virus just because _you_ think it is
>>> secure.
>>>
>>> The argument were compliance is wasted money still holds.
>>>
>>> Cheers.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 7:36 AM, Shaqe Wan <sha8e@...oo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hola,
>>>>
>>>> The problem is not weather they are educated against other standards or
>>>> policies or not, the problem is that without this compliance you can't work
>>>> with CC !!! Its something that is enforced on you !
>>>>
>>>> BTW: why don't people discuss what is the points missing in the PCI
>>>> Compliance better than this argue ?
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> *From:* Christian Sciberras <uuf6429@...il.com>
>>>> *To:* Shaqe Wan <sha8e@...oo.com>
>>>> *Cc:* full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
>>>> *Sent:* Mon, April 26, 2010 4:19:27 PM
>>>>
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Full-disclosure] Compliance Is Wasted Money, Study
>>>> Finds
>>>>
>>>> OK.
>>>>
>>>> "All those in favour of PCI raises their hands."
>>>>
>>>> Kidding aside, of course it is a must, since the said companies doesn't
>>>> have any notion of security before this happens.
>>>> However, how much is this actually helpful? Now let's be honest, how
>>>> much would it stop a potential attacker from getting into a system
>>>> "protected" by PCI?
>>>> Little, if at all.
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand, a company should adopt real and complete security
>>>> practices.
>>>>
>>>> Again, my point is, these companies shouldn't be "educated" or limit
>>>> their security to this standard. Because if they do (and I'm pretty sure
>>>> they do) would make this standard pretty much useless.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, I won't get into this argument, since no one will give a sh*t
>>>> about it anyway.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Shaqe Wan <sha8e@...oo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Christian,
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you read my first post?
>>>>>
>>>>> ((( IMO, PCI is not that big security policy, but without it your not
>>>>> able to use the credit card companies gateway. I think its just the
>>>>> basics that any company dealing with CC must implement. Because it shall be
>>>>> nonsense to deal with CC, and not have an Anti-virus for example !!)))
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not stating that PCI is good in no way, but I am saying that its a
>>>>> MUST for companies dealing with CC. And in a windows environment, an AV is
>>>>> important.
>>>>>
>>>>> He probably thought that I am with the rules of PCI, or that I don't
>>>>> have any idea that the world is not just WINDOWS !!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>> *From:* Christian Sciberras <uuf6429@...il.com>
>>>>> *To:* Shaqe Wan <sha8e@...oo.com>
>>>>> *Cc:* full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
>>>>> *Sent:* Mon, April 26, 2010 3:54:20 PM
>>>>>
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Full-disclosure] Compliance Is Wasted Money, Study
>>>>> Finds
>>>>>
>>>>> Why exactly are you complying with Nick's statements? I would have
>>>>> thought you guys were arguing against said statements?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> By the way, requirement #6 is particularly funny; it sounds peculiarly
>>>>> redundant to me...
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 7:34 AM, Shaqe Wan <sha8e@...oo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Nick,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please if you don't know what the standards are, please read:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/security_standards/pci_dss.shtml
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See *Requirement #5*. Read that requirement carefully and its not bad
>>>>>> to read it twice though in case you don't figure it out from the first
>>>>>> glance !
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, I said that using an AV is some basic thing to do in any company
>>>>>> that wants to deal with CC, its a basic thing for even companies not dealing
>>>>>> with CC too !!! Or do you state that people must use a BOX with no AV
>>>>>> installed on it? If you believe in that fact? Then please request a change
>>>>>> in the PCI DSS requirements and make them force the usage of a non Windows
>>>>>> O.S, such as any *n?x system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Finally, the topic here is not about "default allow vs default deny"
>>>>>> and if I understand what that is or not! You can open a new discussion about
>>>>>> that, and I shall join there and discuss it further with you, in case you
>>>>>> need some clarification regarding it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Shaqe
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- On *Sun, 4/25/10, Nick FitzGerald <nick@...us-l.demon.co.uk>*wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Nick FitzGerald <nick@...us-l.demon.co.uk>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Compliance Is Wasted Money, Study Finds
>>>>>> To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
>>>>>> Date: Sunday, April 25, 2010, 1:57 PM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shaqe Wan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <<snip>>
>>>>>> > Because it shall be nonsense to deal with CC, and not have an
>>>>>> Anti-virus for example !!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, you see, _that_ is abject nonsense on its face.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you have any understanding of one of the most basic of security
>>>>>> issues -- default allow vs. default deny?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are many more secure ways to run systems _without_ antivirus
>>>>>> software.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyone authoritatively stating that antivirus software is a necessary
>>>>>> component of a "reasonably secure" system is a fool.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyone authoritatively stating that antivirus software is a necessary
>>>>>> component of a "sufficiently secure" system is one (or more) of; a
>>>>>> fool, a person with an unusually low standard of system security, or a
>>>>>>
>>>>>> shill for an antivirus producer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So _if_, as you and another recent poster strongly imply, the PCI
>>>>>> standards include a specific _requirement_ for antivirus software,
>>>>>> then
>>>>>> the standards themselves are total nonsense...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nick FitzGerald
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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/
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

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