Quantcast StorefrontBacktalk » Blog Archive » MasterCard Gets PCI Tough With Level 2 Retailers?
advertisement

Warning: getimagesize(/home/storefro/public_html/images/user/Swipe.jpg) [function.getimagesize]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/storefro/public_html/wp-content/plugins/image-selector/image-selector.php on line 50
advertisement

MasterCard Gets PCI Tough With Level 2 Retailers?

Written by Evan Schuman
June 18th, 2009
Like this story? Share it
To share this story with people in your social network, please click on the network icons below.

MasterCard has changed its PCI rules and is now insisting that all Level 2 merchants have on-site assessments.

“This is a dramatic change from the current, industry wide requirement of self-assessing for merchants processing less than six million transactions annually,” wrote Branden Williams, in his excellent Security Convergence Blog, which seems to have broken the story on Wednesday (June 17). The blog also reports that none of the other card brands—including Visa, the Uber Brand when it comes to PCI issues—have done the same.

There’s no dispute that this is a significant move, but whether it will truly have any lasting—and meaningful—impact is unclear. That’s because of a few issues, especially the confusing rules surrounding self-assessments.

It was late in 2007 when Visa started allowing Level 1s to self-assess. Even that was not so dramatic because it could only happen when there was agreement between the retailer’s execs, the acquiring bank as well as the card brand. Heck, if a retailer can get agreement among all three of those groups, there’s no PCI rule that can’t be changed or waived. That’s akin to saying that an American consumer can do something as long as the Senate, House, White House and Supreme Court signs off.

I am going out on a limb and say that any Level 2 retailer will still be able to self-assess, as long as the retailer can make a solid argument to the acquiring bank that they can handle the form and that they’re passed assessments with flying colors many times. This also assumes that the brand has no objection.

Adding more confusion to this situation is that it’s MasterCard doing it. Let’s be candid. MasterCard, AmericanExpress, Diner’s Club, JCB and the others are powerful brands (OK, maybe that’s pushing it a bit with Diner’s Club. You seen many around lately?). But as powerful as they are, it’s Visa that calls the shots these days on PCI matters. If Visa doesn’t make similar changes, not clear what will happen. What will the acquiring banks do?

That all said, it’s unclear what is behind this. If MasterCard is not so much trying to be more stringent with Level 2s as it is trying to crack down on the extremely common inaccurate answers—based on misunderstood questions—coming from self-assessments. If this is the beginning of a campaign to eliminate self-assessments from all retailers in Levels 1, 2 and 3, that could prove very interesting.

If it is, though, that raises logistical issues. The most prominent such issue is “Where are all of these assessors going to come from?” Performing assessments has never been especially profitable, unless lots of related hardware and software sales are bundled. A flood of new assessors is likely to have the opposite of the intended impact. New assessors are likely to generate almost as many mistakes as the self-assessments they’re supposed to replace.


advertisement

6 Comments | Read MasterCard Gets PCI Tough With Level 2 Retailers?

  1. Da Juicer Says:

    Trust me, QSACs make a killing at on site assessments. They pound up the hours and bill the snot out of the merchant. The problem is there aren’t enough on site assessments to keep the legion of QSACs/QSAs busy year round.

    My money says, the smart L2 merchants will drop MC in favor of cash, VISA/Amex/Discover/JCB and tell MasterCard to suck rocks.

  2. Branden Williams Says:

    Thanks for the kind words! One thing to remember (and I’ll post something about this tomorrow), most card brands have reciprocity with other brands when it comes to determining levels. Thus, ALL Level 2 merchants, regardless of brand (because if you are a Level 2 with Visa, you are a level 2 with most, including MasterCard) will now be subject to this new requirement.

  3. John B. Frank Says:

    According to the Society of Payment Security Professionals forum:

    “Merchant level is defined by each brand (remember, the PCI Council owns the standards, but each brand enforces them). For example, while MC and Visa are aligned, Amex has only 3 merchant levels.

    The key is to look at transaction count by brand. A common mistake I see is for merchants to total all their card transactions then look up their merchant level. Instead, read the requirements carefully: Visa only deals with Visa; MC with MC; Amex with Amex. Therefore I may have 10 million card trans per year, but if it is made up of 5 million Visa, 3 million M/C, and 2 million Amex, I’d be a Level 2 merchant.

    The key is look at transactions by brand.

  4. Leslie Barrett Says:

    Hi,

    You forgot to mention that a MasterCard Tier 2 Merchant is clasified as having transaction volumes FROM 1 million up to 6 million per annum.

    Your article sounds like every merchant is a tier 2.

    Regards,

    Leslie Barrett

  5. Evan Schuman Says:

    Editor’s Note: Leslie’s note is valid. Like every other publication, we struggle with how much we assume our particular audience knows. If we spell out too much, the audience gets offended and concludes that we don’t know that space. (Example: If The Washington Post defined what a U.S. Senator is for a story about the status of a particular piece of Senate legislation. Such an explanation could easily alienate its audience.)
    We often ask readers and update our style policy as times change. There was a time when we felt the need to spell out what PCI was, but we no longer feel that way, at least for our core audience.
    To your comment, we made the assumption that the subset of our readers who would have an interest in reading a piece about MasterCard changing its policies regarding PCI requirements …. we concluded that that particular subset of our audience would know what a Level 2 merchant meant.
    That said, it probably wouldn’t have hurt to thrown in a standard description at the end, defining each PCI Level, at least from MasterCard’s perspective.

  6. Josh Says:

    Do we have any confirmation that Amex Level 2 (50k transactions) is -not- cause to be considered Level 2 for MasterCard?

    I can’t imagine this would be true, but I need confirmation.

    Thanks in advance!

Leave a Reply

Newsletter

Quickly catch-up on the latest in E-Commerce and Retail Tech with our free weekly newsletter, with urgent bulletins as news merits.
advertisement

Most Recent Comments

What’s The Rush For New PCI Call Center Requirements?

And I have not heard anyone mention the impact on companies who provide quality improvement services. Many merchants hire quality improvement companies to review their audio recordings to provide guidance on how to improve their sales staff’s effectiveness in customer service and sales retention. PCI Council needs to rethink this requirement until there is a widely available commercially viable solution. Read more...
Another ridiculous decision where regulators don't think critically enough about the unintended consequences of their decision. This will be a huge problem for the credit and collections industry. We have to keep all recorded calls for other reasons not related to cc information. We can't purge all of our calls and we don't have the technology to not record part of the conversation. Even if we did, I am not sure we could afford it. Read more...
This "clarification" is causing a lot of panic with large FS clients who now appear to be non-compliant after spending 7 figure sums on their compliance programs. The only alternative to call recording would now appear to be some sort of IVR/push button type interrupt to take card data away from the contact centre. The council is a position to force that sort of process and technology change and this may backfire on them and the vendors that lobbied hard for this clarification. Read more...
PCI council has made a one-sided decision; They should have done a much more in-depth research that could have provided more insight on what regards to the implications of such decision. Read more...

Will Old OS Cause PCI Violation? No, But Marketing Still Says So

This is an interesting issue, because there's more to it than what's apparent on the surface. PA-DSS requires supported and patched operating systems and other software components (e.g., databases, libraries, Java, etc.) per PA-DSS 7.1.b and 8.1, and the option for compensating controls simply isn't there. Merchants can make use of compensating controls for most PCI DSS requirements, but only when legitimate constraints exist and only in ways that meet the intent and rigor of the requirement and go above and beyond the other PCI DSS requirements. Read more...
Why would one automatically upgrade to a "new" OS -- some of the older versions of certain OS-es are more stable and more robust than the crap being peddled today. This is yet another clear example of PCI SSC being out of touch with reality. Rather than requiring a "current" OS, the requirement should be to demonstrate the OS in use is stable and robust, and is adequately hardened against threats. Read more...
There are compensating controls that encrypt the swipe at the driver level as it enter the PC, there are hardware encrypting card swipes so the cardholder data is already encrypted before it comes to the PC -- either of these, especially the second, would remove the OS entirely from a cardholder data risk profile. Read more...
In my opinion, the only thing the vendor did wrong was they didn’t know of that FAQ entry. Even if they did, it changes nothing about the need for merchants to update software that no longer receives updates. Read more...

MasterCard Blinks, Drops Dec. 31 Level 2 PCI Deadline

Reciprocity between MasterCard and Visa was always been a factor in Acquirer merchant level assignments. The brief removal of reciprocity generated a great deal of interest in being able to be classified at a lower level in MasterCard's world. Nevertheless the return of the reciprocity language in the December changes did not effectively create any new Level 2 merchants, but it DID dash the hopes of a lot of them.... :-( Read more...
Let's given them credit??? For being idiotic in the first place? Not on your life! Everyone has just had to scramble and include the costs of the previously announced M/C requirement in their 2010 budgets, and start negotiating with the QSAs for the additional services. All for naught! Read more...
"A bunch of Level 3 and Level 4 merchants just became Level 2s". Is this an accurate statement? MasterCard & Visa have historically included the caveat "or is a Level X in another brand" in their level setting criteria. MasterCard appeared to back way from this in the June pronouncement, and have simply returned to the status quo. Have Acquirers have been tracking and reporting merchants at separate levels by brand? Read more...
I stick by my comment (quoted in the column) about a bunch of L3 and L4 merchants becoming L2s and requiring an onsite. To me, what made MasterCard's original requirement for an onsite assessment for L2s palatable was that they took away their reciprocity provision. That is, they seemed to focus on larger merchants with over a million MasterCard trans/year. With reciprocity in place, a lot of smaller merchants are pulled into the onsite requirement. Rather than causing confusion, I think reciprocity will lead to additional work for processors and acquirers. Read more...

Retailers Sue POS Vendor, Questions Raised Where PCI Duties Stop

I would add a couple more questions: "did the breach involve the use of the default passwords?" (The story doesn't say.) And "were the default passwords used by Computer World to remotely administer the store systems?" "where is the PCI auditor in all this?" Did the restaurant group think they didn't need an audit because Radiant was (mis)representing Aloha as PCI compliant? How is a retailer or even a PCI auditor to know otherwise? A PCI auditor is not necessarily a qualified computer forensic investigator capable of finding the card data on the hard drives. They can only base a decision on information given to them by others. Read more...
There are so many holes in the process it will be difficult to pin blame on just one constituent. It is ridiculous that the technology exists to better secure these transactions (PIN, EMV, etc) yet banks won't use them. Only the banks or government can force this change, and retailers will suffer until then. Read more...
A major issue in this case will be if the restaurants had any support agreements in place with Computer World and if so what those agreements say. In my experience many single unit/small operators choose to skip the support agreements in favor of a "pay as you go" arrangement. In this scenario I can't imagine how the POS VAR can be held responsible for a system they don't own nor exclusively manage. Read more...
There is a big difference in having the POS installation guide say "make sure you set this password because the security of your CHD depends on this" vs. a POS application not storing the CHD in the first place. Traditionally only the merchant was liable for breaches and PCI related fees (fines). Maybe dragging some of the vendors into the liability mud fight will open the eyes of some of these vendors. Read more...

Should Credit Card Transactions Be Free? There May Be A Way

Here in the Netherlands, where the population is notoriously penny-pinching, credit card acceptance is amazingly low. It's both a result of the consumer not wanting to pay interest on everyday purchases as well as merchants not giving up a slice of the action. It is both legal and common to pass the processing fee onto the customer as a surcharge. Now things are moving to leave the credit cards behind: mobile phone payments are becoming more and more common here, and the transaction fees are minimal. Parking and entertainment (movie/concert tickets, nightclubs) have been amongst the first, and it's rapidly gaining momentum because the market has been hungry for the convenience at a price it is willing to pay. Read more...
"Free" is an illusion. Don't charge one person but charge double to someone else. I am very skeptical on anyone who says that advertising will create valid cashflow. Just look at the advertising struggles in a TiVo world. And if you sell your customers data, just be warned that the one group that might have issue with that are you customers (which to me is very important to cashflow. Read more...
Another factor not mentioned here is the impending costs that the processors and issuers are going to incur when someone decides on an end-to-end encryption method, and it then becomes government mandated. I can guarantee that this is a when question and not an if question. The back-end networks are pretty antiquated right now, and it's going to cost billions to replace everything. The cost of tech may be going down, but the cost of replacing millions of servers and hardware, and creating new, proprietary, software is still really expensive. Read more...
Accepting credit cards are not "risk-free" for merchants, contrary to Jim's comments above. Chargebacks are an expense - both in terms of actual transaction reversals and costs associated with managing the process. Chargeback rules and expenses can be everything from a thorny issue to an onerous expense for some merchants, especially for convenience stores that allow customers to pay for gasoline at the pump, or other retailers that allow in-store self-checkout options. Read more...
I've wondered for years why the price of transactions has been so high. Phone companies long ago started offering unlimited calling for flat rates because they understood that in many cases it cost more to report on the transactions (calls) than it did to fulfill them. Read more...
If a home-owner defaults on the mortgage, who is taking the risk? The bank making the loan to the consumer or the person selling the house? It is obviously the bank that takes this risk and is rewarded for that risk through interest rate charges. In my mind, we have mixed together two distinct and unrelated transactions. Read more...
The one big factor not mentioned in this article is who will take over the risk ? Taking credit cards is risk free to merchants and the issuing Banks take the risk if a customer defaults on the payments ! If you had a "interchange free" payment system will the merchants assume the risk ? Also, if there isn't enough profit for the issuing banks they will stop issuing credit cards which will in turn kill our economy. Read more...

The Dangerous Out-Of-Scope PCI Charade

If tokens are ever deemed in-scope, then where does the line stop? I ask this because it would mean that all timestamps, sequential number, random numbers or any other piece of information that may or may not be used to generate a token is within scope -- all data a POS uses and stores, not just payment data. Read more...
Having the ability to do both Tokenization and End to End Encryption (not mere point to point) can have tremendous scope and risk reduction benefits and agility to adapt to change in this fast moving compliance landscape. Being able to have both on tap from a single platform is a solid approach to avoiding the pitfalls. Read more...
But the consumer walks into a particular retail chain, gives their payment card to someone wearing that chain's uniform and the card is swiped. If, six months later, there's a breach and that card was misused, it's the retailer who will in the spotlight. They're the deep pocket and, therefore, the target. If the consumer is angry and wants to cut off business, it will hit the retailer. Therefore, if the retailer is going to end up being blamed no matter what, they have to stay involved. Read more...
True, that someone may be storing a token-to-PAN cross reference. But that would be the bank, not the retailer. If the bank is not sure they can keep their data secure, then there are bigger problems to be addressed than bringing tokens into scope. Read more...
Good general point, Steve, but for the record, not all tokenization is done the same way. Many tokens are associated with lookup lists that allow for them to re-matched to the card data if it's needed, such as for a chargeback. A token doesn't have to be decryptable (is that a word?) for there to be a way to access the original data. Read more...
The out-of-scope argument is very valid but in reference to tokens, the premise of temporarily out-of-scope or abruptly deemed in-scope is flawed. Conway was quoted “anything that could be made unreadable can, in various ways, be made readable again,” this statement is true when talking about encryption technologies (all encryption technologies) but not so with true tokens. True tokens are in no way related to the original data other than as a reference key. Read more...