Quantcast StorefrontBacktalk » Blog Archive » PCI Talk is Cheap: Even Small Merchants Can Afford It
advertisement
advertisement

PCI Talk is Cheap: Even Small Merchants Can Afford It

Written by David Taylor
August 13th, 2009
Like this story? Share it
To share this story with people in your social network, please click on the network icons below.

Columnist David Taylor is the Founder of the PCI Knowledge Base and former E-Commerce and Security analyst with Gartner.

I had the opportunity over the last several months to help launch a research study of PCI compliance among small (Level 4) businesses, and the findings from this study (a survey of 220 merchants) were just published this week. Frankly, It’s very difficult to get small businesses interested in PCI compliance at all (judging from low attendance at the webinars and events aimed at that market), and I wanted to use this research as a tool to understand why that is, and if anything can be done to raise awareness and motivate security improvements.

  • Small Business Says Security Is A Priority – But Is It Really?
    One of the first things about the study that surprised me was that two thirds of the respondents (65 percent) said that data security is a “high” priority and another 26 percent said it’s a “medium” priority. As a casual customer of many small businesses, I see business practices and POS technology that are shockingly unsecure. So the survey says that small businesses really do care about protecting customer data. Is it true? Maybe.

    (Related Story: Survey: Level 4s Recognition Of PCI High, Understanding Of It Almost Nil)

    One of the problems with multiple choice surveys is that it’s hard to present realistic tradeoffs to the respondents. You rarely see a question: “Which is more important? Spending $500 on a new network firewall or spending $500 to fix the delivery van?” But that’s the real issue. Data security may be a high priority in the abstract, but compared to “keeping the business running” types of concerns, it typically drops off the bottom of the list of things to spend money on. Why? Because small businesses do not believe they are going to have a data breach.

  • Small Businesses Feel Invisible to Hackers – But They Are Not
    The small business survey also found 65 percent who said they have a low risk of a breach. Although some of them may be right in this view, most are not. Let me explain: There are small merchants and then there are “really small merchants.” Really small merchants are “mom and pops” running a single dry cleaning shop, using a dial up credit card terminal. Generally, mom and pop are pretty safe from a breach, because they are not running a server with a database of card data that’s connected to the Internet.


  • advertisement

    4 Comments | Read PCI Talk is Cheap: Even Small Merchants Can Afford It

    1. Bryan Johnson Says:

      I agree with you David. Opinion does not always translate into action when it comes to merchants taking the necessary steps to achieve compliance and secure credit card data. At the same time, I think that service providers in the payment processing industry are getting much better at developing solutions that lessen PCI Compliance scope and secure sensitive data for merchants – which will help move things along faster.

    2. Dave Taylor Says:

      Hi, Bryan,
      Good point. I really ought to write more about the use of service providers & outsourcing. It keeps coming up in our interviews with merchants. If you or anyone else reading this has suggestions for an “angle” for the piece, let me know. Remember, Evan always wants the topic to have a fresh approach. So, suggestions anyone?
      thx, Dave T.

    3. Zsavonne Says:

      David you bring up some great points. Small businesses are targets for credit card hackers. In fact, a recent Visa review of fraud cases found that small businesses account for the vast majority of credit and debit card data breaches.

    4. FedupwithPCI Says:

      Rubbish,
      The entire drive to PCI compliance is more driven by PCI committee members greed (many of which are involved in the network scanning and on-site consulting review business) than it has anything to do with any real steps toward reforming the overall card processing industry. Small businesses, like a martial arts school or a bicycle repair shop that just happen to process credit card transactions over an Internet connection are the least of the Industry’s problems. Hackers simply are not interested in spending a few days setting up to crack into a small merchant’s computer on the hopes of intercepting 50 – 100 credit card transactions a month. It just is NOT going to happen. They want the middle to large tier processors where they can be assured of a quantity of data to either resell or use directly.

      What is happening is that small businesses, like the ones I mentioned above, are helping fund hundreds of new PCI compliance businesses with plenty of cash from unnecessary quarterly network scans. It simply results in wasted time from paperwork and trying to understand an industry that is not their core business. PCI DSS at this level, as currently implemented, does little to nothing to provide any more security to the card industry in general.

      I am not bemoaning security standards or best-practices for keeping customer card data safe. I am just pointing out that it is the small businesses that are the absolute least contributors to the overall card industry losses that are paying the biggest price when tallied up. When I approach a new customer interested in accepting credit card payment and mention they will need to tag another $100 – $200 a year for quarterly network scans of their PC that they process credit cards on, in addition to any costs in time and software to GET compliant, they will likely tell me to go jump in a lake.

      In the old days, the hard sell for a merchant account was always an argument of “will you waive the $50 set-up fee, we really can’t afford that as a small business.” Now I have to add these fees into the sales process. All these additional costs for small businesses via PCI DSS are an absolute death knell for anyone trying to sell these services to small businesses or for small businesses themselves.

      If the PCI DSS committee members had focused their energies more on the card processors, gateway providers, and the myriad other middle to top tier providers, developed new standards for secure data transmissions, network compliance, etc., I would venture that some 25% – 75% improvement on losses could be seen by the industry in the next 5 years. Then, they could focus on education services for the small business owners and offer free (yes free) network scans and advice on making a merchant’s data safer for their own peace-of-mind and for the entire industry.

      Let us not forgot the forest for the trees. The small mom-and-pop merchant is not the one making money to accepting credit cards. Indeed the merchant gives away between 2% and 5% of every transaction to Visa/MC/AMEX, etc. on each transaction. Yet it is the merchant having to pay even more to assure that those profits keep flowing to the big providers and their middle-man partners.

    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...