Quantcast StorefrontBacktalk » Blog Archive » Retail Group Lobbying To Have Credit Card Data No Longer Stored
advertisement
advertisement

Retail Group Lobbying To Have Credit Card Data No Longer Stored

Written by Evan Schuman
October 4th, 2007
Like this story? Share it
To share this story with people in your social network, please click on the network icons below.

Retailing’s most powerful lobby?the National Retail Federation (NRF)?is launching a campaign to change the way that credit cards and retailers interact.

Conceding that the Payment Card Industry (PCI) procedures have simply not been effective at stopping massive retail breaches, NRF CIO David Hogan has been pushing for a radical change in tactics, one that will require Visa, MasterCard and AmericanExpress to change procedures.

“It is unlikely PCI will ever be able to keep pace with the continually-evolving sophistication of the professional hacker, or anticipate every possible variation of future attacks,” Hogan said in a letter to Bob Russo, the head of the PCI Security Council. “We believe the time has come to rethink the assumptions behind PCI.”

Specifically, Hogan is trying to have the rule yanked that forces retailers to keep credit card numbers on file while awaiting potential returns or chargebacks. “A primary reason that PCI exists and retailers have been forced to jump through those (PCI certification) hoops is because credit card company rules require merchants to store the credit card data that criminals are so eager to steal,” Hogan wrote. “The bottom line is that it makes more sense for credit card companies to protect their data from thieves by keeping it in a relatively few secure locations than to expect millions of merchants scattered across the nation to lock up their data for them.”

Hogan’s proposed solution is straight-forward: “Rather than requiring that merchants keep reams of data — currently required under card company rules in order to satisfy card company retrieval requests — credit card companies and their banks should provide merchants with the option of keeping nothing more than the authorization code provided at the time of sale and a truncated receipt. The authorization code would provide proof that a valid transaction had taken place and been approved by the credit card company, and the sales receipt would provide validation for returns or proof of purchase. Neither would contain the full account number, and would therefore be of no value to a potential thief. Any inquiries about a credit transaction would be between the cardholder and the card-issuing bank.”

Hogan said he has discussed his proposal directly with Visa. Their response? “Kind of non-committal,” Hogan said in an interview.

Some retailers have used the credit card numbers as unique customers identifiers, given that they had to hold the data anyway. “If you’re required to store information, you’re going to figure out ways to use it,” Hogan said.

A member of the PCI Security Vendor Alliance?a PCI group that is distinct from the Security Standards Council?applauded the NRF proposal, but seriously questioned how practical it was in the near term.

?I think the NRF recommendation that retailers should not store credit card data is a great one. However, it is untenable in the short-medium term. It will take at least five years, given the reality of what it takes to change applications, test them, integrate and roll out into a production retail environment while keeping current operations intact,” said Prat Moghe, founder of data auditing vendor Tizor and a member of the PCI Security Vendor Alliance. “You also need to factor in the nightmare of transitioning old legacy applications where credit card data is stored. For example, there are black box applications where retailers have no idea how to make app changes because no one supports these apps anymore.”

If someone could figure out a way around those obstacles, Moghe said, it would be a great thing. “If they can influence and get all the POS systems and backend systems to change to get rid of the data, that will be fantastic. But in reality, it will take more than 5 years and cost more than all the PCI programs put together,” he said. “In the short-medium term, there is no choice but to secure the credit card data they are collecting, which brings us back to PCI. PCI is an inevitability for the next 5 years in the best case. Beyond that, NRF succeeds in getting rid of credit card data, PCI should go away.?

Even under that scenario, Moghe said, much of the data security problem would remain because credit card numbers and the associated codes represent a very tiny fraction of the data retailers collect and store. “PCI is telling them that you need to think about where critical data is and know what is happening to it. This is not just about credit card numbers. It’s about Social Security numbers, marketing data, etc. Look at what happened to Monster–seemingly benign data opened the door to much more serious data issues and possible ID theft. This can happen.”

Moghe argued that retailers have control of such a huge amount of customer data that focusing just on credit card numbers can obscure the bigger picture.

“If you take PCI very literally, it’s about credit card data, but merchants need to look at all of their critical data. They have a lot of marketing data on customers. Let’s say that PCI is 10-20 percent of the data they need to worry about and the PCI standard is crisply defined. If you can’t make data security work in that context, how are you going to solve the rest of your data security problem??


advertisement

3 Comments | Read Retail Group Lobbying To Have Credit Card Data No Longer Stored

  1. Matt Harrigan Says:

    What NRF has suggested is actually the best case scenario for the retailers, the card brands, the council, and all other parties in the PCI ecosystem.

    If a retailer or service provider stops storing data all together, then the potential for fraud goes away. Additionally, the organization that was formerly storing cardholder data, and is now not doing so does not have to undergo the compliance process.

    Its good for the card brands, because they no longer have to absorb the risk of their banks, who no longer have to absorb the risk of their merchants, who no longer have to worry about being compliant.

    Unfortunately, it’s not something that happens overnight.

    There are a few products out there which tokenize credit card data, eliminating the need for explicitly protecting it.

  2. Marc Says:

    The removal of card storage lessens the impact of a breach, but does not completely mitigate it. There is always the issue of a well placed trojan on a register or server that sits there and quietly captures card data being sent out for authorization.

    It will take a little longer for the bad guys to get their data, but they will get it.

    The real answer is to take the card number out of the loop of the transaction. When the card number never leaves the card, then there is nothing to steal from the merchant. The card associations need to fundamentally overhaul how transactions are authorized and settled. The technology exists (smart cards, PKI), but there is no incentive to make the associations change. They make plenty of money the way things work now, and they get to pass on fines when there is a breach. It’s good for them all over!

  3. Matt Harrigan Says:

    It’s an idea for change – an idea for change that requires a wholesale change on the part of an industry which has millions of entities – merchants, SPs, 3rd parties, equipmment vendors, the brands, etc, handling trillions of records and transactions.

    It’s analagous to suggesting that the solution to global warming is that everyone cease to use fossil fuel powered cars. Sure, that would be great, if there were a hydrogren refueling station, or electric charger on every corner, and someone was going to simply hand out the new automobiles.

    Sure, its a good idea, but its going to take time, money, and commitment on the part of the folks in the path of transactions, and ALOT of thought leadership.
    Plus, as marc indicated, there will always be some unique identifier that maybe isn’t being stored, but is traversing some network somewhere, and is potentially subject to being snatched by said “bad guys.”

    I think that the formation of the SSC, the community meetings that are occurring, and the opportunities that participating organizations have to contribute to standards -have- helped to advance security, and reduce fraud.

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...