Quantcast StorefrontBacktalk » Blog Archive » Why Open Source Drives PCI Nuts
advertisement
advertisement

Why Open Source Drives PCI Nuts

Written by Frank Hayes
June 10th, 2010
Like this story? Share it
To share this story with people in your social network, please click on the network icons below.

The big advantage to open-source software is that anyone can change it. And the big disadvantage to open source? Anyone can change it. Case in point: osCommerce, one of the applications on the PCI “Bad Apps” list. It’s not a surprise that this open-source app hasn’t passed PCI’s validation. Considering that it can be changed so easily, would you really want it to?

Most of the software packages on the Bad Apps list come from conventional commercial software vendors. If there’s a problem with their applications–specifically, if those apps keep sensitive authentication data after a transaction has been authorized–the vendors are usually quick to create a new version or a patch that solves the problem. Result: Only older versions of the software contain the security problem that makes PCI unhappy. And next to the bad version of the app is a note listing the later versions that don’t have the problem.

But there’s no such notation next to the osCommerce entry on the Bad Apps list. And that’s not all: The osCommerce entry lists a version that was obsoleted seven years ago. What’s going on? Does PCI have it in for open-source software?

Probably not. More likely is that some of the quirks of open source make it harder for PCI to figure out just how to handle it. For example, the current widely used version of osCommerce has been a “release candidate” for years. In commercial software, that means “not ready for production use.” In some open-source projects, however, it means “not obsolete yet.”

Another challenge for PCI is the fact that the people working on open-source software, even the ones who are producing commercialized packages, often just aren’t interested in getting certifications from groups such as PCI. No one is riding herd on the process, making sure patches and upgrades are submitted to PCI for testing.

Here’s the biggest problem for PCI with open source, though: Because anyone can customize the code, its testing process may not help much anyway. A PCI assessor wants to look for specific versions of specific software packages to cut the effort required to make sure a retailer’s systems are PCI compliant. That approach works well for conventional commercial apps, where the source code is locked down. For endlessly customizable open source, it’s practically useless.

If there are dozens of customized versions of a software package available, how much sense does it make to try to get PCI to OK every one of them? This is especially true when any of those versions can be modified again by anyone who implements them, so another dozen or two could appear next month.

It’s as if this is custom code. And that’s the best way to handle open-source software for PCI assessment purposes. It’s designed to be easily customized. If you’ve decided to use open source, treat it that way. Then, as with other software that’s not on the “Good Apps” list, it’s up to your assessor to determine whether the software meets PCI requirements.

If it doesn’t, you can choose between either changing it yourself or finding another package that can do the job and is already PCI-certified. After all, that’s what the “Good Apps” list is for.


advertisement

5 Comments | Read Why Open Source Drives PCI Nuts

  1. Marc Says:

    Open Source and PCI can match well together: just to mention upcoming Magento PA-DSS compliance or CRESecure solution.

  2. Juan David Says:

    Hi everyone, I think that if an open source package is modified in any way, that software must be considered, automatically, a custom made application, and must comply with all requirement 6.

  3. Evan Schuman Says:

    That’s the danger. With any kind of modification, the app vendor is no longer responsible and the duty falls directly on the merchant, just as it had been a fully homegrown app.

  4. Shiva Says:

    Reminds me on a similar question on custom vendor ( again it was a customized oscommerce solution ). The vendor was asked on the PCI compliance and it was well put in that the bridge may not be established between PCI and software untill the software was finalized ( up and ready for the market ). I think that is the case with most open source software… after Os software is the clay and it can moulded anyway for that matter :).

  5. Greg McGraw Says:

    From a customization standpoint, open source software is great. But, paractically speaking, there is no way to audit the software for PA-DSS for that very same reason. We continue to preach ‘outsourcing’ payment acceptance to our open source merchants exclusively to one or more certified 3rd parties which effectively takes the software out of the scope of PCI and the categorization as a payment application. Level 4 merchants should research hosted payment pages, alternative payments, etc. and not rely solely on scans to claim that they are PCI compliant or rely on the shopping cart maker to PA DSS their software, which is clearly not in their basket of expertise.

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

Kill All The Passwords

This article does mention, but does not give enough attention to, the fact that the attacks discussed are only feasible when the encrypted password file can be copied and subjected to an offline attack. The trick is to have authentication performed on a separate, much more strongly secured host - such as an Active Directory Domain Controller, or a Kerberos server, or a NIS+ server, or even using something as banal as an LDAP-over-SSL authentication dialog. In these environments, the odds of the "password file" being stolen and subjected to an offline attack go to near zero, and only online attacks may be carried out by the attacker. With sensible exponential backoff between failed password attempts, lockout after a modest number of failed attempts on a single account, and pattern detection, that minimum 7 character password is quite secure enough. Passwords aren't dead yet for security purposes, and they will be with us for a very long while to come for practical purposes. The trick is to employ them correctly. Read more...
The possibilities you describe are years away from being implemented at best, so for the moment passwords are an ugly reality. Luckily, password managers can easily manage hundreds of passwords of any length. The only thing a user needs to remember is the master password. It seems like an easier task to educate users on how to use password managers rather than implement complex security technology on a global basis. Read more...