Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.


Retailers Still Lag in PCI Compliance

Despite recent data breaches, more than half still have not implemented guidelines for protecting credit card data

Even after the reputation-damaging data losses experienced at TJX Companies and other retail organizations, many merchants still have not complied with security standards set by credit card authorities, according to a study released yesterday.

Although the initial deadline for compliance was last June, more than half (52.5 percent) of merchants surveyed still have not fully implemented the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS), according to a survey conducted by security vendor RSA, the Security Division of EMC.

PCI, a rigorous set of guidelines for protecting the security of credit card data, is mandated by the major credit card companies, such as Visa, MasterCard, and Discover. Merchants who do not comply with the standards may be fined, or they may lose their ability to accept credit cards.

"Our survey results indicate that the majority of merchants are motivated to comply in an effort to protect their customers, but that there are still challenges to achieving it," says Jim Melvin, vice president of marketing at RSA. "With an issue so complex, we expect efforts to understand the standard and comply with it will continue well into 2008 and beyond.”

Most of the larger retailers surveyed by RSA have achieved PCI compliance, the RSA study says. But only 19 percent of Level 4 merchants -- the smallest retailers -- have met the standards. Most of the incentive programs and fines for non-compliance have been directed toward Level 1 and Level 2 merchants, RSA noted.

One of the biggest obstacles in achieving PCI compliance is the time requirement. Of the merchants that are already compliant, nearly half said their compliance projects took over a year. Five percent said it took over two years, 16 percent said the process took 18-24 months, and 27 percent said the timeframe from conducting an initial assessment to submitting the compliance report took approximately 12-18 months. Only 19 percent said achieving compliance took less than six months.

Of the respondents polled who have not achieved compliance, 19 percent believe it will take more than 18 months to comply, while 26 percent expect to become compliant within 12-18 months. Twenty-four percent anticipate meeting the PCI DSS requirements in six to 12 months, and almost one third believes compliance will be attained within six months.

The merchants who have achieved compliance said "understanding the PCI DSS requirements" was the most time-consuming aspect of the project. About 21 percent said that "determining their current PCI status before an audit" was their most significant challenge.

Merchants were also asked to pick the three most significant technology challenges they face in the drive toward compliance. More than half cited "tracking and monitoring access to the network and systems with cardholder data," while 48 percent cited encrypting card data. Thirty five percent listed "controlling logical access to systems containing card data," while 23 percent felt that "authenticating users accessing systems containing card data" was a top challenge.

Companies also differed in their approach to PCI auditing. A slight majority of those surveyed (54 percent) said a Qualified Security Assessor would handle the audit. Seventy-five percent of Level 4 merchants plan to manage audits internally, while 64 percent of Level 3 merchants will rely on internal audits. Only 40 percent of Level 2 merchants expect to do internal audits, and only 30 percent of Level 1 merchants plan to do so. An internal audit requires the signature of an officer of the company.

"Many [merchants] understand the need for the standard and believe that it will be effective, but they continue to face technology challenges as they attempt to comply," says Melvin. "While we’re moving in the right direction, the technology challenges are something that vendors need to consider as they look to build solutions to help merchants."

— Tim Wilson, Site Editor, Dark Reading

  • EMC Corp. (NYSE: EMC)
  • RSA Security Inc. (Nasdaq: EMC) Tim Wilson is Editor in Chief and co-founder of Dark Reading.com, UBM Tech's online community for information security professionals. He is responsible for managing the site, assigning and editing content, and writing breaking news stories. Wilson has been recognized as one ... View Full Bio

    Comment  | 
    Print  | 
    More Insights
  • Comments
    Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
    7 Old IT Things Every New InfoSec Pro Should Know
    Joan Goodchild, Staff Editor,  4/20/2021
    Cloud-Native Businesses Struggle With Security
    Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  5/6/2021
    Defending Against Web Scraping Attacks
    Rob Simon, Principal Security Consultant at TrustedSec,  5/7/2021
    Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
    White Papers
    Current Issue
    2021 Top Enterprise IT Trends
    We've identified the key trends that are poised to impact the IT landscape in 2021. Find out why they're important and how they will affect you today!
    Flash Poll
    How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
    How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
    Recent breaches of third-party apps are driving many organizations to think harder about the security of their off-the-shelf software as they continue to move left in secure software development practices.
    Twitter Feed
    Dark Reading - Bug Report
    Bug Report
    Enterprise Vulnerabilities
    From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
    PUBLISHED: 2021-05-14
    An HTTP Request Smuggling vulnerability in Pulse Secure Virtual Traffic Manager before 21.1 could allow an attacker to smuggle an HTTP request through an HTTP/2 Header. This vulnerability is resolved in 21.1, 20.3R1, 20.2R1, 20.1R2, 19.2R4, and 18.2R3.
    PUBLISHED: 2021-05-14
    Hexagon G!nius Auskunftsportal before allows SQL injection via the GiPWorkflow/Service/DownloadPublicFile id parameter.
    PUBLISHED: 2021-05-13
    Piwigo 11.4.0 allows admin/user_list_backend.php order[0][dir] SQL Injection.
    PUBLISHED: 2021-05-13
    The Flask-Caching extension through 1.10.1 for Flask relies on Pickle for serialization, which may lead to remote code execution or local privilege escalation. If an attacker gains access to cache storage (e.g., filesystem, Memcached, Redis, etc.), they can construct a crafted payload, poison the ca...
    PUBLISHED: 2021-05-13
    Bitcoin Core 0.12.0 through 0.21.1 does not properly implement the replacement policy specified in BIP125, which makes it easier for attackers to trigger a loss of funds, or a denial of service attack against downstream projects such as Lightning network nodes. An unconfirmed child transaction with ...