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.

Risk

9/25/2009
03:42 PM
Connect Directly
Google+
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

PCI DSS Update Could Include Virtualization Security

PCI Virtualization Special Interest Group (SIG) is drafting guidelines and a mapping tool for applying PCI to virtualized systems

The PCI Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) is due for an update next year, and the upcoming version of the standard could define securing cardholder data in virtualization environments.

The PCI Virtualization Special Interest Group (SIG), made up of auditors, vendors, merchants, banks, and quality security-assessment firms, this week met to hash out a proposal for how to include virtualization technology in PCI. The group is working on proposed changes to the DSS, as well as guidelines for how to map virtualization to the existing PCI spec.

"Because DSS does not even mention virtualization, there have been a lot of questions about how it applies, whether it can be used for PCI, and what areas are not in-scope," says Kurt Roemer, a member of the PCI board of advisers, chief security strategist for Citrix, and a member of the PCI DSS board of advisers. "We're addressing these questions."

The group is putting the final touches on a white paper and mapping "tool" document that explains where virtualization applies within each requirement of the DSS. "We're not out to replace or change PCI," Roemer says. Instead, the group is providing "an information supplement and additional guidance" for making virtualization environments PCI-compliant.

Roemer says the group is gathering additional input for proposed changes to the DSS. It will deliver the information to the PCI Standards Council, which meets in January to begin the process of building version 1.3 of the standard, due in October 2010. At this point, all of the proposals are basically a supplement to PCI, and it's up to the council to decide whether the spec itself is updated to include virtualization.

This is the latest effort in expanding PCI to incorporate emerging technologies. The PCI Security Standards Council (PCI SSC) recently unveiled best practices for retailers to defend themselves against the growing number of credit- and debit-card skimming scams, and in July a council working group created a set of recommendations for wireless deployment for PCI.

Mark Weiner, managing partner of virtualization vendor Reliant Security and a lead author of the PCI virtualization white paper, says companies and auditors have had to make their "own assumptions" in the absence of official PCI guidelines for virtualization. "That illustrates the need for this work," he says.

The hot topics are virtualization of point-of-sale (POS) systems and electronic commerce, Weiner says. "This is becoming hotter as retailers try to use virtualization for the cost benefit," he says. Ecommerce has raised issues, such as segmentation and the role of the hypervisor with cardholder data.

Among some of the technical issues are segmentation of the network, encryption, and how the presence or absence of virtualization will affect PCI compliance, says Richard Rees, security solutions director for SunGard Availability Services and a contributor to the PCI virtualization working group. "Answering questions -- such as, are all virtual machines on the same hypervisor as cardholder data VMs in scope, does virtualization violate the 'one primary function per server' tenet, and do virtual switches and virtual security appliances truly segment virtual environments on the same hypervisor -- are all things we are looking to the PCI Council, technical working group, and virtualization SIG to help answer," Rees says. "At this point, that's open to the interpretation of each QSA. "

And physical security with cloud computing is another tricky area that's under discussion. PCI DSS has specific requirements and audits for physical security. "If you're outsourcing part of your environment with cloud computing and don't understand their physical security, or can't get access to local controls, you're still obligated to protect [the cardholder data]," Rees says.

Have a comment on this story? Please click "Discuss" below. If you'd like to contact Dark Reading's editors directly, send us a message. Kelly Jackson Higgins is Executive Editor at DarkReading.com. She is an award-winning veteran technology and business journalist with more than two decades of experience in reporting and editing for various publications, including Network Computing, Secure Enterprise ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
MoviePass Leaves Credit Card Numbers, Personal Data Exposed Online
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  8/21/2019
New FISMA Report Shows Progress, Gaps in Federal Cybersecurity
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  8/21/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
7 Threats & Disruptive Forces Changing the Face of Cybersecurity
This Dark Reading Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at the biggest emerging threats and disruptive forces that are changing the face of cybersecurity today.
Flash Poll
The State of IT Operations and Cybersecurity Operations
The State of IT Operations and Cybersecurity Operations
Your enterprise's cyber risk may depend upon the relationship between the IT team and the security team. Heres some insight on what's working and what isn't in the data center.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-7617
PUBLISHED: 2019-08-22
When the Elastic APM agent for Python versions before 5.1.0 is run as a CGI script, there is a variable name clash flaw if a remote attacker can control the proxy header. This could result in an attacker redirecting collected APM data to a proxy of their choosing.
CVE-2019-14751
PUBLISHED: 2019-08-22
NLTK Downloader before 3.4.5 is vulnerable to a directory traversal, allowing attackers to write arbitrary files via a ../ (dot dot slash) in an NLTK package (ZIP archive) that is mishandled during extraction.
CVE-2019-9153
PUBLISHED: 2019-08-22
Improper Verification of a Cryptographic Signature in OpenPGP.js <=4.1.2 allows an attacker to forge signed messages by replacing its signatures with a "standalone" or "timestamp" signature.
CVE-2019-9154
PUBLISHED: 2019-08-22
Improper Verification of a Cryptographic Signature in OpenPGP.js <=4.1.2 allows an attacker to pass off unsigned data as signed.
CVE-2019-9155
PUBLISHED: 2019-08-22
A cryptographic issue in OpenPGP.js <=4.2.0 allows an attacker who is able provide forged messages and gain feedback about whether decryption of these messages succeeded to conduct an invalid curve attack in order to gain the victim's ECDH private key.