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.

Perimeter

8/24/2011
09:47 AM
Commentary
Commentary
Commentary
50%
50%

PCI QSA Status Revocation A Shot Across The Bow For QSAs?

The PCI Security Council's move spells trouble for unscrupulous QSAs and shows that the Council means business in enforcing its quality standards

The Payment Card Industry Security Standards Council's recent revocation of the status of a Qualified Security Assessor as part of the Council’s quality assurance process. Was this a one-time event a sign that the Council is cracking down on QSAs that are sloppy or too lenient in their assessments, or a warning signal to QSAs that there really is a sheriff in town and that they had better clean up their acts?

It's probably a bit of both. Effective August 3, 2011, the PCI Security Council revoked the QSA and PA-QSA status of CSO for failing to follow processes that “ensure consistency, credibility, competency and professional ethics.” According to the PCI Council’s letter on the subject, the revocation follows a process where the Council required remediation of deficiencies in CSO’s practices, but were not completed to the Council’s satisfaction. Clearly, this is not what either CSO or the Council wanted.

What does this mean to CSO and its customers?

As a result of the revocation, CSO is no longer allowed to validate merchants’ and service providers’ security practices, nor can it validate products for compliance with the PA-DSS. The Council was careful not to revoke the validated status of CSO’s customers that had completed the process. However, that doesn’t mean that those customers in the midst of the validation process are so fortunate. Companies assessed by CSO and in the quality assurance queue awaiting confirmation are out of luck. They need to find a new QSA.

What about customers of CSO’s customers?

The revocation calls to question the methods used by CSO and the effectiveness of the company’s techniques used to evaluate the organizations and products it assessed in the past. This casts doubt on the security of the products and organizations, even if they continue to appear on the list of validated vendors and products.

The Council recommends to all of CSO’s customers that they find a new QSA (or PA-QSA) to review their practices and ensure that deficiencies in CSO’s processes do not result in real security weaknesses. The problem is a customer of one of CSO’s validated customers can’t know for certain whether the product or service is truly flawed, and the beneficiary of a weak assessment process or the unfortunate victim of an undisciplined assessor. The hope is that product and service weaknesses with be exposed and addressed quickly as a result of PCI’s annual assessment requirement.

What does this mean to other QSAs?

The QSA community should see the revocation as a wake-up call. QSAs who take shortcuts, do not follow the assessment process thoroughly, or interpret the rules in the most lenient way, will have a higher probability of getting caught. The damage to the QSA’s reputation might be devastating to the its entire business (most QSA companies are involved in more than just assessments).

The result may be that assessments may become more expensive, but the improvement of quality and consistency will benefit consumers, merchants, service providers, and the honest assessors who have had a hard time competing on price with organizations that take shortcuts.

Richard Mackey is vice president of consulting at SystemExperts Corp.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Stop Defending Everything
Kevin Kurzawa, Senior Information Security Auditor,  2/12/2020
Small Business Security: 5 Tips on How and Where to Start
Mike Puglia, Chief Strategy Officer at Kaseya,  2/13/2020
Architectural Analysis IDs 78 Specific Risks in Machine-Learning Systems
Jai Vijayan, Contributing Writer,  2/13/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
6 Emerging Cyber Threats That Enterprises Face in 2020
This Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at six emerging cyber threats that enterprises could face in 2020. Download your copy today!
Flash Poll
How Enterprises Are Developing and Maintaining Secure Applications
How Enterprises Are Developing and Maintaining Secure Applications
The concept of application security is well known, but application security testing and remediation processes remain unbalanced. Most organizations are confident in their approach to AppSec, although others seem to have no approach at all. Read this report to find out more.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-8996
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-16
AnyShare Cloud 6.0.9 allows authenticated directory traversal to read files, as demonstrated by the interface/downloadwithpath/downloadfile/?filepath=/etc/passwd URI.
CVE-2020-8997
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-16
Abbott FreeStyle Libre 14-day before February 2020 and FreeStyle Libre 2 before February 2020 allow remote attackers to enable write access via a specific NFC unlock command.
CVE-2020-7050
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-15
Codologic Codoforum through 4.8.4 allows a DOM-based XSS. While creating a new topic as a normal user, it is possible to add a poll that is automatically loaded in the DOM once the thread/topic is opened. Because session cookies lack the HttpOnly flag, it is possible to steal authentication cookies ...
CVE-2019-13965
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-14
Because of a lack of sanitization around error messages, multiple Reflective XSS issues exist in iTop through 2.6.0 via the param_file parameter to webservices/export.php, webservices/cron.php, or env-production/itop-backup/backup.php. By default, any XSS sent to the administrator can be transformed...
CVE-2019-13966
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-14
In iTop through 2.6.0, an XSS payload can be delivered in certain fields (such as icon) of the XML file used to build the dashboard. This is similar to CVE-2015-6544 (which is only about the dashboard title).