Vulnerabilities / Threats

5/9/2016
07:45 AM
Emma Sutcliffe
Emma Sutcliffe
Commentary
100%
0%

PCI DSS 3.2: Making the Move to MFA

PCI DSS has always required that any untrusted, remote access into the cardholder data environment use multi-factor authentication. Now version 3.2 takes it one step further.

After more than 10 years in existence, the PCI Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) is globally recognized and accepted as a mature industry standard. It’s most recent iteration -- PCI DSS version 3.2 -- focuses on confirming that security controls are in place and operating effectively, and that processes are followed throughout the year and not just during the annual validation. PCI DSS 3.2 aims to help organizations focus attention on critical controls, make improvements that will help mitigate current points of attack, and evaluate opportunities for devaluing card data.

Multi-factor authentication – or MFA -- is one of these critical controls for defending against the myriad of threats to account data. One of the most significant changes in PCI DSS 3.2 is the expansion of PCI DSS Requirement 8.3, which requires the use of multi-factor authentication for administrators accessing the cardholder data environment.

Compromise after compromise show that whatever method a hacker uses to get in to a company’s network, their goal is to find any device on which they can gain administrative rights. Once they have that, they can move throughout the network, gaining administrative rights on more and more machines until they find the cardholder data. The recent 2016 Verizon Data Breach Investigation Report notes that breaches took advantage of static, single-factor authentication, with attackers working even harder to compromise valid credentials to access environments.

Multi-factor authentication (MFA) provides additional assurance that the individual attempting to gain access is who they claim to be.

Going one step further

The PCI DSS has always required that any untrusted, remote access into the cardholder data environment use multi-factor authentication. With version 3.2 we’re taking it one step further to help organizations protect against both internal and external actors. With PCI DSS 3.2, MFA is also required for personnel with non-console administrative access into the cardholder data environment – even where that access originates from within an organization’s trusted network.

Required use of MFA will encourage companies to implement strong access control measures so that authorized individuals with network and computer administrative access can be monitored and traced. Examples of factors include something you know, such as a password or passphrase; something you have, such as a hardware token or smart card; or something you are, such as a biometric.

Organizations have until have until January 31, 2018 to deploy MFA. As of February 1, 2018 it will be a requirement of PCI DSS, not simply a recommended “best practice.”

Making the Move to MFA

It’s critical for organizations to understand that this requirement applies to all non-console administrative access into the cardholder data environment, even from within a company’s own network. The requirement applies to any administrator, third party or internal individuals who have the ability to change systems and other credentials within that network to potentially compromise the security of the environment. For example, depending on the particular operating system and organizational structure, it could apply to functions or titles such as “superuser,” “root,” “administrator,” “admin” “sysadmin” or “supervisor-state.”

This requirement is intended for authentication of personnel – it does not impact machine authentication where one system is communicating with another – nor will it impact administrators accessing directly from the console.

As a first step, organizations should review how they are currently managing authentication into their cardholder data environment, and review the current administrator roles and access methods to identify where changes to authentication may likely be impacted by this new requirement.

MFA can be performed either at the network level or system level. One common approach is to consolidate administration points into the cardholder data environment (CDE), for example via a jump server. Consolidation offers several benefits including fewer (or just one) points to manage the multi-factor authentication and centralized management and monitoring of all administrative access into the CDE.

The incremental revisions in 3.2 provide an opportunity to address a few critical security risks, starting with administrative access into the cardholder data environment, and evaluate approaches for how best to accept payments securely in the future. Where organizations are able to devalue card data with technologies like point-to-point encryption and tokenization, PCI DSS efforts can be more focused, compliance reporting more concentrated and most importantly, areas where cardholder data must still be used can be better monitored and protected.

Related Content:

  1. PCI DSS 3.2: 3 Things You Need to Know
  2. 7 In 10 Businesses Struggle To Sustain PCI Compliance
  3. Silicon & Artificial Intelligence: The Foundation of Next Gen Data Security

As director of data security standards, Emma Sutcliffe oversees a number of PCI security standards, including the PCI DSS and PA-DSS. Ms. Sutcliffe chairs PCI SSC's Technical Working Group (TWG) and the Tokenization Working Group, where she works closely with the payment ... View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
5/12/2016 | 8:44:32 AM
Re: PCI-DSS
@theb0x: One could argue that, if a situation is handled right, where an organization suffers a very public, humiliating, and costly fall, that organization may well be the most trustworthy in the future because they will become so dedicated to making sure that the problem never happens again.

At least, until a new group of faces lines the C-suite and/or the board...
theb0x
50%
50%
theb0x,
User Rank: Ninja
5/11/2016 | 10:11:57 AM
Re: PCI-DSS
For an Enterprise not to implement MFA into their CDE would be a very poor choice. It's not just the consumers' data at risk here. It's the Enterprise's overall reputation at risk. What consumer in their right mind would want to conduct business with a company that neglects to take every measure and practice possible to protect this sensitive information? In the event of a data breach, after investigation of the incident it will be publically known that the Company somewhere failed to properly protect it. How does such a company regain confidence with their consumers to conduct business with them again? Can they really be trusted when the 'glitch' has been fixed?
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
5/9/2016 | 9:19:36 AM
PCI-DSS
On the one hand, it's kind of sad that we need PCI-DSS to tell us this and -- effectively -- make us do this (PCI-DSS compliance is required by state law in a couple of states).

On the other hand, the arrogance shown by executives (lookin' at you, former TJX CIO from about ten years ago) in declining to implement these standards has harmed consumers and harmed industry.

I'm glad to see that MFA is now required for accessing these particular data.
New Cold Boot Attack Gives Hackers the Keys to PCs, Macs
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  9/13/2018
Yahoo Class-Action Suits Set for Settlement
Dark Reading Staff 9/17/2018
RDP Ports Prove Hot Commodities on the Dark Web
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  9/17/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Flash Poll
The Risk Management Struggle
The Risk Management Struggle
The majority of organizations are struggling to implement a risk-based approach to security even though risk reduction has become the primary metric for measuring the effectiveness of enterprise security strategies. Read the report and get more details today!
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-17208
PUBLISHED: 2018-09-19
Linksys Velop 1.1.2.187020 devices allow unauthenticated command injection, providing an attacker with full root access, via cgi-bin/zbtest.cgi or cgi-bin/zbtest2.cgi (scripts that can be discovered with binwalk on the firmware, but are not visible in the web interface). This occurs because shell me...
CVE-2018-17205
PUBLISHED: 2018-09-19
An issue was discovered in Open vSwitch (OvS) 2.7.x through 2.7.6, affecting ofproto_rule_insert__ in ofproto/ofproto.c. During bundle commit, flows that are added in a bundle are applied to ofproto in order. If a flow cannot be added (e.g., the flow action is a go-to for a group id that does not ex...
CVE-2018-17206
PUBLISHED: 2018-09-19
An issue was discovered in Open vSwitch (OvS) 2.7.x through 2.7.6. The decode_bundle function inside lib/ofp-actions.c is affected by a buffer over-read issue during BUNDLE action decoding.
CVE-2018-17207
PUBLISHED: 2018-09-19
An issue was discovered in Snap Creek Duplicator before 1.2.42. By accessing leftover installer files (installer.php and installer-backup.php), an attacker can inject PHP code into wp-config.php during the database setup step, achieving arbitrary code execution.
CVE-2017-2855
PUBLISHED: 2018-09-19
An exploitable buffer overflow vulnerability exists in the DDNS client used by the Foscam C1 Indoor HD Camera running application firmware 2.52.2.43. On devices with DDNS enabled, an attacker who is able to intercept HTTP connections will be able to fully compromise the device by creating a rogue HT...