Being told my “network” isn't PCI compliant. I don't even have a server! Do I have to comply?New credit card security standards regarding PA-DSS CompliancePCI Compliant Key Management solutions that don't cost a fortuneIf PCI DSS isn't a law, how can I be prosecuted for not being compliant?PCI-DSS compliance for business with only swipe terminalsPCI-DSS Scope with tokenisationPCI Compliance ProblemClarification on being PCI compliantDoes PCI compliance require a DRP even if we don't store card data?PCI-SAQ A-EP compliance for website developer?Which self assessment questionairre should I use for PCI DSS compliance
Feedback diagram
δόλος = deceit in John 1:47
Can Otiluke's Freezing Spheres be stockpiled?
When did J.K. Rowling decide to make Ron and Hermione a couple?
Is Norway in the Single Market?
Reasons for using monsters as bioweapons
Is this popular optical illusion made of a grey-scale image with coloured lines?
How to avoid a lengthy conversation with someone from the neighborhood I don't share interests with
speaker impedence
How does Rust's 128-bit integer `i128` work on a 64-bit system?
Is it moral to remove/hide certain parts of a photo, as a photographer?
Why did the United States not resort to nuclear weapons in Vietnam?
What do the screens say after you are set free?
Why have both: BJT and FET transistors on IC output?
Who's behind community AMIs on Amazon EC2?
"Fewer errors means better products" or "Fewer errors mean better products"?
Can I shorten this filter, that finds disk sizes over 100G?
Declaring a visitor to the UK as my "girlfriend" - effect on getting a Visitor visa?
Define tcolorbox in math mode
How is Sword Coast North governed?
What's the term for a group of people who enjoy literary works?
How to power down external drive safely
What sort of solar system / atmospheric conditions, if any, would allow for a very cold planet that still receives plenty of light from its sun?
How long should I wait to plug in my refrigerator after unplugging it?
Being told my “network” isn't PCI compliant. I don't even have a server! Do I have to comply?
New credit card security standards regarding PA-DSS CompliancePCI Compliant Key Management solutions that don't cost a fortuneIf PCI DSS isn't a law, how can I be prosecuted for not being compliant?PCI-DSS compliance for business with only swipe terminalsPCI-DSS Scope with tokenisationPCI Compliance ProblemClarification on being PCI compliantDoes PCI compliance require a DRP even if we don't store card data?PCI-SAQ A-EP compliance for website developer?Which self assessment questionairre should I use for PCI DSS compliance
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
We are a brick and mortar company... literally. We are brick masons. At our office we connect to the internet through our cable modem provided to us by Spectrum Business.
Our Treasurer uses a Verifone vx520 card reader to process credit card payments. It connects via ethernet. We don't store credit card data.
We got a vulnerability report stating that we were not PCI compliant.
They scanned our cable modem.
Part 2b-1. 38173 - SSL Certificate - Signature Verification Failed Vulnerability
Part 2b-6. 38628 - SSL/TLS Server supports TLSv1.0
Part 2b-7. 38601 - SSL/TLS use of weak RC4(Arcfour) cipher (CVE-2013-2566, CVE-2015-2808)
I don't understand what they mean. We don't have a server or an online store or anything. I was told they scanned our network and this is what they found. They told us to get with ISP to fix issue.
How is the ISP supposed to get an SSL certificate installed on a cable modem? I did call our ISP and he didn't know what to tell me.
We just use the card reader and it connects to our payment processor.
Am I supposed to do something here? Is any of this applicable to us?
pci-dss
New contributor
|
show 9 more comments
We are a brick and mortar company... literally. We are brick masons. At our office we connect to the internet through our cable modem provided to us by Spectrum Business.
Our Treasurer uses a Verifone vx520 card reader to process credit card payments. It connects via ethernet. We don't store credit card data.
We got a vulnerability report stating that we were not PCI compliant.
They scanned our cable modem.
Part 2b-1. 38173 - SSL Certificate - Signature Verification Failed Vulnerability
Part 2b-6. 38628 - SSL/TLS Server supports TLSv1.0
Part 2b-7. 38601 - SSL/TLS use of weak RC4(Arcfour) cipher (CVE-2013-2566, CVE-2015-2808)
I don't understand what they mean. We don't have a server or an online store or anything. I was told they scanned our network and this is what they found. They told us to get with ISP to fix issue.
How is the ISP supposed to get an SSL certificate installed on a cable modem? I did call our ISP and he didn't know what to tell me.
We just use the card reader and it connects to our payment processor.
Am I supposed to do something here? Is any of this applicable to us?
pci-dss
New contributor
3
Have you tried putting your public IP address into your web browser's address bar to see if it will connect to anything? Try with both "http://1.1.1.1
" and "https://1.1.1.1
" (note the S in the second URL).
– Ghedipunk
2 days ago
4
Also, since you are running credit cards that are physically located at your office, you do need to secure your network to be PCI compliant. This will probably just be configuring a firewall on your modem/router, though I'm putting off making an answer to this question depending on what you'd see from trying to bring up your IP address in your browser.
– Ghedipunk
2 days ago
20
@user3512967 that cert and user prompt is almost certainly to log in and control the modem itself. It really shouldn't be exposed to the Internet at large.
– gowenfawr
2 days ago
9
"Also, since you are running credit cards that are physically located at your office, you do need to secure your network to be PCI compliant." That depends on the card terminal, the good terminal providers works hard to keep the stores network out-of-scope for PCI.
– Mattias
yesterday
20
From whom did you get this report? Were they trying to sell you something to fix it?
– Kevin
yesterday
|
show 9 more comments
We are a brick and mortar company... literally. We are brick masons. At our office we connect to the internet through our cable modem provided to us by Spectrum Business.
Our Treasurer uses a Verifone vx520 card reader to process credit card payments. It connects via ethernet. We don't store credit card data.
We got a vulnerability report stating that we were not PCI compliant.
They scanned our cable modem.
Part 2b-1. 38173 - SSL Certificate - Signature Verification Failed Vulnerability
Part 2b-6. 38628 - SSL/TLS Server supports TLSv1.0
Part 2b-7. 38601 - SSL/TLS use of weak RC4(Arcfour) cipher (CVE-2013-2566, CVE-2015-2808)
I don't understand what they mean. We don't have a server or an online store or anything. I was told they scanned our network and this is what they found. They told us to get with ISP to fix issue.
How is the ISP supposed to get an SSL certificate installed on a cable modem? I did call our ISP and he didn't know what to tell me.
We just use the card reader and it connects to our payment processor.
Am I supposed to do something here? Is any of this applicable to us?
pci-dss
New contributor
We are a brick and mortar company... literally. We are brick masons. At our office we connect to the internet through our cable modem provided to us by Spectrum Business.
Our Treasurer uses a Verifone vx520 card reader to process credit card payments. It connects via ethernet. We don't store credit card data.
We got a vulnerability report stating that we were not PCI compliant.
They scanned our cable modem.
Part 2b-1. 38173 - SSL Certificate - Signature Verification Failed Vulnerability
Part 2b-6. 38628 - SSL/TLS Server supports TLSv1.0
Part 2b-7. 38601 - SSL/TLS use of weak RC4(Arcfour) cipher (CVE-2013-2566, CVE-2015-2808)
I don't understand what they mean. We don't have a server or an online store or anything. I was told they scanned our network and this is what they found. They told us to get with ISP to fix issue.
How is the ISP supposed to get an SSL certificate installed on a cable modem? I did call our ISP and he didn't know what to tell me.
We just use the card reader and it connects to our payment processor.
Am I supposed to do something here? Is any of this applicable to us?
pci-dss
pci-dss
New contributor
New contributor
edited 8 mins ago
John Deters
29.6k3 gold badges45 silver badges98 bronze badges
29.6k3 gold badges45 silver badges98 bronze badges
New contributor
asked 2 days ago
user3512967user3512967
3982 silver badges6 bronze badges
3982 silver badges6 bronze badges
New contributor
New contributor
3
Have you tried putting your public IP address into your web browser's address bar to see if it will connect to anything? Try with both "http://1.1.1.1
" and "https://1.1.1.1
" (note the S in the second URL).
– Ghedipunk
2 days ago
4
Also, since you are running credit cards that are physically located at your office, you do need to secure your network to be PCI compliant. This will probably just be configuring a firewall on your modem/router, though I'm putting off making an answer to this question depending on what you'd see from trying to bring up your IP address in your browser.
– Ghedipunk
2 days ago
20
@user3512967 that cert and user prompt is almost certainly to log in and control the modem itself. It really shouldn't be exposed to the Internet at large.
– gowenfawr
2 days ago
9
"Also, since you are running credit cards that are physically located at your office, you do need to secure your network to be PCI compliant." That depends on the card terminal, the good terminal providers works hard to keep the stores network out-of-scope for PCI.
– Mattias
yesterday
20
From whom did you get this report? Were they trying to sell you something to fix it?
– Kevin
yesterday
|
show 9 more comments
3
Have you tried putting your public IP address into your web browser's address bar to see if it will connect to anything? Try with both "http://1.1.1.1
" and "https://1.1.1.1
" (note the S in the second URL).
– Ghedipunk
2 days ago
4
Also, since you are running credit cards that are physically located at your office, you do need to secure your network to be PCI compliant. This will probably just be configuring a firewall on your modem/router, though I'm putting off making an answer to this question depending on what you'd see from trying to bring up your IP address in your browser.
– Ghedipunk
2 days ago
20
@user3512967 that cert and user prompt is almost certainly to log in and control the modem itself. It really shouldn't be exposed to the Internet at large.
– gowenfawr
2 days ago
9
"Also, since you are running credit cards that are physically located at your office, you do need to secure your network to be PCI compliant." That depends on the card terminal, the good terminal providers works hard to keep the stores network out-of-scope for PCI.
– Mattias
yesterday
20
From whom did you get this report? Were they trying to sell you something to fix it?
– Kevin
yesterday
3
3
Have you tried putting your public IP address into your web browser's address bar to see if it will connect to anything? Try with both "
http://1.1.1.1
" and "https://1.1.1.1
" (note the S in the second URL).– Ghedipunk
2 days ago
Have you tried putting your public IP address into your web browser's address bar to see if it will connect to anything? Try with both "
http://1.1.1.1
" and "https://1.1.1.1
" (note the S in the second URL).– Ghedipunk
2 days ago
4
4
Also, since you are running credit cards that are physically located at your office, you do need to secure your network to be PCI compliant. This will probably just be configuring a firewall on your modem/router, though I'm putting off making an answer to this question depending on what you'd see from trying to bring up your IP address in your browser.
– Ghedipunk
2 days ago
Also, since you are running credit cards that are physically located at your office, you do need to secure your network to be PCI compliant. This will probably just be configuring a firewall on your modem/router, though I'm putting off making an answer to this question depending on what you'd see from trying to bring up your IP address in your browser.
– Ghedipunk
2 days ago
20
20
@user3512967 that cert and user prompt is almost certainly to log in and control the modem itself. It really shouldn't be exposed to the Internet at large.
– gowenfawr
2 days ago
@user3512967 that cert and user prompt is almost certainly to log in and control the modem itself. It really shouldn't be exposed to the Internet at large.
– gowenfawr
2 days ago
9
9
"Also, since you are running credit cards that are physically located at your office, you do need to secure your network to be PCI compliant." That depends on the card terminal, the good terminal providers works hard to keep the stores network out-of-scope for PCI.
– Mattias
yesterday
"Also, since you are running credit cards that are physically located at your office, you do need to secure your network to be PCI compliant." That depends on the card terminal, the good terminal providers works hard to keep the stores network out-of-scope for PCI.
– Mattias
yesterday
20
20
From whom did you get this report? Were they trying to sell you something to fix it?
– Kevin
yesterday
From whom did you get this report? Were they trying to sell you something to fix it?
– Kevin
yesterday
|
show 9 more comments
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
At our office with connect to the internet through our cable modem
provided to us by Spectrum Business.
Our Treasurer uses a verifone vx520 card reader to process credit card
payments. It connects via ethernet. We don't store credit card data.
It sounds like you fall under SAQ B-IP (and you will be amused that the mnemonic is that "SAQ B-for-Brick-and-Mortar"):
SAQ B-IP has been developed to address requirements applicable to
merchants who process cardholder data only via standalone,
PTS-approved point-of-interaction (POI) devices with an IP connection
to the payment processor
It sounds like someone did an external ASV ("Approved Scanning Vendor") scan on your known IP address and found the cable modem was, unsurprisingly, not up to snuff.
Am I suppose to do something here? Is any of this applicable to us?
Yes, this is applicable to you, and many other things besides, all of which are outlined in the Self Assessment Questionnaire linked above. And if your other office systems - desktops, printers, whatever - are also sitting on the same network behind that cable modem, then the requirements of the SAQ apply to those as well. Things like patching and access controls.
For now, you will need to continue to work with your ISP. They either need to update the modem, upgrade it, or get it to stop accepting connections from the Internet at large.
To break down those error messages for you:
Part 2b-1. 38173 - SSL Certificate - Signature Verification Failed Vulnerability
There's likely a self-signed certificate on that device, common for things like cable modems that need TLS but don't care about being trusted by random users. (PCI cares, though, even when users don't).
Part 2b-6. 38628 - SSL/TLS Server supports TLSv1.0
When you go to a secure web site today, it's usually TLSv1.2 or TLSv1.1. TLSv1.0 is old, relatively insecure, and PCI declared it unacceptable to use a few years ago.
Part 2b-7. 38601 - SSL/TLS use of weak RC4(Arcfour) cipher (CVE-2013-2566, CVE-2015-2808)
TLS gets to pick from multiple algorithms; over time, weaknesses are found and individual algorithms get retired because of it. RC4 got retired a few years ago.
3
If the verifone and processor were P2PE-certified, would that remove the whole store network from scope? I’m not very familiar with B, but my impression is that if the device is encrypting everything then there is no “card data environment”, so presumably most questions wouldn’t apply. But I have no idea if that’s how it actually works for a location like this.
– Bobson
2 days ago
2
@Bobson I don't think so; see Q4 of the P2PE FAQ. But IANAQSA!
– gowenfawr
2 days ago
38
RC4 may have been officially retired only a few years ago, but it was discovered to be broken literally hours after it was published in public, in the 90s. It's only through incompetence that it was used for so long.
– forest
yesterday
9
RC4 should be called "poor man's plaintext"
– Hagen von Eitzen
yesterday
3
@Bobson you would have to do SAQ-P2PE instead, which has far fewer requirements than B-IP (and doesn't have the ASV scan, or really anything related to your network).
– rbsec
yesterday
|
show 2 more comments
Since you are physically handling cards, and sending that card data across a network to your card processor, you do need to secure your network. Besides just being compliant in order to get auditors off your case, if someone sneaks a program into your network, it might be able to eavesdrop on the rest of the network and steal that card data.
Based on your question and comments, some computer in your network has a web server that is publicly responding to requests.
It is most likely the cable modem/router itself, and the web server is part of a remote management console -- It allows you or your ISP to change settings without needing to be inside of the network. It also allows anyone else in the world to change settings, as well, though.
The error message that you're getting is saying SSL/TLS Server supports TLSv1.0
, (among a couple other errors) which means that the web server is using security settings that are several years old. This is what your card processor is complaining about -- That web server is just too old and there are several known vulnerabilities.
However, your most critical problem is that there is a remote management console that is available to the public. People can guess the login information at their leisure and gain access to your internal network. When you turn off remote management in your modem, your card processor should be able to scan your network and won't be able to see anything at all, and you'll be back in PCI compliance (assuming that you were in compliance before).
"it might be able to eavesdrop on the rest of the network and steal that card data" - card processing isn't my thing, but I assumed they would be robust to that threat.
– Flexo
52 mins ago
add a comment |
In the big picture, the problem is that internet-connected devices face a lot of security threats. The other answers give good tips to address the specific issues that were detected this time.
On the other hand, if you'd prefer to stay out of that whole mess, you could downgrade to a standalone payment terminal that uses an analog phone line and doesn't touch the internet. It may not avoid all possible security problems, especially in the long term, but for now it will move you back from SAQ B-IP to SAQ B:
SAQ B: "...Standalone, dial-out terminals..."
SAQ B-IP: "...standalone...terminals with an IP connection..."
The advantages of moving to a dial-out terminal using an analog phone line are:
- It takes your modem and other internet-connected devices out of the picture
- You're less likely to be affected by new PCI security requirements
- You're less likely to be affected by some future internet-based credit card security breach
The disadvantages are:
- It might not be supported by your current payment processor (ask them)
- It requires a regular analog phone line, not VOIP or anything like that
EDIT: After reading Harper's answer recommending P2PE, I now think it's a bad idea for any regular brick-and-mortar business to try to address its own SAQ B-IP issues as suggested by other answers. Trying to keep up with SAQ B-IP is simply too risky. A regular brick-and-mortar business should only use solutions under SAQ B (dial-out terminals) or SAQ P2PE-HW:
SAQ P2PE-HW: "...terminals...managed by a validated, PCI SSC-listed P2PE solution..."
4
Disadvantage three: unless you add a phone line just for that, you’ll have customers standing around waiting (or leaving in a huff) while you’re phone line is busy doing something else. (I once waited many minutes for a card transaction while someone else was trying to decide what to do at an ATM dialing out on the store’s only line!)
– WGroleau
yesterday
@WGroleau the vendor would probably have to get a phone line (a physical wire) installed for him if he want to use an analog phone for dial-up these days. In some places it might not even be available. I doubt he will have trouble with a blocked phone line. Of course YMMV depending on your country and province.
– Mindwin
yesterday
Indeed. My incident was less than three years ago.
– WGroleau
yesterday
2
Where I'm from a lot of shops use mobile (GSM/3G/4G) payment terminals connected directly to the internet. In such cases I assume the vendor/manufacturer is responsible for PCI compliance. You do need to pay for a data plan for the sim card though.
– slebetman
23 hours ago
Saying "Trying to keep up with SAQ B-IP is simply too risky" is like saying "PCI compliance is too hard for merchants to meet and maintain." I'm not saying either statement is wrong, mind you, but let's be aware we're surrendering when we do it.
– gowenfawr
6 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
TLDR: that card reader stinks, and exposes you to all sorts of liability. Get a modern card terminal with P2PE.
You need to comply with PCI... unless...
PCI-DSS is serious business. Most small businesses do not have a breach. But if you do have a breach (which would most likely be crackers surveilling your credit card transactions for an extended period of time), you'll need to pay extremely painful penalties that have a (the figure I've heard is 90%) chance of bankrupting your small business.
What is in scope for PCI is
- your card terminal
- the network it's on
- every PC, wait, device that can access that network
- including IoT: security cameras, Sense power monitor, and every silly WiFi-enabled gadget you bought on a lark and forgot all about
- every network that can access that network, and
- every PC, er, device on those networks.
... unless you avoid the entire issue with P2PE
If the data going through your app, PC, phone or network is all encrypted with strong encryption, then PCI-DSS doesn't apply to it. This is a very useful escape!
When Square came out with the first card reader for proprietorship sized businesses, it was a simple magnetic tape head. Obviously, the Square app handled card data "in the clear". That placed the app, phone/tablet, network etc. in scope for PCI-DSS.
PayPal Here put an encryption processor inside the scanner fob itself. The fob itself talks to PayPal servers, via Point to Point Encryption (P2PE, or as we call it, a "secure VPN"). The PayPal app simply relays the encrypted data, and it cannot know what it says (and neither can anyone else). If everything checks out, PayPal servers tell the PayPal app "approved".
Because the app, phone and network see only encrypted data, that does not place them in scope of PCI-DSS. All you have to do is make sure your fob has not been physically tampered with.
Consequences of a breach
- A PCI audit, upfront, even if you are proved to be innocent
- The fraudulent transactions themselves, if you are guilty
- The cost of reissuing credit cards to all the customers
- Penalties
I've heard statistics that a breach and the consequences about 90% of affected small businesses into bankruptcy. It nearly did in Target, after all!
Needless to say, P2PE is not only a smart way to go, it's the only way to go, in my book.
Why isn't every acquirer supporting P2PE and even making you use it? Because the industry kinda sucks that way, and a rapid switch-over will break a lot of larger businesses that do things with credit card data (think: Home Depot's ability to find your receipts and do returns based solely on your credit card number). They took over 10 years to adopt chip, and they'll probably take another 10 to adopt P2PE. This is one reason I do not like the traditional acquirer model. That, and their prices.
This seems to be the simplest solution --- many card readers are simply just that (i.e., "readers!"), not necessarily doing any "encryption" on their end either!
– ManRow
3 hours ago
add a comment |
If user3512967's modem is like mine, then hardening the web interface's TLS settings is pointless.
My Cisco EPC3212 has an interface that is accessible from within the LAN via HTTP only. It has login credentials that can be googled and cannot be changed. Even if it were served via TLS (weak or strong), my network would not be more secure. Public knowledge cannot be undisclosed.
So my question is: Does user3512967's modem's interface offer restriction-worthy control or confidential information that is not accessible via public knowledge? If it does not, then fixing it's TLS does not solve anything.
New contributor
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "162"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
user3512967 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsecurity.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f214513%2fbeing-told-my-network-isnt-pci-compliant-i-dont-even-have-a-server-do-i-ha%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
At our office with connect to the internet through our cable modem
provided to us by Spectrum Business.
Our Treasurer uses a verifone vx520 card reader to process credit card
payments. It connects via ethernet. We don't store credit card data.
It sounds like you fall under SAQ B-IP (and you will be amused that the mnemonic is that "SAQ B-for-Brick-and-Mortar"):
SAQ B-IP has been developed to address requirements applicable to
merchants who process cardholder data only via standalone,
PTS-approved point-of-interaction (POI) devices with an IP connection
to the payment processor
It sounds like someone did an external ASV ("Approved Scanning Vendor") scan on your known IP address and found the cable modem was, unsurprisingly, not up to snuff.
Am I suppose to do something here? Is any of this applicable to us?
Yes, this is applicable to you, and many other things besides, all of which are outlined in the Self Assessment Questionnaire linked above. And if your other office systems - desktops, printers, whatever - are also sitting on the same network behind that cable modem, then the requirements of the SAQ apply to those as well. Things like patching and access controls.
For now, you will need to continue to work with your ISP. They either need to update the modem, upgrade it, or get it to stop accepting connections from the Internet at large.
To break down those error messages for you:
Part 2b-1. 38173 - SSL Certificate - Signature Verification Failed Vulnerability
There's likely a self-signed certificate on that device, common for things like cable modems that need TLS but don't care about being trusted by random users. (PCI cares, though, even when users don't).
Part 2b-6. 38628 - SSL/TLS Server supports TLSv1.0
When you go to a secure web site today, it's usually TLSv1.2 or TLSv1.1. TLSv1.0 is old, relatively insecure, and PCI declared it unacceptable to use a few years ago.
Part 2b-7. 38601 - SSL/TLS use of weak RC4(Arcfour) cipher (CVE-2013-2566, CVE-2015-2808)
TLS gets to pick from multiple algorithms; over time, weaknesses are found and individual algorithms get retired because of it. RC4 got retired a few years ago.
3
If the verifone and processor were P2PE-certified, would that remove the whole store network from scope? I’m not very familiar with B, but my impression is that if the device is encrypting everything then there is no “card data environment”, so presumably most questions wouldn’t apply. But I have no idea if that’s how it actually works for a location like this.
– Bobson
2 days ago
2
@Bobson I don't think so; see Q4 of the P2PE FAQ. But IANAQSA!
– gowenfawr
2 days ago
38
RC4 may have been officially retired only a few years ago, but it was discovered to be broken literally hours after it was published in public, in the 90s. It's only through incompetence that it was used for so long.
– forest
yesterday
9
RC4 should be called "poor man's plaintext"
– Hagen von Eitzen
yesterday
3
@Bobson you would have to do SAQ-P2PE instead, which has far fewer requirements than B-IP (and doesn't have the ASV scan, or really anything related to your network).
– rbsec
yesterday
|
show 2 more comments
At our office with connect to the internet through our cable modem
provided to us by Spectrum Business.
Our Treasurer uses a verifone vx520 card reader to process credit card
payments. It connects via ethernet. We don't store credit card data.
It sounds like you fall under SAQ B-IP (and you will be amused that the mnemonic is that "SAQ B-for-Brick-and-Mortar"):
SAQ B-IP has been developed to address requirements applicable to
merchants who process cardholder data only via standalone,
PTS-approved point-of-interaction (POI) devices with an IP connection
to the payment processor
It sounds like someone did an external ASV ("Approved Scanning Vendor") scan on your known IP address and found the cable modem was, unsurprisingly, not up to snuff.
Am I suppose to do something here? Is any of this applicable to us?
Yes, this is applicable to you, and many other things besides, all of which are outlined in the Self Assessment Questionnaire linked above. And if your other office systems - desktops, printers, whatever - are also sitting on the same network behind that cable modem, then the requirements of the SAQ apply to those as well. Things like patching and access controls.
For now, you will need to continue to work with your ISP. They either need to update the modem, upgrade it, or get it to stop accepting connections from the Internet at large.
To break down those error messages for you:
Part 2b-1. 38173 - SSL Certificate - Signature Verification Failed Vulnerability
There's likely a self-signed certificate on that device, common for things like cable modems that need TLS but don't care about being trusted by random users. (PCI cares, though, even when users don't).
Part 2b-6. 38628 - SSL/TLS Server supports TLSv1.0
When you go to a secure web site today, it's usually TLSv1.2 or TLSv1.1. TLSv1.0 is old, relatively insecure, and PCI declared it unacceptable to use a few years ago.
Part 2b-7. 38601 - SSL/TLS use of weak RC4(Arcfour) cipher (CVE-2013-2566, CVE-2015-2808)
TLS gets to pick from multiple algorithms; over time, weaknesses are found and individual algorithms get retired because of it. RC4 got retired a few years ago.
3
If the verifone and processor were P2PE-certified, would that remove the whole store network from scope? I’m not very familiar with B, but my impression is that if the device is encrypting everything then there is no “card data environment”, so presumably most questions wouldn’t apply. But I have no idea if that’s how it actually works for a location like this.
– Bobson
2 days ago
2
@Bobson I don't think so; see Q4 of the P2PE FAQ. But IANAQSA!
– gowenfawr
2 days ago
38
RC4 may have been officially retired only a few years ago, but it was discovered to be broken literally hours after it was published in public, in the 90s. It's only through incompetence that it was used for so long.
– forest
yesterday
9
RC4 should be called "poor man's plaintext"
– Hagen von Eitzen
yesterday
3
@Bobson you would have to do SAQ-P2PE instead, which has far fewer requirements than B-IP (and doesn't have the ASV scan, or really anything related to your network).
– rbsec
yesterday
|
show 2 more comments
At our office with connect to the internet through our cable modem
provided to us by Spectrum Business.
Our Treasurer uses a verifone vx520 card reader to process credit card
payments. It connects via ethernet. We don't store credit card data.
It sounds like you fall under SAQ B-IP (and you will be amused that the mnemonic is that "SAQ B-for-Brick-and-Mortar"):
SAQ B-IP has been developed to address requirements applicable to
merchants who process cardholder data only via standalone,
PTS-approved point-of-interaction (POI) devices with an IP connection
to the payment processor
It sounds like someone did an external ASV ("Approved Scanning Vendor") scan on your known IP address and found the cable modem was, unsurprisingly, not up to snuff.
Am I suppose to do something here? Is any of this applicable to us?
Yes, this is applicable to you, and many other things besides, all of which are outlined in the Self Assessment Questionnaire linked above. And if your other office systems - desktops, printers, whatever - are also sitting on the same network behind that cable modem, then the requirements of the SAQ apply to those as well. Things like patching and access controls.
For now, you will need to continue to work with your ISP. They either need to update the modem, upgrade it, or get it to stop accepting connections from the Internet at large.
To break down those error messages for you:
Part 2b-1. 38173 - SSL Certificate - Signature Verification Failed Vulnerability
There's likely a self-signed certificate on that device, common for things like cable modems that need TLS but don't care about being trusted by random users. (PCI cares, though, even when users don't).
Part 2b-6. 38628 - SSL/TLS Server supports TLSv1.0
When you go to a secure web site today, it's usually TLSv1.2 or TLSv1.1. TLSv1.0 is old, relatively insecure, and PCI declared it unacceptable to use a few years ago.
Part 2b-7. 38601 - SSL/TLS use of weak RC4(Arcfour) cipher (CVE-2013-2566, CVE-2015-2808)
TLS gets to pick from multiple algorithms; over time, weaknesses are found and individual algorithms get retired because of it. RC4 got retired a few years ago.
At our office with connect to the internet through our cable modem
provided to us by Spectrum Business.
Our Treasurer uses a verifone vx520 card reader to process credit card
payments. It connects via ethernet. We don't store credit card data.
It sounds like you fall under SAQ B-IP (and you will be amused that the mnemonic is that "SAQ B-for-Brick-and-Mortar"):
SAQ B-IP has been developed to address requirements applicable to
merchants who process cardholder data only via standalone,
PTS-approved point-of-interaction (POI) devices with an IP connection
to the payment processor
It sounds like someone did an external ASV ("Approved Scanning Vendor") scan on your known IP address and found the cable modem was, unsurprisingly, not up to snuff.
Am I suppose to do something here? Is any of this applicable to us?
Yes, this is applicable to you, and many other things besides, all of which are outlined in the Self Assessment Questionnaire linked above. And if your other office systems - desktops, printers, whatever - are also sitting on the same network behind that cable modem, then the requirements of the SAQ apply to those as well. Things like patching and access controls.
For now, you will need to continue to work with your ISP. They either need to update the modem, upgrade it, or get it to stop accepting connections from the Internet at large.
To break down those error messages for you:
Part 2b-1. 38173 - SSL Certificate - Signature Verification Failed Vulnerability
There's likely a self-signed certificate on that device, common for things like cable modems that need TLS but don't care about being trusted by random users. (PCI cares, though, even when users don't).
Part 2b-6. 38628 - SSL/TLS Server supports TLSv1.0
When you go to a secure web site today, it's usually TLSv1.2 or TLSv1.1. TLSv1.0 is old, relatively insecure, and PCI declared it unacceptable to use a few years ago.
Part 2b-7. 38601 - SSL/TLS use of weak RC4(Arcfour) cipher (CVE-2013-2566, CVE-2015-2808)
TLS gets to pick from multiple algorithms; over time, weaknesses are found and individual algorithms get retired because of it. RC4 got retired a few years ago.
edited 2 days ago
answered 2 days ago
gowenfawrgowenfawr
56.7k11 gold badges124 silver badges168 bronze badges
56.7k11 gold badges124 silver badges168 bronze badges
3
If the verifone and processor were P2PE-certified, would that remove the whole store network from scope? I’m not very familiar with B, but my impression is that if the device is encrypting everything then there is no “card data environment”, so presumably most questions wouldn’t apply. But I have no idea if that’s how it actually works for a location like this.
– Bobson
2 days ago
2
@Bobson I don't think so; see Q4 of the P2PE FAQ. But IANAQSA!
– gowenfawr
2 days ago
38
RC4 may have been officially retired only a few years ago, but it was discovered to be broken literally hours after it was published in public, in the 90s. It's only through incompetence that it was used for so long.
– forest
yesterday
9
RC4 should be called "poor man's plaintext"
– Hagen von Eitzen
yesterday
3
@Bobson you would have to do SAQ-P2PE instead, which has far fewer requirements than B-IP (and doesn't have the ASV scan, or really anything related to your network).
– rbsec
yesterday
|
show 2 more comments
3
If the verifone and processor were P2PE-certified, would that remove the whole store network from scope? I’m not very familiar with B, but my impression is that if the device is encrypting everything then there is no “card data environment”, so presumably most questions wouldn’t apply. But I have no idea if that’s how it actually works for a location like this.
– Bobson
2 days ago
2
@Bobson I don't think so; see Q4 of the P2PE FAQ. But IANAQSA!
– gowenfawr
2 days ago
38
RC4 may have been officially retired only a few years ago, but it was discovered to be broken literally hours after it was published in public, in the 90s. It's only through incompetence that it was used for so long.
– forest
yesterday
9
RC4 should be called "poor man's plaintext"
– Hagen von Eitzen
yesterday
3
@Bobson you would have to do SAQ-P2PE instead, which has far fewer requirements than B-IP (and doesn't have the ASV scan, or really anything related to your network).
– rbsec
yesterday
3
3
If the verifone and processor were P2PE-certified, would that remove the whole store network from scope? I’m not very familiar with B, but my impression is that if the device is encrypting everything then there is no “card data environment”, so presumably most questions wouldn’t apply. But I have no idea if that’s how it actually works for a location like this.
– Bobson
2 days ago
If the verifone and processor were P2PE-certified, would that remove the whole store network from scope? I’m not very familiar with B, but my impression is that if the device is encrypting everything then there is no “card data environment”, so presumably most questions wouldn’t apply. But I have no idea if that’s how it actually works for a location like this.
– Bobson
2 days ago
2
2
@Bobson I don't think so; see Q4 of the P2PE FAQ. But IANAQSA!
– gowenfawr
2 days ago
@Bobson I don't think so; see Q4 of the P2PE FAQ. But IANAQSA!
– gowenfawr
2 days ago
38
38
RC4 may have been officially retired only a few years ago, but it was discovered to be broken literally hours after it was published in public, in the 90s. It's only through incompetence that it was used for so long.
– forest
yesterday
RC4 may have been officially retired only a few years ago, but it was discovered to be broken literally hours after it was published in public, in the 90s. It's only through incompetence that it was used for so long.
– forest
yesterday
9
9
RC4 should be called "poor man's plaintext"
– Hagen von Eitzen
yesterday
RC4 should be called "poor man's plaintext"
– Hagen von Eitzen
yesterday
3
3
@Bobson you would have to do SAQ-P2PE instead, which has far fewer requirements than B-IP (and doesn't have the ASV scan, or really anything related to your network).
– rbsec
yesterday
@Bobson you would have to do SAQ-P2PE instead, which has far fewer requirements than B-IP (and doesn't have the ASV scan, or really anything related to your network).
– rbsec
yesterday
|
show 2 more comments
Since you are physically handling cards, and sending that card data across a network to your card processor, you do need to secure your network. Besides just being compliant in order to get auditors off your case, if someone sneaks a program into your network, it might be able to eavesdrop on the rest of the network and steal that card data.
Based on your question and comments, some computer in your network has a web server that is publicly responding to requests.
It is most likely the cable modem/router itself, and the web server is part of a remote management console -- It allows you or your ISP to change settings without needing to be inside of the network. It also allows anyone else in the world to change settings, as well, though.
The error message that you're getting is saying SSL/TLS Server supports TLSv1.0
, (among a couple other errors) which means that the web server is using security settings that are several years old. This is what your card processor is complaining about -- That web server is just too old and there are several known vulnerabilities.
However, your most critical problem is that there is a remote management console that is available to the public. People can guess the login information at their leisure and gain access to your internal network. When you turn off remote management in your modem, your card processor should be able to scan your network and won't be able to see anything at all, and you'll be back in PCI compliance (assuming that you were in compliance before).
"it might be able to eavesdrop on the rest of the network and steal that card data" - card processing isn't my thing, but I assumed they would be robust to that threat.
– Flexo
52 mins ago
add a comment |
Since you are physically handling cards, and sending that card data across a network to your card processor, you do need to secure your network. Besides just being compliant in order to get auditors off your case, if someone sneaks a program into your network, it might be able to eavesdrop on the rest of the network and steal that card data.
Based on your question and comments, some computer in your network has a web server that is publicly responding to requests.
It is most likely the cable modem/router itself, and the web server is part of a remote management console -- It allows you or your ISP to change settings without needing to be inside of the network. It also allows anyone else in the world to change settings, as well, though.
The error message that you're getting is saying SSL/TLS Server supports TLSv1.0
, (among a couple other errors) which means that the web server is using security settings that are several years old. This is what your card processor is complaining about -- That web server is just too old and there are several known vulnerabilities.
However, your most critical problem is that there is a remote management console that is available to the public. People can guess the login information at their leisure and gain access to your internal network. When you turn off remote management in your modem, your card processor should be able to scan your network and won't be able to see anything at all, and you'll be back in PCI compliance (assuming that you were in compliance before).
"it might be able to eavesdrop on the rest of the network and steal that card data" - card processing isn't my thing, but I assumed they would be robust to that threat.
– Flexo
52 mins ago
add a comment |
Since you are physically handling cards, and sending that card data across a network to your card processor, you do need to secure your network. Besides just being compliant in order to get auditors off your case, if someone sneaks a program into your network, it might be able to eavesdrop on the rest of the network and steal that card data.
Based on your question and comments, some computer in your network has a web server that is publicly responding to requests.
It is most likely the cable modem/router itself, and the web server is part of a remote management console -- It allows you or your ISP to change settings without needing to be inside of the network. It also allows anyone else in the world to change settings, as well, though.
The error message that you're getting is saying SSL/TLS Server supports TLSv1.0
, (among a couple other errors) which means that the web server is using security settings that are several years old. This is what your card processor is complaining about -- That web server is just too old and there are several known vulnerabilities.
However, your most critical problem is that there is a remote management console that is available to the public. People can guess the login information at their leisure and gain access to your internal network. When you turn off remote management in your modem, your card processor should be able to scan your network and won't be able to see anything at all, and you'll be back in PCI compliance (assuming that you were in compliance before).
Since you are physically handling cards, and sending that card data across a network to your card processor, you do need to secure your network. Besides just being compliant in order to get auditors off your case, if someone sneaks a program into your network, it might be able to eavesdrop on the rest of the network and steal that card data.
Based on your question and comments, some computer in your network has a web server that is publicly responding to requests.
It is most likely the cable modem/router itself, and the web server is part of a remote management console -- It allows you or your ISP to change settings without needing to be inside of the network. It also allows anyone else in the world to change settings, as well, though.
The error message that you're getting is saying SSL/TLS Server supports TLSv1.0
, (among a couple other errors) which means that the web server is using security settings that are several years old. This is what your card processor is complaining about -- That web server is just too old and there are several known vulnerabilities.
However, your most critical problem is that there is a remote management console that is available to the public. People can guess the login information at their leisure and gain access to your internal network. When you turn off remote management in your modem, your card processor should be able to scan your network and won't be able to see anything at all, and you'll be back in PCI compliance (assuming that you were in compliance before).
answered 2 days ago
GhedipunkGhedipunk
3,7351 gold badge15 silver badges25 bronze badges
3,7351 gold badge15 silver badges25 bronze badges
"it might be able to eavesdrop on the rest of the network and steal that card data" - card processing isn't my thing, but I assumed they would be robust to that threat.
– Flexo
52 mins ago
add a comment |
"it might be able to eavesdrop on the rest of the network and steal that card data" - card processing isn't my thing, but I assumed they would be robust to that threat.
– Flexo
52 mins ago
"it might be able to eavesdrop on the rest of the network and steal that card data" - card processing isn't my thing, but I assumed they would be robust to that threat.
– Flexo
52 mins ago
"it might be able to eavesdrop on the rest of the network and steal that card data" - card processing isn't my thing, but I assumed they would be robust to that threat.
– Flexo
52 mins ago
add a comment |
In the big picture, the problem is that internet-connected devices face a lot of security threats. The other answers give good tips to address the specific issues that were detected this time.
On the other hand, if you'd prefer to stay out of that whole mess, you could downgrade to a standalone payment terminal that uses an analog phone line and doesn't touch the internet. It may not avoid all possible security problems, especially in the long term, but for now it will move you back from SAQ B-IP to SAQ B:
SAQ B: "...Standalone, dial-out terminals..."
SAQ B-IP: "...standalone...terminals with an IP connection..."
The advantages of moving to a dial-out terminal using an analog phone line are:
- It takes your modem and other internet-connected devices out of the picture
- You're less likely to be affected by new PCI security requirements
- You're less likely to be affected by some future internet-based credit card security breach
The disadvantages are:
- It might not be supported by your current payment processor (ask them)
- It requires a regular analog phone line, not VOIP or anything like that
EDIT: After reading Harper's answer recommending P2PE, I now think it's a bad idea for any regular brick-and-mortar business to try to address its own SAQ B-IP issues as suggested by other answers. Trying to keep up with SAQ B-IP is simply too risky. A regular brick-and-mortar business should only use solutions under SAQ B (dial-out terminals) or SAQ P2PE-HW:
SAQ P2PE-HW: "...terminals...managed by a validated, PCI SSC-listed P2PE solution..."
4
Disadvantage three: unless you add a phone line just for that, you’ll have customers standing around waiting (or leaving in a huff) while you’re phone line is busy doing something else. (I once waited many minutes for a card transaction while someone else was trying to decide what to do at an ATM dialing out on the store’s only line!)
– WGroleau
yesterday
@WGroleau the vendor would probably have to get a phone line (a physical wire) installed for him if he want to use an analog phone for dial-up these days. In some places it might not even be available. I doubt he will have trouble with a blocked phone line. Of course YMMV depending on your country and province.
– Mindwin
yesterday
Indeed. My incident was less than three years ago.
– WGroleau
yesterday
2
Where I'm from a lot of shops use mobile (GSM/3G/4G) payment terminals connected directly to the internet. In such cases I assume the vendor/manufacturer is responsible for PCI compliance. You do need to pay for a data plan for the sim card though.
– slebetman
23 hours ago
Saying "Trying to keep up with SAQ B-IP is simply too risky" is like saying "PCI compliance is too hard for merchants to meet and maintain." I'm not saying either statement is wrong, mind you, but let's be aware we're surrendering when we do it.
– gowenfawr
6 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
In the big picture, the problem is that internet-connected devices face a lot of security threats. The other answers give good tips to address the specific issues that were detected this time.
On the other hand, if you'd prefer to stay out of that whole mess, you could downgrade to a standalone payment terminal that uses an analog phone line and doesn't touch the internet. It may not avoid all possible security problems, especially in the long term, but for now it will move you back from SAQ B-IP to SAQ B:
SAQ B: "...Standalone, dial-out terminals..."
SAQ B-IP: "...standalone...terminals with an IP connection..."
The advantages of moving to a dial-out terminal using an analog phone line are:
- It takes your modem and other internet-connected devices out of the picture
- You're less likely to be affected by new PCI security requirements
- You're less likely to be affected by some future internet-based credit card security breach
The disadvantages are:
- It might not be supported by your current payment processor (ask them)
- It requires a regular analog phone line, not VOIP or anything like that
EDIT: After reading Harper's answer recommending P2PE, I now think it's a bad idea for any regular brick-and-mortar business to try to address its own SAQ B-IP issues as suggested by other answers. Trying to keep up with SAQ B-IP is simply too risky. A regular brick-and-mortar business should only use solutions under SAQ B (dial-out terminals) or SAQ P2PE-HW:
SAQ P2PE-HW: "...terminals...managed by a validated, PCI SSC-listed P2PE solution..."
4
Disadvantage three: unless you add a phone line just for that, you’ll have customers standing around waiting (or leaving in a huff) while you’re phone line is busy doing something else. (I once waited many minutes for a card transaction while someone else was trying to decide what to do at an ATM dialing out on the store’s only line!)
– WGroleau
yesterday
@WGroleau the vendor would probably have to get a phone line (a physical wire) installed for him if he want to use an analog phone for dial-up these days. In some places it might not even be available. I doubt he will have trouble with a blocked phone line. Of course YMMV depending on your country and province.
– Mindwin
yesterday
Indeed. My incident was less than three years ago.
– WGroleau
yesterday
2
Where I'm from a lot of shops use mobile (GSM/3G/4G) payment terminals connected directly to the internet. In such cases I assume the vendor/manufacturer is responsible for PCI compliance. You do need to pay for a data plan for the sim card though.
– slebetman
23 hours ago
Saying "Trying to keep up with SAQ B-IP is simply too risky" is like saying "PCI compliance is too hard for merchants to meet and maintain." I'm not saying either statement is wrong, mind you, but let's be aware we're surrendering when we do it.
– gowenfawr
6 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
In the big picture, the problem is that internet-connected devices face a lot of security threats. The other answers give good tips to address the specific issues that were detected this time.
On the other hand, if you'd prefer to stay out of that whole mess, you could downgrade to a standalone payment terminal that uses an analog phone line and doesn't touch the internet. It may not avoid all possible security problems, especially in the long term, but for now it will move you back from SAQ B-IP to SAQ B:
SAQ B: "...Standalone, dial-out terminals..."
SAQ B-IP: "...standalone...terminals with an IP connection..."
The advantages of moving to a dial-out terminal using an analog phone line are:
- It takes your modem and other internet-connected devices out of the picture
- You're less likely to be affected by new PCI security requirements
- You're less likely to be affected by some future internet-based credit card security breach
The disadvantages are:
- It might not be supported by your current payment processor (ask them)
- It requires a regular analog phone line, not VOIP or anything like that
EDIT: After reading Harper's answer recommending P2PE, I now think it's a bad idea for any regular brick-and-mortar business to try to address its own SAQ B-IP issues as suggested by other answers. Trying to keep up with SAQ B-IP is simply too risky. A regular brick-and-mortar business should only use solutions under SAQ B (dial-out terminals) or SAQ P2PE-HW:
SAQ P2PE-HW: "...terminals...managed by a validated, PCI SSC-listed P2PE solution..."
In the big picture, the problem is that internet-connected devices face a lot of security threats. The other answers give good tips to address the specific issues that were detected this time.
On the other hand, if you'd prefer to stay out of that whole mess, you could downgrade to a standalone payment terminal that uses an analog phone line and doesn't touch the internet. It may not avoid all possible security problems, especially in the long term, but for now it will move you back from SAQ B-IP to SAQ B:
SAQ B: "...Standalone, dial-out terminals..."
SAQ B-IP: "...standalone...terminals with an IP connection..."
The advantages of moving to a dial-out terminal using an analog phone line are:
- It takes your modem and other internet-connected devices out of the picture
- You're less likely to be affected by new PCI security requirements
- You're less likely to be affected by some future internet-based credit card security breach
The disadvantages are:
- It might not be supported by your current payment processor (ask them)
- It requires a regular analog phone line, not VOIP or anything like that
EDIT: After reading Harper's answer recommending P2PE, I now think it's a bad idea for any regular brick-and-mortar business to try to address its own SAQ B-IP issues as suggested by other answers. Trying to keep up with SAQ B-IP is simply too risky. A regular brick-and-mortar business should only use solutions under SAQ B (dial-out terminals) or SAQ P2PE-HW:
SAQ P2PE-HW: "...terminals...managed by a validated, PCI SSC-listed P2PE solution..."
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
KruboKrubo
4894 silver badges8 bronze badges
4894 silver badges8 bronze badges
4
Disadvantage three: unless you add a phone line just for that, you’ll have customers standing around waiting (or leaving in a huff) while you’re phone line is busy doing something else. (I once waited many minutes for a card transaction while someone else was trying to decide what to do at an ATM dialing out on the store’s only line!)
– WGroleau
yesterday
@WGroleau the vendor would probably have to get a phone line (a physical wire) installed for him if he want to use an analog phone for dial-up these days. In some places it might not even be available. I doubt he will have trouble with a blocked phone line. Of course YMMV depending on your country and province.
– Mindwin
yesterday
Indeed. My incident was less than three years ago.
– WGroleau
yesterday
2
Where I'm from a lot of shops use mobile (GSM/3G/4G) payment terminals connected directly to the internet. In such cases I assume the vendor/manufacturer is responsible for PCI compliance. You do need to pay for a data plan for the sim card though.
– slebetman
23 hours ago
Saying "Trying to keep up with SAQ B-IP is simply too risky" is like saying "PCI compliance is too hard for merchants to meet and maintain." I'm not saying either statement is wrong, mind you, but let's be aware we're surrendering when we do it.
– gowenfawr
6 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
4
Disadvantage three: unless you add a phone line just for that, you’ll have customers standing around waiting (or leaving in a huff) while you’re phone line is busy doing something else. (I once waited many minutes for a card transaction while someone else was trying to decide what to do at an ATM dialing out on the store’s only line!)
– WGroleau
yesterday
@WGroleau the vendor would probably have to get a phone line (a physical wire) installed for him if he want to use an analog phone for dial-up these days. In some places it might not even be available. I doubt he will have trouble with a blocked phone line. Of course YMMV depending on your country and province.
– Mindwin
yesterday
Indeed. My incident was less than three years ago.
– WGroleau
yesterday
2
Where I'm from a lot of shops use mobile (GSM/3G/4G) payment terminals connected directly to the internet. In such cases I assume the vendor/manufacturer is responsible for PCI compliance. You do need to pay for a data plan for the sim card though.
– slebetman
23 hours ago
Saying "Trying to keep up with SAQ B-IP is simply too risky" is like saying "PCI compliance is too hard for merchants to meet and maintain." I'm not saying either statement is wrong, mind you, but let's be aware we're surrendering when we do it.
– gowenfawr
6 hours ago
4
4
Disadvantage three: unless you add a phone line just for that, you’ll have customers standing around waiting (or leaving in a huff) while you’re phone line is busy doing something else. (I once waited many minutes for a card transaction while someone else was trying to decide what to do at an ATM dialing out on the store’s only line!)
– WGroleau
yesterday
Disadvantage three: unless you add a phone line just for that, you’ll have customers standing around waiting (or leaving in a huff) while you’re phone line is busy doing something else. (I once waited many minutes for a card transaction while someone else was trying to decide what to do at an ATM dialing out on the store’s only line!)
– WGroleau
yesterday
@WGroleau the vendor would probably have to get a phone line (a physical wire) installed for him if he want to use an analog phone for dial-up these days. In some places it might not even be available. I doubt he will have trouble with a blocked phone line. Of course YMMV depending on your country and province.
– Mindwin
yesterday
@WGroleau the vendor would probably have to get a phone line (a physical wire) installed for him if he want to use an analog phone for dial-up these days. In some places it might not even be available. I doubt he will have trouble with a blocked phone line. Of course YMMV depending on your country and province.
– Mindwin
yesterday
Indeed. My incident was less than three years ago.
– WGroleau
yesterday
Indeed. My incident was less than three years ago.
– WGroleau
yesterday
2
2
Where I'm from a lot of shops use mobile (GSM/3G/4G) payment terminals connected directly to the internet. In such cases I assume the vendor/manufacturer is responsible for PCI compliance. You do need to pay for a data plan for the sim card though.
– slebetman
23 hours ago
Where I'm from a lot of shops use mobile (GSM/3G/4G) payment terminals connected directly to the internet. In such cases I assume the vendor/manufacturer is responsible for PCI compliance. You do need to pay for a data plan for the sim card though.
– slebetman
23 hours ago
Saying "Trying to keep up with SAQ B-IP is simply too risky" is like saying "PCI compliance is too hard for merchants to meet and maintain." I'm not saying either statement is wrong, mind you, but let's be aware we're surrendering when we do it.
– gowenfawr
6 hours ago
Saying "Trying to keep up with SAQ B-IP is simply too risky" is like saying "PCI compliance is too hard for merchants to meet and maintain." I'm not saying either statement is wrong, mind you, but let's be aware we're surrendering when we do it.
– gowenfawr
6 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
TLDR: that card reader stinks, and exposes you to all sorts of liability. Get a modern card terminal with P2PE.
You need to comply with PCI... unless...
PCI-DSS is serious business. Most small businesses do not have a breach. But if you do have a breach (which would most likely be crackers surveilling your credit card transactions for an extended period of time), you'll need to pay extremely painful penalties that have a (the figure I've heard is 90%) chance of bankrupting your small business.
What is in scope for PCI is
- your card terminal
- the network it's on
- every PC, wait, device that can access that network
- including IoT: security cameras, Sense power monitor, and every silly WiFi-enabled gadget you bought on a lark and forgot all about
- every network that can access that network, and
- every PC, er, device on those networks.
... unless you avoid the entire issue with P2PE
If the data going through your app, PC, phone or network is all encrypted with strong encryption, then PCI-DSS doesn't apply to it. This is a very useful escape!
When Square came out with the first card reader for proprietorship sized businesses, it was a simple magnetic tape head. Obviously, the Square app handled card data "in the clear". That placed the app, phone/tablet, network etc. in scope for PCI-DSS.
PayPal Here put an encryption processor inside the scanner fob itself. The fob itself talks to PayPal servers, via Point to Point Encryption (P2PE, or as we call it, a "secure VPN"). The PayPal app simply relays the encrypted data, and it cannot know what it says (and neither can anyone else). If everything checks out, PayPal servers tell the PayPal app "approved".
Because the app, phone and network see only encrypted data, that does not place them in scope of PCI-DSS. All you have to do is make sure your fob has not been physically tampered with.
Consequences of a breach
- A PCI audit, upfront, even if you are proved to be innocent
- The fraudulent transactions themselves, if you are guilty
- The cost of reissuing credit cards to all the customers
- Penalties
I've heard statistics that a breach and the consequences about 90% of affected small businesses into bankruptcy. It nearly did in Target, after all!
Needless to say, P2PE is not only a smart way to go, it's the only way to go, in my book.
Why isn't every acquirer supporting P2PE and even making you use it? Because the industry kinda sucks that way, and a rapid switch-over will break a lot of larger businesses that do things with credit card data (think: Home Depot's ability to find your receipts and do returns based solely on your credit card number). They took over 10 years to adopt chip, and they'll probably take another 10 to adopt P2PE. This is one reason I do not like the traditional acquirer model. That, and their prices.
This seems to be the simplest solution --- many card readers are simply just that (i.e., "readers!"), not necessarily doing any "encryption" on their end either!
– ManRow
3 hours ago
add a comment |
TLDR: that card reader stinks, and exposes you to all sorts of liability. Get a modern card terminal with P2PE.
You need to comply with PCI... unless...
PCI-DSS is serious business. Most small businesses do not have a breach. But if you do have a breach (which would most likely be crackers surveilling your credit card transactions for an extended period of time), you'll need to pay extremely painful penalties that have a (the figure I've heard is 90%) chance of bankrupting your small business.
What is in scope for PCI is
- your card terminal
- the network it's on
- every PC, wait, device that can access that network
- including IoT: security cameras, Sense power monitor, and every silly WiFi-enabled gadget you bought on a lark and forgot all about
- every network that can access that network, and
- every PC, er, device on those networks.
... unless you avoid the entire issue with P2PE
If the data going through your app, PC, phone or network is all encrypted with strong encryption, then PCI-DSS doesn't apply to it. This is a very useful escape!
When Square came out with the first card reader for proprietorship sized businesses, it was a simple magnetic tape head. Obviously, the Square app handled card data "in the clear". That placed the app, phone/tablet, network etc. in scope for PCI-DSS.
PayPal Here put an encryption processor inside the scanner fob itself. The fob itself talks to PayPal servers, via Point to Point Encryption (P2PE, or as we call it, a "secure VPN"). The PayPal app simply relays the encrypted data, and it cannot know what it says (and neither can anyone else). If everything checks out, PayPal servers tell the PayPal app "approved".
Because the app, phone and network see only encrypted data, that does not place them in scope of PCI-DSS. All you have to do is make sure your fob has not been physically tampered with.
Consequences of a breach
- A PCI audit, upfront, even if you are proved to be innocent
- The fraudulent transactions themselves, if you are guilty
- The cost of reissuing credit cards to all the customers
- Penalties
I've heard statistics that a breach and the consequences about 90% of affected small businesses into bankruptcy. It nearly did in Target, after all!
Needless to say, P2PE is not only a smart way to go, it's the only way to go, in my book.
Why isn't every acquirer supporting P2PE and even making you use it? Because the industry kinda sucks that way, and a rapid switch-over will break a lot of larger businesses that do things with credit card data (think: Home Depot's ability to find your receipts and do returns based solely on your credit card number). They took over 10 years to adopt chip, and they'll probably take another 10 to adopt P2PE. This is one reason I do not like the traditional acquirer model. That, and their prices.
This seems to be the simplest solution --- many card readers are simply just that (i.e., "readers!"), not necessarily doing any "encryption" on their end either!
– ManRow
3 hours ago
add a comment |
TLDR: that card reader stinks, and exposes you to all sorts of liability. Get a modern card terminal with P2PE.
You need to comply with PCI... unless...
PCI-DSS is serious business. Most small businesses do not have a breach. But if you do have a breach (which would most likely be crackers surveilling your credit card transactions for an extended period of time), you'll need to pay extremely painful penalties that have a (the figure I've heard is 90%) chance of bankrupting your small business.
What is in scope for PCI is
- your card terminal
- the network it's on
- every PC, wait, device that can access that network
- including IoT: security cameras, Sense power monitor, and every silly WiFi-enabled gadget you bought on a lark and forgot all about
- every network that can access that network, and
- every PC, er, device on those networks.
... unless you avoid the entire issue with P2PE
If the data going through your app, PC, phone or network is all encrypted with strong encryption, then PCI-DSS doesn't apply to it. This is a very useful escape!
When Square came out with the first card reader for proprietorship sized businesses, it was a simple magnetic tape head. Obviously, the Square app handled card data "in the clear". That placed the app, phone/tablet, network etc. in scope for PCI-DSS.
PayPal Here put an encryption processor inside the scanner fob itself. The fob itself talks to PayPal servers, via Point to Point Encryption (P2PE, or as we call it, a "secure VPN"). The PayPal app simply relays the encrypted data, and it cannot know what it says (and neither can anyone else). If everything checks out, PayPal servers tell the PayPal app "approved".
Because the app, phone and network see only encrypted data, that does not place them in scope of PCI-DSS. All you have to do is make sure your fob has not been physically tampered with.
Consequences of a breach
- A PCI audit, upfront, even if you are proved to be innocent
- The fraudulent transactions themselves, if you are guilty
- The cost of reissuing credit cards to all the customers
- Penalties
I've heard statistics that a breach and the consequences about 90% of affected small businesses into bankruptcy. It nearly did in Target, after all!
Needless to say, P2PE is not only a smart way to go, it's the only way to go, in my book.
Why isn't every acquirer supporting P2PE and even making you use it? Because the industry kinda sucks that way, and a rapid switch-over will break a lot of larger businesses that do things with credit card data (think: Home Depot's ability to find your receipts and do returns based solely on your credit card number). They took over 10 years to adopt chip, and they'll probably take another 10 to adopt P2PE. This is one reason I do not like the traditional acquirer model. That, and their prices.
TLDR: that card reader stinks, and exposes you to all sorts of liability. Get a modern card terminal with P2PE.
You need to comply with PCI... unless...
PCI-DSS is serious business. Most small businesses do not have a breach. But if you do have a breach (which would most likely be crackers surveilling your credit card transactions for an extended period of time), you'll need to pay extremely painful penalties that have a (the figure I've heard is 90%) chance of bankrupting your small business.
What is in scope for PCI is
- your card terminal
- the network it's on
- every PC, wait, device that can access that network
- including IoT: security cameras, Sense power monitor, and every silly WiFi-enabled gadget you bought on a lark and forgot all about
- every network that can access that network, and
- every PC, er, device on those networks.
... unless you avoid the entire issue with P2PE
If the data going through your app, PC, phone or network is all encrypted with strong encryption, then PCI-DSS doesn't apply to it. This is a very useful escape!
When Square came out with the first card reader for proprietorship sized businesses, it was a simple magnetic tape head. Obviously, the Square app handled card data "in the clear". That placed the app, phone/tablet, network etc. in scope for PCI-DSS.
PayPal Here put an encryption processor inside the scanner fob itself. The fob itself talks to PayPal servers, via Point to Point Encryption (P2PE, or as we call it, a "secure VPN"). The PayPal app simply relays the encrypted data, and it cannot know what it says (and neither can anyone else). If everything checks out, PayPal servers tell the PayPal app "approved".
Because the app, phone and network see only encrypted data, that does not place them in scope of PCI-DSS. All you have to do is make sure your fob has not been physically tampered with.
Consequences of a breach
- A PCI audit, upfront, even if you are proved to be innocent
- The fraudulent transactions themselves, if you are guilty
- The cost of reissuing credit cards to all the customers
- Penalties
I've heard statistics that a breach and the consequences about 90% of affected small businesses into bankruptcy. It nearly did in Target, after all!
Needless to say, P2PE is not only a smart way to go, it's the only way to go, in my book.
Why isn't every acquirer supporting P2PE and even making you use it? Because the industry kinda sucks that way, and a rapid switch-over will break a lot of larger businesses that do things with credit card data (think: Home Depot's ability to find your receipts and do returns based solely on your credit card number). They took over 10 years to adopt chip, and they'll probably take another 10 to adopt P2PE. This is one reason I do not like the traditional acquirer model. That, and their prices.
answered yesterday
HarperHarper
2,3305 silver badges14 bronze badges
2,3305 silver badges14 bronze badges
This seems to be the simplest solution --- many card readers are simply just that (i.e., "readers!"), not necessarily doing any "encryption" on their end either!
– ManRow
3 hours ago
add a comment |
This seems to be the simplest solution --- many card readers are simply just that (i.e., "readers!"), not necessarily doing any "encryption" on their end either!
– ManRow
3 hours ago
This seems to be the simplest solution --- many card readers are simply just that (i.e., "readers!"), not necessarily doing any "encryption" on their end either!
– ManRow
3 hours ago
This seems to be the simplest solution --- many card readers are simply just that (i.e., "readers!"), not necessarily doing any "encryption" on their end either!
– ManRow
3 hours ago
add a comment |
If user3512967's modem is like mine, then hardening the web interface's TLS settings is pointless.
My Cisco EPC3212 has an interface that is accessible from within the LAN via HTTP only. It has login credentials that can be googled and cannot be changed. Even if it were served via TLS (weak or strong), my network would not be more secure. Public knowledge cannot be undisclosed.
So my question is: Does user3512967's modem's interface offer restriction-worthy control or confidential information that is not accessible via public knowledge? If it does not, then fixing it's TLS does not solve anything.
New contributor
add a comment |
If user3512967's modem is like mine, then hardening the web interface's TLS settings is pointless.
My Cisco EPC3212 has an interface that is accessible from within the LAN via HTTP only. It has login credentials that can be googled and cannot be changed. Even if it were served via TLS (weak or strong), my network would not be more secure. Public knowledge cannot be undisclosed.
So my question is: Does user3512967's modem's interface offer restriction-worthy control or confidential information that is not accessible via public knowledge? If it does not, then fixing it's TLS does not solve anything.
New contributor
add a comment |
If user3512967's modem is like mine, then hardening the web interface's TLS settings is pointless.
My Cisco EPC3212 has an interface that is accessible from within the LAN via HTTP only. It has login credentials that can be googled and cannot be changed. Even if it were served via TLS (weak or strong), my network would not be more secure. Public knowledge cannot be undisclosed.
So my question is: Does user3512967's modem's interface offer restriction-worthy control or confidential information that is not accessible via public knowledge? If it does not, then fixing it's TLS does not solve anything.
New contributor
If user3512967's modem is like mine, then hardening the web interface's TLS settings is pointless.
My Cisco EPC3212 has an interface that is accessible from within the LAN via HTTP only. It has login credentials that can be googled and cannot be changed. Even if it were served via TLS (weak or strong), my network would not be more secure. Public knowledge cannot be undisclosed.
So my question is: Does user3512967's modem's interface offer restriction-worthy control or confidential information that is not accessible via public knowledge? If it does not, then fixing it's TLS does not solve anything.
New contributor
New contributor
answered yesterday
DamianDamian
1
1
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
user3512967 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user3512967 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user3512967 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user3512967 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Information Security Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsecurity.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f214513%2fbeing-told-my-network-isnt-pci-compliant-i-dont-even-have-a-server-do-i-ha%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
Have you tried putting your public IP address into your web browser's address bar to see if it will connect to anything? Try with both "
http://1.1.1.1
" and "https://1.1.1.1
" (note the S in the second URL).– Ghedipunk
2 days ago
4
Also, since you are running credit cards that are physically located at your office, you do need to secure your network to be PCI compliant. This will probably just be configuring a firewall on your modem/router, though I'm putting off making an answer to this question depending on what you'd see from trying to bring up your IP address in your browser.
– Ghedipunk
2 days ago
20
@user3512967 that cert and user prompt is almost certainly to log in and control the modem itself. It really shouldn't be exposed to the Internet at large.
– gowenfawr
2 days ago
9
"Also, since you are running credit cards that are physically located at your office, you do need to secure your network to be PCI compliant." That depends on the card terminal, the good terminal providers works hard to keep the stores network out-of-scope for PCI.
– Mattias
yesterday
20
From whom did you get this report? Were they trying to sell you something to fix it?
– Kevin
yesterday