Security Basics mailing list archives
Re: DSS
From: Adriel Desautels <adriel () netragard com>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 12:52:53 -0400
Right,But don't you think that the check-list should already be more stringent? Businesses haven't stopped being compromised as a result of compliant. In fact, if I am not mistaken the number of businesses being compromised (compliant or not) is still rising.
I guess that the real question is, what are people trying to protect themselves against, real world malicious hackers, or the penalties for not being compliant?
Regards,
Adriel T. Desautels
Chief Technology Officer
Netragard, LLC.
Office : 617-934-0269
Mobile : 617-633-3821
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/1/118/a45
Join the Netragard, LLC. Linked In Group:
http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/48683/0B98E1705142
---------------------------------------------------------------
Netragard, LLC - http://www.netragard.com - "We make IT Safe"
Penetration Testing, Vulnerability Assessments, Website Security
Netragard Whitepaper Downloads:
-------------------------------
Choosing the right provider : http://tinyurl.com/2ahk3j
Three Things you must know : http://tinyurl.com/26pjsn
Nick Duda wrote:
Its better than not having it. how does your company know what your doing and protecting them from real world threats...etc. I think pci dss has a great foundation for implementing best practicies....a checklist if you will (which is pretty much what it is anyway). It also gets companies that don't deploy best practices (like an IDS) to start doing (whether they know what to do with it is another story) <Sent from Blackberry> ----- Original Message ----- From: listbounce () securityfocus com <listbounce () securityfocus com> To: Nick Vaernhoej <nick.vaernhoej () capitalcardservices com> Cc: Hill, Pete <Pete.Hill () sit-up tv>; security-basics () securityfocus com <security-basics () securityfocus com> Sent: Fri May 23 11:26:24 2008 Subject: Re: DSS Just out of curiosity, how many people here thinks that PCI does anything to protect you from the real world threat? Regards, Adriel T. Desautels Chief Technology Officer Netragard, LLC. Office : 617-934-0269 Mobile : 617-633-3821 http://www.linkedin.com/pub/1/118/a45 Join the Netragard, LLC. Linked In Group: http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/48683/0B98E1705142 --------------------------------------------------------------- Netragard, LLC - http://www.netragard.com - "We make IT Safe" Penetration Testing, Vulnerability Assessments, Website Security Netragard Whitepaper Downloads: ------------------------------- Choosing the right provider : http://tinyurl.com/2ahk3j Three Things you must know : http://tinyurl.com/26pjsn Nick Vaernhoej wrote:Good morning, Have you scanned through the supplemental information regarding 6.6? https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/pdfs/infosupp_6_6_applicationfirewa lls_codereviews.pdf You have two options, code review or web application firewall. You state that you already have custom code reviewed so I would think you are in good shape. What makes you think you need to do both? (It is a good idea to do so of course, but not necessary to satisfy PCI). Have a great day. Nick Vaernhoej "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."-->-----Original Message----- -->From: listbounce () securityfocus com -->[mailto:listbounce () securityfocus com] On Behalf Of Hill, Pete -->Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 8:53 AM -->To: security-basics () securityfocus com -->Subject: PCI: DSS --> --> -->Hi all, --> -->Can anyone confirm for me what sort of workarounds there are -->concerning -->PCI:DSS and application layer firewalls? --> -->Requirement 6.6 of the standard states this: --> -->6.6 Ensure that all web-facing applications are protected against -->known -->attacks by applying either of -->the following methods: -->* Having all custom application code reviewed for common -->vulnerabilities -->by an organization -->that specializes in application security -->* Installing an application layer firewall in front of web-facing -->applications. -->Note: This method is considered a best practice until June 30, 2008, -->after which it becomes a -->requirement. --> -->We already have our custom code reviewed, but Im wondering if I -->absolutely must sort out an application layer firewall or if thereis-->a -->workaround that would be acceptable for a level 1 merchant. --> -->If there are any knowledgeable auditors (qsa etc) out there I'd -->really -->appreciate your help on this one. --> -->Many thanks -->Pete --> --> -->A number of bogus e-mails are currently circulating in the UK -->encouraging customers to visit fraudulent websites where personal or -->Internet security details are requested. Bid tv/Price-drop tv/Speed -->auction tv would never send e-mails that ask for confidential, -->personal security information or details regarding your account -->status. --> -->The content of this e-mail does not constitute a contract and any -->matters discussed herein remain subject to contract. --> -->The contents of this message and all attachments have been sent in -->confidence for the attention of the addressee only. If you are not -->the intended recipient you are kindly requested to preserve this -->confidentiality and to advise the sender immediately of the error in -->transmission. --> -->"sit-up ltd, registered in England No: 03877786. -->Registered Office: Sit-Up House, 179-181 The Vale, London W3 7RW. -->Sit-Up ltd is wholly owned by a subsidiary of Virgin Media."This electronic transmission is intended for the addressee (s) named above. It contains information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from use and disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copy, or dissemination of this transmission or the taking of any action in reliance on its contents, or other use is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender that this message was received in error and then delete this message. Thank you.