WebApp Sec mailing list archives

RE: [WEB SECURITY] Re: [Webappsec] PCI 6.6 Questions


From: "Ory Segal" <osegal () watchfire com>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 08:59:55 +0300

Hi,

Take a look at this list:
https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/pdfs/asv_report.html , which
contains ASVs.

Thanks,
-Ory

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Raymond Forbes [mailto:rforbes () e-stalkers net] 
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 2:17 AM
To: Bubba Gump
Cc: webappsec @OWASP; WASC Forum; webappsec () securityfocus com
Subject: [WEB SECURITY] Re: [Webappsec] PCI 6.6 Questions

There are some interesting questions in there....

1) that really depends on the org and the size of your 
infrastructure.  
Web App Firewalls seem ok if you aren't pushing too much 
traffic and are willing to do spend the time maintaining it.  
Most of them seem to have some level of heuristics but I 
can't imagine there is no administration necessary.  On the 
other side, however, having a 3rd party audit your code can 
be really expensive, not even counting the time it takes to 
remediate all the problems found.

2)That is still a controversial question.  One of the SPI 
guys exchange mailed with the PCI committee who agreed the 
SPI pen test tool was sufficient.  I have talked to a couple 
of auditors who do not agree.  
 From what I understand this is still being hashed out and we 
should know better by the end of the summer.

3) Personally, I am looking at that as "in scope" code.  
Which means, only apps that deal with credit card data.

4) That hasn't really been defined.  I am guessing we will 
get further clarification by the end of the summer or when 
the new standard is released.  It is always possible that it 
will be at the auditors discretion.

-Raymond


Bubba Gump wrote:
I have a couple of questions about PCI section 6.6.  It states that 
companies will need to do one of the following two things:

Having all custom application code reviewed for common 
vulnerabilities 
by an organization that specializes in application security

or

Installing an application layer firewall in front of web-facing 
applications.

I have the following questions about this requirement:

1.  Assuming a company only has enough resources to do one or the 
other, which would you recommend, and why?  Which option is the 
easier/cheaper route to compliance?  Which is likely to lead to the 
most real improvement in security?

2.  Would hiring a company to do black-box scanning and 
testing of our 
websites satisfy the first option?  Or would we actually 
need to have 
the company go through our code line by line and review it for 
security defects?

3.  Does "all custom application code" mean all of our credit card 
processing code, or every line of code behind every one of our 
Internet-facing websites?

4.  If we go with the code review option and the company 
that we hire 
finds a bunch of issues with our code, are we required by 
PCI to fix 
all of the issues, just certain types of issues, or none of 
the issues?

Thanks,
Bubba

----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

_______________________________________________
Webappsec mailing list
Webappsec () lists owasp org
https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/webappsec
  


--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
Join us on IRC: irc.freenode.net #webappsec

Have a question? Search The Web Security Mailing List Archives: 
http://www.webappsec.org/lists/websecurity/

Subscribe via RSS: 
http://www.webappsec.org/rss/websecurity.rss [RSS Feed]



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsored by: Watchfire

The Twelve Most Common Application-level Hack Attacks
Hackers continue to add billions to the cost of doing business online
despite security executives' efforts to prevent malicious attacks. This
whitepaper identifies the most common methods of attacks that we have seen,
and outlines a guideline for developing secure web applications.
Download today!

https://www.watchfire.com/securearea/whitepapers.aspx?id=701500000008rSe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Current thread: