Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

The PCI DSS standard was released back in December 2004 and was quickly hailed as one of the most important private-industry data security standards ever developed. Over the past few years, however, amid a steady stream of news about breaches and thefts, the PCI DSS standards has been roundly criticized. At a congressional hearing this month, one congresswoman said, "I do want to dispel the myth once and for all that PCI compliance is enough to keep a company secure." Many would agree. A case in point noted by Network World: The breach at Hannaford Brothers, where hackers installed malware on the grocery store chain's internal servers to seize card numbers as they were swiped by customers. Hannaford was certified a PCI DSS-compliant company as the scam was in progress. Heartland Payment Systems, before its scam broke in the news, was also certified compliant by Visa. Visa defends the standard as a way to minimize theft if properly implemented, and you certainly can't blame PCI DSS entirely for recent thefts. For all we know, there would have been many more if not for the standard. Still, the general view is that the PCI DSS standard has become overly complex and has done little thus far to stop fraud, as fraud artists get sophisticated technologically.

Two firms certified to asses a company's compliance with the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards (PCI DSS) have been placed under remediation by the PCI Security Standards Council. Two firms certified to asses a company's compliance with the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards (PCI DSS) have been placed under remediation by the PCI Security Standards Council. "We have a contractual relationship with the PCI Security Standards Council and they can pull our certification at any time," Bates said, adding that the firm is working wholeheartedly to remedy the situation. Chris Konrad, senior vice president of client services at Fortrex, did not return a phone call seeking comment. Fortrex's business is U.S-based. The company is in its sixth year assessing service providers and merchants. In addition to being certified to conduct payment application quality security assessments, the firm sells risk management consulting services. It is a reseller in security vendor Qualys Inc.'s PCI Partner Program, according to the company website. Qualys said its "program gives partners generous margins based on their level of certification." The PCI Council launched its quality assurance program for assessors in September to address growing concerns from merchants about the quality of their assessments and other issues. Merchants have complained that some QSAs don't appear to have the technical skills necessary to conduct a thorough assessment. Other merchants have raised issues with QSA's pitching security products during the assessment process. Merchants that receive negative feedback are placed on probation and a revocation process is in place if assessors do not address the issues identified by the council.

Should individual states mandate that businesses comply with the Payment Card Industry's Data Security Standard (PCI DSS)? The answer is "yes," according to Nevada, which has passed a new law that, as of next year, requires businesses to comply with PCI when collecting or transmitting payment card information. Nevada is the first state to mandate full PCI compliance for businesses. Minnesota in 2007 incorporated only a portion of PCI in its Plastic Card Security Law. According to Nevada's new law, if a data collector doing business in that state accepts a payment card in connection with a sale of goods or services, the data collector shall comply with the current version of PCI DSS, as adopted by the PCI Security Standards Council or its successor organization, with respect to those transactions, not later than the date for compliance set forth in the Payment Card Industry (PCI) Data Security Standard or by the PCI Security Standards Council or its successor organization. Is it a Game-Changer? As states rush to adopt or strengthen privacy legislation, Nevada's move is seen by some observers as a potential "game-changer." But they question whether states should be in the business of mandating compliance with an industry Standard.

Both panels that advise the national coordinator for health IT plan to focus on privacy and security standards needed to support meaningful use of electronic health records when they meet later this month, according to notices in today's Federal Register. The Health IT Policy Committee, led by Dr. David Blumenthal, the national coordinator for health IT, will direct more of its discussion at its upcoming Sept. 18 meeting on health information privacy and security as it makes progress in defining meaningful use under the stimulus law, according to the notice. Likewise, the companion Health IT standards Committee, which meets Sept. 15, will concentrate on refining standards recommendations made by its privacy and security work group. At the standards Committee's previous meeting Aug. 20, its privacy and security workgroup presented standards for authentication, authorization, auditing and secure data transmission of health information in EHR products as well as the infrastructure that hosts them. The work of the panel includes protecting data inside an enterprise as well as data exchange between enterprises, "because security is an end to end process," noted Dr. John Halamka, the committee's chairman in a post on his blog, "Life as a Healthcare CIO."

The Swiss government Friday noon announced that it will adopt the OECD standard on administrative assistance in tax matters, which is part of the OECD's Model Tax Convention. As a result Switzerland will exchange information with other governments in individual cases where "a specific and justified request has been made" for any form of tax offense. Accepting the standard will require renegotiating existing bilateral treaties. Requests from other governments, made according to the standard, will be honoured once new treaties go into effect. Ed. note: it was widely reported Friday that Switzerland has agreed to assist other governments in cases of tax evasion, not just fraud. While this may be the result of the 13 March announcement, Switzerland specifically states that it intends to adopt the convention "in accordance with Art. 26 of the OECD Model Tax Convention."

It was only a matter of time! Auditor accuracy being examined in lawsuit may signal change in PCI and other compliance processes.

When CardSystems Solutions was hacked in 2004 in one of the largest credit card data breaches at the time, it reached for its security auditor's report. In theory, CardSystems should have been safe. The industry's primary security standard, known then as CISP, was touted as a sure way to protect data. And CardSystems' auditor, Savvis Inc, had just given them a clean bill of health three months before. Yet, despite those assurances, 263,000 card numbers were stolen from CardSystems, and nearly 40 million were compromised. More than four years later, Savvis is being pulled into court in a novel suit that legal experts say could force increased scrutiny on largely self-regulated credit card security practices. They say the case represents an evolution in data breach litigation and raises increasingly important questions about not only the liability of companies that handle card data but also the liability of third parties that audit and certify the trustworthiness of those companies. "We're at a critical juncture where we need to decide . . . whether [network security] auditing is voluntary or will have the force of law behind it," says Andrea Matwyshyn, a law and business ethics professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School who specializes in information security issues. "For companies to be able to rely on audits . . . there needs to be mechanisms developed to hold auditors accountable for the accuracy of their audits." The case, which appears to be among the first of its kind against a security auditing firm, highlights flaws in the standards that were established by the financial industry to protect consumer bank data. It also exposes the ineffectiveness of an auditing system that was supposed to guarantee that card processors and other businesses complied with the standards. Credit card companies have touted the standards and the auditing process as evidence that financial transactions conducted under their purview are secur

URAC, the leading health care accreditation and education organization, announced today the recent Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) annual conference raised important questions about consumer privacy and security around electronic health records (EHR). (Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20030501/URACLOGO ) "There is no doubt that electronic health records are coming. The question is whether or not consumers' privacy is a key issue or an afterthought," said Alan P. Spielman, President and CEO of URAC. "A lot of forces are driving the push for EHR. However, it is important that standards go hand-in-hand with policy so that it doesn't become the Wild West with every vendor and health care provider using different terms." The rules set by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) are integral to the widespread adoption of EHR. However, the rules can be confusing for consumers and providers. URAC was the first organization to offer HIPAA Privacy Accreditation. The organization now offers comprehensive standards for both HIPAA Privacy and HIPAA Security accreditation. These standards are applicable to all personal health information storage formats and exchanges claims transactions and are designed for many different types of health care organizations including both Covered Entities (CE) and Business Associates (BA). They also require an ongoing compliance program that identifies, tracks and makes the necessary changes in response to a federal or state regulatory change.

The dark figure of fraud drove the development of best practices at Memolink. I harnessed the fear of the unknown and used basic change management to gather support internally. I knew the approach would indefinitely change how we did business and alter our company's culture. Like many dot coms, my company has an entrepreneurial spirit, and like not-so-many dot coms, we have been in business for 15 years. The culture is well established and the work we do is exciting and fun. Would a company with an innovative and "don't-box-me-in" mentality openly receive a new set of standards and expectations? The implementation of the Best Practice approach required two important change management tactics: consistent messaging and constant and varied communication. It was not enough to tell associates that the proposed transition, which included separating processes that traditionally had been managed by a sales team, would benefit the company in the long term. The main component of the message had to be the "What's in it for me?" value proposition. At the time, the sales associates had nothing to gain, and, in fact, they would lose commission. For example, when my department rolled out the Best Practice approach to partner vetting, fewer partners would meet the standard and be accepted, which meant incremental commission loss for the sales team. Money matters create major stress and tension, so it was important that this conflict be addressed early in the implementation process. Management responded by restructuring commissions so that employee motivations were aligned with business goals. This move also made the adoption period for other processes and procedures shorter and less chaotic. In essence, align the money motivators and people will buy in more quickly. Associates were not reeling about their payment structure, but were they and other stakeholders, who were originally unaffected by the commission structure, truly behind the idea? In order to gain the

Taking a step toward creating more formal standards, the Interactive Advertising Bureau Monday released a set of best practices for social media advertising covering key terms, creative elements, and user privacy, among other topics. The guidelines unveiled at the IAB's Social Media Marketplace conference in New York are intended to encourage the growth of social advertising by giving marketers, agencies and social networks preliminary rules to navigate a category that now spans hundreds of millions of users. "Industry standards are essential to making social media easy, safe and scalable for advertisers," said Seth Goldstein, CEO of Socialmedia.com and co-chair of the IAB's UGC Social Media Committee, in a statement. "The new IAB framework is a critical first step in this direction and we are excited to help enable the next generation of social advertising." While marketers have been eager to experiment with social media, a lack of standard ad formats and metrics and privacy concerns remain obstacles to more rapid advertising growth on social sites. Even so, Forrester Research projects that social media marketing will increase nearly 60% this year to $716 million.

A health care industry coalition on Monday released a prescriptive security framework that organizations can use to safeguard patient records as they increasingly move online. The framework, released by the Health Information Trust Alliance (HITRUST) -- which represents health care providers, pharmacies, insurers, biotech firms and medical device manufacturers -- is based on well-known standards such as COBIT, NIST and ISO 270001. But this is the first benchmark developed specifically for protecting health data. "It's tailored to protecting health information right out of the gate," Michael Wilson, vice president and chief information security officer of McKesson, the largest U.S. pharmaceutical distributor, told SCMagazineUS.com on Monday. "It's just a different sort of data. It's still structured [like other verticals], but there's a lot more of it in health care." The framework was created to improve adoption rates with regulations such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and increase patient confidence in the security of their information. It also arrives on the heels of the new $787 billion economic stimulus bill, about $20 billion of which is earmarked to encourage health care organizations to adopt electronic health records as a way to reduce the number of medical errors and save money. The stimulus bill, in itself, contains srict privacy and security regulations for patient information. The standards took about 18 months to devise and can be implemented by organizations of any size, according to HITRUST. "2009 will be a turning point for information security in the health care industry, when organizations will begin implementing the framework...and create a cascading effect that will impact and benefit the entire health care ecosystem," Daniel Nutkis, CEO of HITRUST, said in news release. Wilson said the framework also will enable companies such as McKesson to show their customers and business partners that they are taki

The organization charged with administering the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) is trying to give merchants a compliance blueprint. The Prioritized Approach Tool offers six "milestones" that businesses should try to reach in their pursuit of compliance, said Lib de Veyra, the newly appointed chairman of the PCI Security Standards Council, which manages the guidelines. When faced with a Standard as robust as PCI DSS, many companies, particularly the smaller merchants, need help deciding which risks they should address first, de Veyra told SCMagazineUS.com on Friday. The tool, to be published Tuesday on the council's website, also helps retailers and their acquiring banks demonstrate and measure progress. Rated by order of criticality, the milestones are: Limit data retention, secure the perimeter, secure applications, control system access, protect stored cardholder data and finalize remaining compliance efforts, ensuring all controls are in place. "You take care of Milestone One and you've significantly reduced the risk in the event of a data breach because, where's the data?" de Veyra said.

Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. this week unveiled what it says is the first coverage available to small and medium-sized businesses for losses from payment card data breaches. News of the policy came on the same day that a non-profit research organization reported that data breaches increased 47% last year. The idea behind the coverage, according to Brian Gerritsen, product director at Novato, Calif.-based Fireman's, is to give peace of mind to business owners who are diligent about complying with the Payment Card Industry data-security standard, or PCI, the card networks' uniform protection rules that all card acceptors are supposed to meet. "That's what we're really trying to insure against-business owners trying to do everything in their power to protect their customers' cardholder data, but still find themselves in a data-breach situation and out of compliance with the PCI standards or other security standards that may apply to them," he tells Digital Transactions News. To get the coverage, however, a merchant must clear a number of hurdles. An applicant must already have property or liability coverage from Fireman's as well as the company's general data-breach policy first offered in 2006. The new payment card coverage is an add-on to that earlier product. Coverage is available to retailers and most other card-accepting merchants, but not schools and hospitals, says Gerritsen. The insurer excluded the former because of their high rate of data breaches and the latter because they hold extremely sensitive medical and personal data. If breached, a covered merchant could recoup about $160,000 in resulting expenses. That includes up to $50,000 for a PCI-specific forensic investigation, system scans and software, and hardware upgrades to get card security up to snuff. The policy also provides up to $100,000, with a 5% deductible, for PCI fines-"contractual penalties" in industry lingo-and related costs such as chargebacks and issuersâ€

"In a case that could prove to be one of the most important privacy rights battles of the modern era, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear argument this week on the proper legal standard to apply when prosecutors demand cell phone location data. The data, which are recorded about once every seven seconds whenever a cell phone is turned on, effectively track the whereabouts and the comings and goings of every cell phone user. Justice Department lawyers argue that, by statute, they need only show "reasonable grounds" to believe that such records are "relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation." But a federal magistrate judge in Pittsburgh strongly disagreed in February 2008, issuing a 52-page opinion that said the prosecutors must meet the "probable cause" standard. "This court believes that citizens continue to hold a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information the government seeks regarding their physical movements/locations -- even now that such information is routinely produced by their cell phones -- and that, therefore, the government's investigatory search of such information continues to be protected by the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement," U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan wrote."

Turn the cell phone off and put on your tin foil hat so the government and aliens can't track you!

"The United States House of Representatives took a major step this week toward enacting a national data breach notification law. H.R. 2221, the Data Accountability and Trust Act (DATA), cleared the House with a voice vote. In its current form, DATA requires businesses to notify customers and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) if sensitive information has been exposed to a security breach. If the U.S. Senate can reconcile its own approach to data breach notification legislation with DATA, a new federal standard will emerge. If signed into law by President Barack Obama, a federal data breach ¬law would pre-empt the jumbled mass of dozens of state laws. "You'd be better served by federal legislation if the federal legislation has teeth and doesn't pre-empt the state's law," said California state senator Joe Simitian, speaking to executive editor Scot Petersen in September. "If there was a meaningful standard at the national level, I think many states would be happy to accept it." Aside from the data breach notification required by the HITECH Act, DATA would put into place the first national law of its kind. H.R. 2221 was sponsored by House Subcommittee Chair Rep. Bobby L. Rush of Illinois. The bill specifically states that: "Any person engaged in interstate commerce that owns or possesses data in electronic form containing personal information shall, following the discovery of a breach of security of the system maintained by such person that contains such data -- 1. notify each individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States whose personal information was acquired by an unauthorized person as a result of such a breach of security; and 2. notify the Federal Trade Commission."

"Despite concerns from some privacy groups and U.S. lawmakers about behavioral advertising, most large advertising networks generally comply with a set of privacy and data-handling standards adopted by the Network Advertising Initiative a year ago, the NAI said in a report released Wednesday." ...NAI, whose members include Google, Yahoo and Advertising.com, should be praised for doing a compliance report after skipping it for several years, said Ari Schwartz, vice president and chief operating officer CDT. However, the group should consider using a third party to audit compliance of its privacy guidelines, instead of having NAI staff do the audits, he said. In addition, while NAI members appear to be following most of the guidelines, some of the privacy safeguards are "weak," including the data retention standard, he said. "There's no maximum for data retention -- they just have to state what their data retention policy is," Schwartz added. The NAI report doesn't lessen the need for new privacy laws, Schwartz said. Several online advertising networks are not members of NAI, and the recent public pressure has led to the NAI updating 8-year-old guidelines last year and issuing a compliance report for the first time in several years, although the group had promised regular reports, he said. "It seems that when there's regulatory pressure, they actually do comply with what they said they were going to do," he said. "We certainly wouldn't want to see any regulatory pressure lifted."

Worth a read. The story changes quite a bit from the top to bottom of the story.

"On October 6, 2009, the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") announced proposed settlement agreements with six companies over charges that they falsely claimed membership in the U.S. Department of Commerce Safe Harbor program. In six separate complaints, the FTC alleged that ExpatEdge Partners LLC, Onyx Graphics, Inc., Directors Desk LLC, Collectify LLC, and Progressive Gaitways LLC deceived consumers by representing that they maintained current certifications to the Safe Harbor program when such certifications had previously lapsed. The terms of the proposed settlement agreements prohibit the companies from misrepresenting their membership in any privacy, security or other compliance program. The six enforcement actions are significant as they mark a considerable uptick in the FTC's enforcement related to the Safe Harbor program. The FTC recently brought its first enforcement action relevant to the program, which is detailed in our post titled FTC's First Safe Harbor Enforcement Action. The European Union Data Protection Directive requires EU Member States to implement legislation that prohibits the transfer of personal data outside the EU unless the EU has made a determination that the laws of the recipient jurisdiction are substantially equivalent to those of the EU, and thus provide "adequate" protection for personal data. Because the EU has determined that laws of the United States do not meet its adequacy standard, the U.S. Department of Commerce and the EU developed the Safe Harbor Framework, which went into effect in November 2000. The Safe Harbor Program allows participating U.S. companies under the jurisdiction of the FTC or the U.S. Department of Transportation to transfer personal data lawfully from the EU. To join the Safe Harbor, a company must self-certify to the U.S. Department of Commerce that it complies with seven principles that have been deemed to meet the EU's adequacy standard. To maintain its certification to the Safe Harbor

April 13, 2009 (Computerworld) The PCI standard, long touted as one of the private sector's strongest attempts to regulate itself on IT security, is increasingly being slammed by critics who claim that the rules aren't doing enough to protect credit and debit card data. And amid all the complaints, Visa Inc. - the standard's biggest proponent - is working one-on-one with banks and retailers to test new security measures that go beyond the controls currently mandated by PCI. What it all adds up to is a new sense of uncertainty about the future of the specification, which is formally known as the Payment Card Industry Data Security standard, or PCI DSS. Created by Visa and other credit card companies, the PCI rules will have been in effect for four years as of June 30. But with breaches of card data continuing and questions about the standard's effectiveness on the rise, PCI DSS is showing signs of coming apart at the seams.

www.killdo.de.gg Most quality online stores. Know whether you are a trusted online retailer in the world. Whatever we can buy very good quality. and do not hesitate. Everything is very high quality. Including clothes, accessories, bags, cups. Highly recommended. This is one of the trusted online store in the world. View now www.retrostyler.com

A group of U.S. companies, led by technology giants Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard and eBay, is set to outline recommendations for new federal data-privacy legislation that could make life easier for consumers and lead to a standard federal breach-notification law. The recommendations, which were developed by a group of industry players called the Consumer Privacy Legislative Forum, are set to be released at an upcoming privacy conference six weeks from now, according to Peter Cullen, Microsoft's chief privacy officer. The companies have been working for the past three years to encourage the adoption of federal consumer data-privacy laws and to answer the question of what federal legislation should look like, Cullen said in an interview. Other forum members include Google, Oracle, Procter & Gamble and Eli Lilly. One idea is that laws should make it easier for consumers to understand what they're getting into when they share their personal data with Web sites, Cullen said. "The whole focus on consent really puts an unfair burden on the consumer," he said. "My mom doesn't know what an IP address is." The recommendations will cover rules around data use and the ability of consumers to correct inaccurate data. And they will cover data breach notification, which is now covered by a patchwork of state laws. Simplifying breach-notification laws by creating a single federal standard is important, Cullen said Wednesday while speaking at a discussion of privacy policy in San Francisco. "It's not that there is no privacy law. There's actually too much privacy law," he said. "If you think about data-breach notification laws just as an example, there are 38 state laws, many of them very different." "We need to think about much more of a framework approach." Congress has passed some laws covering consumer data privacy, such as the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), but existing laws do not comprehensively cover consumer privacy in general.

The key points of the plan closely mirror recommendations offered late last year by a bipartisan commission of computer security experts, which urged then president-elect Obama to set up a high-level post to tackle cyber security, consider new regulations to combat cyber crime and shore up the security of the nation's most sensitive computer networks. The strategy, as outlined in a broader policy document on homeland security priorities posted on the Whitehouse.gov Web site Wednesday, states the following goals: * Strengthen Federal Leadership on Cyber Security: Declare the cyber infrastructure a strategic asset and establish the position of national cyber advisor who will report directly to the president and will be responsible for coordinating federal agency efforts and development of national cyber policy. * Initiate a Safe Computing R&D Effort and Harden our Nation's Cyber Infrastructure: Support an initiative to develop next-generation secure computers and networking for national security applications. Work with industry and academia to develop and deploy a new generation of secure hardware and software for our critical cyber infrastructure. * Protect the IT Infrastructure That Keeps America's Economy Safe: Work with the private sector to establish tough new standards for cyber security and physical resilience. * Prevent Corporate Cyber-Espionage: Work with industry to develop the systems necessary to protect our nation's trade secrets and our research and development. Innovations in software, engineering, pharmaceuticals and other fields are being stolen online from U.S. businesses at an alarming rate. * Develop a Cyber Crime Strategy to Minimize the Opportunities for Criminal Profit: Shut down the mechanisms used to transmit criminal profits by shutting down untraceable Internet payment schemes. Initiate a grant and training program to provide federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies the tools they need to detect and prosecute cyber crime. *

Legal woes may be next for Heartland Payment Systems, a payment processor that reported a major security breach this week. Depending on the results of the ongoing investigation, Heartland is likely to face the threat of litigation from issuing banks, merchants and consumers, says Scott Vernick, an attorney with Fox Rothschild LLP in Philadelphia, who specializes in data theft cases. "The businesses that use Heartland as a credit card processor, as well as thousands of consumers, will be anxiously watching for any negative impact, including harm to their business reputations, and the real possibility of identity theft or fraud," says Vernick. The fact that Heartland's systems were certified as being fully in compliance with data handling rules, called the PCI standards, raises questions about the efficacy of such standards. Hannaford Brothers grocery chain was likewise fully PCI compliant when it had 300 stores hacked and 4.3 million record swiped..... "This latest incident shows how, despite companies being compliant with regulations such as PCI, they are still a long way from being secure," says Mike Rothman, senior vice president of strategy at elQnetworks.