The Impact of PCI Compliance on DVR and NVRs

By: Dave Nieweg, Published on Aug 01, 2008

Surveillance vendors who sell to retail merchants have undoubtedly heard about PCI compliance, but may not understand exactly what it is and how it impacts the security industry. My company, 3xLogic, recently successfully completed a comprehensive PCI compliance audit for our DVR/NVRs. This report shares what we learned and how we achieved this. For more information on how PCI compliance may affect retailers, see our whitepaper on PCI compliance.

At first glance, PCI compliance appears to be an issue between the payment card companies such as VISA and the merchants who accept credit cards. However, as merchants are being required to comply, they are passing some of the impact down to the vendors whose systems sit on their network.

What the merchants aren’t saying is what they want the surveillance vendors to specifically do. We often hear, “We need your system to be PCI compliant before we can put it on the network”, but offer little assistance in defining exactly what PCI compliance means for the surveillance vendor.

In fact, a visit to the PCI Council’s website does little more than to confuse the issue further since it primarily deals with the responsibilities of software companies who provide payment applications and the merchants who accept credit cards. Any attempt to find information about non-payment systems leaves one with a very unclear understanding of a course of action.

WHAT IS PCI?

Simply put, the Payment Card Industry – Data Security Standards (PCI-DSS) is one of a set of requirements designed to help safeguard credit card data from being stolen through network breaches and ineffective IT security practices. Recent high-profile cases including TJX and Hannaford have served to highlight the need for merchants to take some measure of responsibility in protecting cardholder data.

Originally most card providers such as Visa and MasterCard had established their own proprietary rules regarding the handling of credit card data by merchants. Concern and confusion by the merchants over varying and overlapping requirements by the rival card companies prompted the card issuers to create an independent organization and standard for protecting credit card data. This entity is known as the PCI Security Council and while there are actually several standards, the most applicable to our industry is the PCI-DSS.

The PCI-DSS provides a variety of actions that must be taken by both payment software vendors (such as POS applications that handle credit cards) and the merchant themselves in how they configure and protect the network that the payment systems are connected to. The main issue is that any device or application that sits on the merchants’ network could in effect be a potential entry point into the protected network and lead to a compromise of cardholder data.

Get Notified of Video Surveillance Breaking News
Get Notified of Video Surveillance Breaking News

It is this need to secure the merchants entire network as well as the devices and software attached to the network that creates the demand for video surveillance vendors to meet PCI requirements, or more specifically, to provide solutions which are secure enough that they do not compromise the merchants network security plan.

Achieving Compliance

So how does a video surveillance vendor (or any other manufacturer for that matter) comply with this request to become PCI compliant?

Be aware that there is no process or standard offered by the PCI Council which allows a non-payment application or network equipment provider to become certified as being PCI compliant. It simply does not exist. Yet, we have merchants who think that they are doing the right thing by asking their vendors to get PCI certification, an impossible task. The answer is in both the details of what we are trying to accomplish and using the proper words when discussing PCI requirements.

What the merchant really wants is to:

1. Build and maintain a secure network

2. Ensure than any solution added to the network does not introduce an insecurity

3. Ensure that added solutions do not break their PCI compliance efforts

4. Have the solution vendor give them some form of validation that the solution is secure, can be maintained in a secure manner, and adheres to industry best practices and standards

5. Have the vendor pick up some of the liability if the network is found not to be secure either through a breach or audit.

So let’s cover each of those five bullets briefly to further understand the impact to surveillance vendors.

The merchant needs to build and maintain a secure network

This should be a basic requirement any vendor seeks to achieve yet the truth is that while the security industry as a whole may be great at physical security, we historically lack the required skill set when it comes to network security. But let’s face it, our solutions are now on the network and therefore we need to learn how to provide secure solutions.

Ensure than any solution added to the network does not introduce an insecurity

There are two issues here that impact surveillance vendors.

This first is the inherent or built-in security that the solution has as it leaves the manufacturers back door. Many solutions being shipped today utilize highly vulnerable technologies such as web applications, non-secured operating systems and may even have a wide variety of exploitable technologies built into the product.

Manufacturers first need to understand the most current threats and then need to evaluate and adapt their architectural design to provide maximum inherent security.

One method to accomplish this is by having a valid and effective Software Development Lifecycle (SDLC) program in place which adheres to industry best practices, meets secure software development standards and has security activities and awareness built-in throughout the process.

The second way that network insecurity can be introduced into the merchants’ network is in how the product is deployed, configured and maintained. Many vendors feel that at this point it is out of their hands, but new pressures on the merchant from the PCI requirements are causing them to push back at the manufacturer.

Simply put, without the manufacturer’s assistance, training and documentation, the merchant and their IT teams have little idea what security issues or potential exploits await your product. They best they can do is to bolt on after the fact security in an effort to isolate the product from the network. The issue is further compounded by the fact that many manufacturers provide solutions which the IT staff cannot maintain the same way that they maintain their other network resources. For these reasons it will become increasingly valuable for manufacturers to develop programs which will assist the merchants in securely deploying and maintaining their products.

Ensure that added solutions do not break their (the merchants) PCI compliance efforts

Merchants are hard at work to meet the requirement of the PCI-DSS and other standards. If manufacturers of products do not fully understand the requirements that need to be met, they may provide a configuration, which although secure, may in fact conflict with the PCI-DSS and therefore render the merchants efforts useless.

By fully understanding the merchants needs, more specifically the governance requirements that the IT staff is trying to meet, the merchant will be more likely to trust that the manufacturer has provided a solution that will enhance and not break their compliance efforts.

Have the solution vendor give them some form of validation that the solution is secure, can be maintained in a secure manner, and adheres to industry best practices and standards

Trust is a great thing and manufacturers who have earned their clients trust are in an enviable position, but today, merchants need more. They need authentic validation that what you say about the security of your product is not only true, but that it can be demonstrated to the entities that they have to answer to. Specifically, these are the auditors and the card companies that are enforcing the PCI standards. Merchants are no longer being taken at their word, and they will no longer take you at yours.

There may be several ways to demonstrate your security and compliance with the standards, but the best by far is to engage in the same type of audit that your clients are subject to which is performed by a certified CISP-compliant auditing firm. You won’t get a certification, but you can ask for a Letter of Conformance, meaning that your processes and products were found by the auditor to comply with the PCI requirements.

The results of the audit give the merchant something they can point to in the event an auditor questions the security or configuration of your product on the network. It may not remove 100% of the concern and there may in fact be further action required by the manufacturer, but it provides the auditor and the merchant with a documented understanding of the actions you took as a manufacturer.

Admittedly, the primary problem faced by manufacturers when seeking out an audit, is exactly what standard the auditor needs to measure against. One way it to utilize the existing PCI-DSS for any issue that applies to the manufacturers’ solution. Obviously there are many sections that only apply specifically to payment applications that will need to be disregarded, but overall will provide a solid starting point.

The next step will be to submit to a full scan by an approved scanning vendor (ASV) with a product configured exactly as deployed. A proper scan will expose commonly exploited vulnerabilities which will need to be mitigated by the manufacturer.

Lastly, the manufacturer will need to fill in the gaps with methods of their choosing, to demonstrate that they have adhered to all applicable development best practices. This can extremely challenging and costly and will vary by the manufacturers client demographic.

Have the vendor pick up some of the liability if the network is found not to be secure either through a breach or audit.

Ironically, if a manufacturer has performed all of the above steps, they will have certainly exposed themselves to a certain amount of liability. After all, the audit has served to document a certain level of security built into your process and product, but should your product fail to perform as stated and even worse, become the primary entry point for a breach, all fingers will point back to the audit. If the manufacturer has provided inaccurate documentation or performance, they will most certainly be liable to some extent.

The challenge to manufacturers of course is how to best mitigate or limit the liability created by meeting these new client requirements. The most direct method of course is to simply provide secure products and programs, but this is not as easy as it seems. Most manufacturers do not currently have these processes and programs in place, and putting them in place can take years. In the case of imported products, it may be highly unlikely that foreign manufacturers will offer the required transparency into their software development practices and create the type of relationship needed to mitigate built-in security issues.

Conclusions

So where does this leave surveillance vendors? The answer may be “in the dark” since there is no clarity and direct solution for this issue. The largest governance our industry had been subjected to in the past was UL certification for which we had a defined process and result. PCI compliance and the mitigation of network security issues is nothing like obtaining a UL certification.

I believe vendors will take two approaches to this issue with one side deciding this is not an issue that should be dealt with by the surveillance industry. My thoughts are that if it is a client issue, it is a vendor issue and vendors who choose not to address their client’s concerns may find their product is less desirable. There is a large amount of competitive infiltration by complementary industries that do understand the governance requirements of the merchant and this may simply assist them in their marketing efforts.

On the other side we will have the manufacturers who will most certainly recognize the need to provide secure products for a variety of reasons including proprietary and confidential company information on the network. They will work toward putting the processes and procedures in place, although this may take years to accomplish primarily due to the fact it will require significant changes to the way most companies develop, sell and deploy their products. Comments?

By David Nieweg, Marketing Director, 3xLogic, Inc.

Related Reports

Access Visitor Management Systems Guide on Jul 22, 2020
"Who are you, and why are you here?" Facilities that implement Visitor...
TVT / InVid Facial Recognition Tested on Mar 25, 2020
Facial recognition is frequently sold for thousands of dollars per channel...
Dynamic vs Static IP Addresses Tutorial on Apr 16, 2020
While many cameras default to DHCP out of the box, that does not mean you...
Drako's Companies (Brivo, Eagle Eye) Take $4+ Million in PPP Funds on Jul 14, 2020
While centimillionaire Dean Drako is the owner of two of the largest SaaS...
30 Million Criminal Face Database Tested (Captis Intelligence) on Apr 27, 2020
30 million criminal mugshots are now available for facial recognition...
Vulnerability Directory For Access Credentials on Feb 20, 2020
Knowing which access credentials are insecure can be difficult to see,...
Video Surveillance Business 101 on Mar 30, 2020
This report explains the fundamental elements of the video surveillance...
Startup Digeiz Reidentification Video Analytics Profile on Jul 20, 2020
French Start-Up Digeiz is marketing 'shopping centre analytics' with, most...
FLIR A Series Temperature Screening Cameras Tested on Jun 04, 2020
FLIR is one of the biggest names in thermal and one of the most conservative....
ZKTeco Body Temperature and Mask Detection Reader Tested on May 26, 2020
While dedicated fever cameras emerged first, now tablet/kiosk fever detectors...
Milestone Presents XProtect On AWS on May 04, 2020
Milestone presented its XProtect on AWS offering at the April 2020 IPVM New...
Fever Camera Sales From Integrators Surveyed on Jun 01, 2020
Fever cameras are the hottest trend in video surveillance currently but how...
Face Shields Impact On Temperature Measurement And Mask Detection on Jul 27, 2020
First, the use of face masks, and now, plastic face shields are rising...
Free IPVM Memberships For The Unemployed on Apr 02, 2020
IPVM is giving 3-month free memberships (regular price $99) for the...
Uniview Deep Learning Camera Tested on Jul 14, 2020
Uniview's intrusion analytics have performed poorly in our shootouts. Now,...

Recent Reports

SIA Coaches Sellers on NDAA 889B Blacklist Workarounds on Aug 05, 2020
Last month SIA demanded that NDAA 899B "must be delayed". Now that they have...
ADI Returns To Growth, Back To 'Pre-COVID Levels' on Aug 05, 2020
While ADI was hit hard in April, with revenue declining 21%, the company's...
Exposing Fever Tablet Suppliers and 40+ Relabelers on Aug 05, 2020
IPVM has found 40+ USA and EU companies relabeling fever tablets designed,...
Indian Government Restricts PRC Manufacturers From Public Projects on Aug 04, 2020
In a move that mirrors the U.S. government’s ban on Dahua and Hikvision...
Directory of 200 "Fever" Camera Suppliers on Aug 04, 2020
This directory provides a list of "Fever" scanning thermal camera providers...
Face Masks Increase Face Recognition Errors Says NIST on Aug 04, 2020
COVID-19 has led to widespread facemask use, which as IPVM testing has shown...
Dahua Loses Australian Medical Device Approval on Aug 04, 2020
Dahua has cancelled its medical device registration after "discussions" with...
Google Invests in ADT, ADT Stock Soars on Aug 03, 2020
Google has announced a $450 million investment in the Florida-based security...
US Startup Fever Inspect Examined on Aug 03, 2020
Undoubtedly late to fever cameras, this US company, Fever Inspect, led by a...
Motorola Solutions Acquires Pelco on Aug 03, 2020
Motorola Solutions has acquired Pelco, pledging to bring blue back and make...
False: Verkada: "If You Want To Remote View Your Cameras You Need To Punch Holes In Your Firewall" on Jul 31, 2020
Verkada falsely declared to “3,000+ customers”, “300 school districts”, and...
US GSA Explains NDAA 889 Part B Blacklisting on Jul 31, 2020
With the 'Blacklist Clause' going into effect August 13 that bans the US...
Access Control Online Show July 2020 - On-Demand Recording of 45+ Manufacturers Presentations on Jul 30, 2020
The show featured 48 Access Control presentations, all now recorded and...
Face Detection Shootout - Dahua, Hanwha, Hikvision, Uniview, Vivotek on Jul 30, 2020
Face detection analytics are available from a number of manufactures...
Sunell is The First China Manufacturer to Market NDAA Compliance on Jul 30, 2020
Most China manufacturers are going to be impacted by the NDAA 'Blacklist...