Slashdot Mirror


Deadline for Better Encryption on Payment Systems Pushed Back Two Years (pcisecuritystandards.org)

An anonymous reader writes: The Payment Card Industry Security Standards Council (PCI SSC) has announced (PDF) that it will push back the mandatory implementation of TLS 1.1+ encryption, over the very insecure SSL 3.0 and TLS 1.0 protocols, subject to POODLE attacks. PCI SSC cites "complications" that may come from dealing with EMV chip&PIN cards in the US, the new mobile payment platforms, and browser upgrades for the insecure SHA-1 algorithm.

1 of 91 comments (clear)

  1. Not the biggest problem by CastrTroy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't see it as a huge problem simply because this is not the biggest problem that online payment systems face. The big problem isn't people sniffing transactions over the wire. This almost never happens. What typically tends to happen is that somebody breaks into the actual system that houses all the sensitive information and steals the data directly. This is much more lucrative as you can steal thousands (or tens of thousands, or even more) of credit card numbers at the same time.

    Until we get to the point where online retailers aren't storing this data (in 99% of cases they don't need to), there's little reason to complain about much smaller problems such as what encryption methods are being used.

    We'd be much better off with a system where we didn't even have to send our credit card numbers to the online retailer. Ideally when paying for something online, you would be redirected to your banks (or the credit card issuers) web site with information on where to direct the money. After verifying you identity, a cryptographically signed message would be sent to the recipient site so they could verify the payment was successful. There is no reason for them to every see your account number or other vital information.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.