<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Immutable kBlog: thoughts on data integrity &#187; PCI DSS</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.kinamik.com/blog/tag/pci-dss/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.kinamik.com/blog</link>
	<description>thoughts on security, data integrity, GRC and other security-related issues.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:18:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Summary of new PCI-DSS v.1.2 released last Monday</title>
		<link>http://www.kinamik.com/blog/summary-of-new-pci-dss-v12-released-last-monday/</link>
		<comments>http://www.kinamik.com/blog/summary-of-new-pci-dss-v12-released-last-monday/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2008 08:07:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rob</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[PCI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PCI DSS]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kinamik.com/blog/?p=11</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We are still about a month and a half before the official 1.2 version of the PCI Data Security Standard is officially published. A couple of days ago a summary of the changes was published in the official PCI Security Standards Council, and so far (this is just a summary) no dramatic changes were presented.
Whenever [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We are still about a month and a half before the official 1.2 version of the PCI Data Security Standard is officially published. A couple of days ago a summary of the changes was <a href="https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/security_standards/supporting_documents.shtml" target="_blank">published</a> in the official PCI Security Standards Council, and so far (this is just a summary) no dramatic changes were presented.</p>
<p>Whenever a new version of this kind of standards is published, different questions <a href="http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/200834/1808/PCI-DSS-What-to-expect-in-October" target="_blank">appear</a><span id="intelliTxt">. For example, what happens with companies that are currently on the certification process? Well, these companies have nothing to worry about, since the PCI Security Standards council states that if a company is under the assessment process they can use the v.1.1 of the standard, even if they finish the assessment process after the official publication of version 1.2 in October.</span></p>
<p>For us working in the security area, in a <a href="http://www.securitykarma.com/2008/08/pci-dss-update-12-pre-released-and-boy.html" target="_blank">snapshot</a> some changes seemed rather obvious, some clarified &#8220;blurry&#8221; aspects of the standard, but it seems (can&#8217;t really say until the official 1.2 is published) to be still some ambiguity out there. I must say that I&#8217;m personally disappointed that -in this summary- no changes were mentioned about the needed integrity of the logs. The previous 1.1 version of the standard mention that logs &#8220;should be protected against <em>unauthorized </em>modifications&#8221;, which makes me wonder: what kind of authorized modification should be done to a log file? Aren&#8217;t log files meant to be logging exactly what happened?</p>
<p>More comments will be done as soon as the official PCI-DSS v.1.2 is released.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.kinamik.com/blog/summary-of-new-pci-dss-v12-released-last-monday/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Authorized modifications in PCI?</title>
		<link>http://www.kinamik.com/blog/hello-world/</link>
		<comments>http://www.kinamik.com/blog/hello-world/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 08:47:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[PCI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PCI DSS]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kinamik.com/blog/?p=1</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The PCI Consortium is currently working on the new PCI DSS Standard, which will be version 1.2. While reviewing the 12 requirements we came out with a surprising point:
Requirement 10.5.2 states that &#8220;Audit Trails files should be protected against unauthorized modifications&#8221;. We feel that there are is no case for an authorized modification of an [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The PCI Consortium is currently working on the new PCI DSS Standard, which will be version 1.2. While reviewing the 12 requirements we came out with a surprising point:</p>
<p>Requirement 10.5.2 states that &#8220;Audit Trails files should be protected against unauthorized modifications&#8221;. We feel that there are is no case for an authorized modification of an audit trail file and hence the word &#8220;unauthorized&#8221; should be replaced with &#8220;all&#8221;. Audit trail files should be absolutely immutable to be of any use in a legal or regulatory context.</p>
<p>So, we hope that erasing this &#8220;unauthorized&#8221; term will happen in the new release. We&#8217;ll keep you posted.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.kinamik.com/blog/hello-world/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
