Sad. That was published in 2008. I wonder if they still consider credit card fraud "manageable" now?
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of J- P Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2013 12:47 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] RE: 40 Million CC breach at Target.... Chip and PIN? http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/outdated-smart-card-chip-pin-1273.php Jean-Paul Natola ________________________________ From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] RE: 40 Million CC breach at Target.... Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 02:31:32 +0000 Your rant presupposes that there isn't "decent security" already in place. What evidence do you have that there isn't? Cheers Ken From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of J- P Sent: Tuesday, 24 December 2013 12:43 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] RE: 40 Million CC breach at Target.... /rant on I have one question that rings in the back of my mind, they (banks creditors merchants etc..) charge all sorts of fee's, sometimes i'have heard of fees larger than a bill thats due- Why cant they take a piece of that to get some decent security into place? /rant off Happy holidays and a prosperous new year to all Jean-Paul Natola ________________________________ From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 08:10:19 -0500 Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] RE: 40 Million CC breach at Target.... To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >>That's a pretty fair analogy - and both statements are true. On the other hand, banking is much better understood - experience with banking goes back hundreds of years, with concomitant expertise in many fields in dealing with the risks in banking. The experience around computing is much more shallow, and the risks are not as well known, nor has nearly as much thought and practice gone into mitigating them. Okay, so how about when banking relies upon computing? Which risk profile comes into play, then -- the hundreds of years, or the shallow years/decades? Whether or not YOU use online banking, it is almost assured that your bank provides it and that others are aware of its existence. Do you think that your bank is providing such a service without any reliance upon 3rd parties? Do you think that because you aren't using the online services from your bank that your data would be unimpacted? (Hint: I'm sure that some of the people impacted in the Target breach, as in the TJX breach before it, were *not* online users) ASB http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker<http://xeeme.com/AndrewBaker> Providing Virtual CIO Services (IT Operations & Information Security) for the SMB market... On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Kurt Buff <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 6:59 PM, Andrew S. Baker <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>Amazon's cloud is external to its customers - Amazon's staff, > procedures and infrastructure are a risk to its customers. > > That's as illogical a statement as the following: > XYZ Bank's technology infrastructure is external to its customers - XYZ > Bank's staff, procedures and infrastructure are a risk to its customers... That's a pretty fair analogy - and both statements are true. On the other hand, banking is much better understood - experience with banking goes back hundreds of years, with concomitant expertise in many fields in dealing with the risks in banking. The experience around computing is much more shallow, and the risks are not as well known, nor has nearly as much thought and practice gone into mitigating them. >>>Except when suborned or perverted by money, patriotism or blackmail: > http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/20/us-usa-security-rsa-idUSBRE9BJ1C220131220 > > And how does you maintaining your infrastructure on-premises, but having to > rely on 3rd party telecommunications mitigate the above risk in any way? It's not just that specific incident - that's but one example, and in this specific instance, there was no remedy - trusted parties were subverted, and the same can happen in other fields. I'm not arguing for perfection here - just a recognition that complexity brings risk, and that keeping things simple and under more control is usually wise. Indeed, for some businesses, especially small ones with no IT staff, or very limited IT staff, going with a public cloud might make sense. But if a business has good IT staff, I'd venture that migrating most or all of their infrastructure to a public cloud isn't their best bet. Kurt
