Defined Approach Requirements: All security policies and operational procedures that are identified in Requirement 1 are:
Documented.
Kept up to date.
In use.
Known to all affected parties.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Expectations, controls, and oversight for meeting activities within Requirement 1 are defined, understood, and adhered to by affected personnel. All supporting activities are repeatable, consistently applied, and conform to management’s intent.
[Purpose]: Requirement 1.1.1 is about effectively managing and maintaining the various policies and procedures specified throughout Requirement 1. While it is important to define the specific policies or procedures called out in Requirement 1, it is equally important to ensure they are properly documented, maintained, and disseminated.
[Good Practice]: It is important to update policies and procedures as needed to address changes in processes, technologies, and business objectives. For these reasons, consider updating these documents as soon as possible after a change occurs and not only on a periodic cycle.
[Definitions]: Security policies define the entity’s security objectives and principles. Operational procedures describe how to perform activities, and define the controls, methods, and processes that are followed to achieve the desired result in a consistent manner and in accordance with policy objectives.
","uuid":"17cf24f4-a85e-46b3-ba5d-358eecd80540","family":"Install and Maintain Network Security Controls","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"1.1.1","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"1.1.1 Examine documentation and interview personnel to verify that security policies and operational procedures identified in Requirement 1 are managed in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"1.1.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Roles and responsibilities for performing activities in Requirement 1 are documented, assigned, and understood.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Day-to-day responsibilities for performing all the activities in Requirement 1 are allocated. Personnel are accountable for successful, continuous operation of these requirements.
[Purpose]: If roles and responsibilities are not formally assigned, personnel may not be aware of their day-to-day responsibilities and critical activities may not occur.
[Good Practice]: Roles and responsibilities may be documented within policies and procedures or maintained within separate documents. As part of communicating roles and responsibilities, entities can consider having personnel acknowledge their acceptance and understanding of their assigned roles and responsibilities.
[Examples]: A method to document roles and responsibilities is a responsibility assignment matrix that includes who is responsible, accountable, consulted, and informed (also called a RACI matrix).
","uuid":"b831a65e-7e03-4bd7-864d-7e30a1fb3315","family":"Install and Maintain Network Security Controls","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"1.1.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"1.1.2.a Examine documentation to verify that descriptions of roles and responsibilities for performing activities in Requirement 1 are documented and assigned. 1.1.2.b Interview personnel responsible for performing activities in Requirement 1 to verify that roles and responsibilities are assigned as documented and are understood.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"1.1.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Configuration standards for NSC rulesets are:
Defined.
Implemented.
Maintained.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: The way that NSCs are configured and operate are defined and consistently applied.
[Purpose]: The implementation of these configuration standards results in the NSC being configured and managed to properly perform their security function (often referred to as the ruleset).
[Good Practice]: These standards often define the requirements for acceptable protocols, ports that are permitted to be used, and specific configuration requirements that are acceptable. Configuration standards may also outline what the entity considers not acceptable or not permitted within its network.
[Definitions]: NSCs are key components of a network architecture. Most commonly, NSCs are used at the boundaries of the CDE to control network traffic flowing inbound and outbound from the CDE. Configuration standards outline an entity’s minimum requirements for the configuration of its NSCs
[Examples]: Examples of NSCs covered by these configuration standards include, but are not limited to, firewalls, routers configured with access control lists, and cloud virtual networks.
","uuid":"58ee3c63-67f1-44e7-afff-5061aa61dc98","family":"Install and Maintain Network Security Controls","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"1.2.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"1.2.1.a Examine the configuration standards for NSC rulesets to verify the standards are in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement. 1.2.1.b Examine configuration settings for NSC rulesets to verify that rulesets are implemented according to the configuration standards.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"1.2.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: All changes to network connections and to configurations of NSCs are approved and managed in accordance with the change control process defined at Requirement 6.5.1
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Changes to network connections and NSCs cannot result in misconfiguration, implementation of insecure services, or unauthorized network connections.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: Changes to network connections include the addition, removal, or modification of a connection. Changes to NSC configurations include those related to the component itself as well as those affecting how it performs its security function.
[Good Practice]: Changes should be approved by individuals with the appropriate authority and knowledge to understand the impact of the change. Verification should provide reasonable assurance that the change did not adversely impact the security of the network and that the change performs as expected. To avoid having to address security issues introduced by a change, all changes should be approved prior to being implemented and verified after the change is implemented. Once approved and verified, network documentation should be updated to include the changes to prevent inconsistencies between network documentation and the actual configuration.
","uuid":"2385d904-a6df-40ab-a7e5-d5f08020a509","family":"Install and Maintain Network Security Controls","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"1.2.2","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"1.2.2.a Examine documented procedures to verify that changes to network connections and configurations of NSCs are included in the formal change control process in accordance with Requirement 6.5.1. 1.2.2.b Examine network configuration settings to identify changes made to network connections. Interview responsible personnel and examine change control records to verify that identified changes to network connections were approved and managed in accordance with Requirement 6.5.1. 1.2.2.c Examine network configuration settings to identify changes made to configurations of NSCs. Interview responsible personnel and examine change control records to verify that identified changes to configurations of NSCs were approved and managed in accordance with Requirement 6.5.1.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"1.2.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: An accurate network diagram(s) is maintained that shows all connections between the CDE and other networks, including any wireless networks.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: A representation of the boundaries between the CDE, all trusted networks, and all untrusted networks, is maintained and available.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: A current network diagram(s) or other technical or topological solution that identifies network connections and devices can be used to meet this requirement.
[Purpose]: Maintaining an accurate and up-to-date network diagram(s) prevents network connections and devices from being overlooked and unknowingly left unsecured and vulnerable to compromise. A properly maintained network diagram(s) helps an organization verify its PCI DSS scope by identifying systems connecting to and from the CDE.
[Good Practice]: All connections to and from the CDE should be identified, including systems providing security, management, or maintenance services to CDE system components. Entities should consider including the following in their network diagrams:
All locations, including retail locations, data centers, corporate locations, cloud providers, etc.
Clear labeling of all network segments
All security controls providing segmentation, including unique identifiers for each control (for example, name of control, make, model, and version).
All in-scope system components, including NSCs, web app firewalls, anti-malware solutions, change management solutions, IDS/IPS, log aggregation systems, payment terminals, payment applications, HSMs, etc.
Clear labeling of any out-of-scope areas on the diagram via a shaded box or other mechanism.
Date of last update, and names of people that made and approved the updates.
A legend or key to explain the diagram.
Diagrams should be updated by authorized personnel to ensure diagrams continue to provide an accurate description of the network.
","uuid":"1f3f2074-e940-4073-a2ae-ea294d72078c","family":"Install and Maintain Network Security Controls","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"1.2.3 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"1.2.3.a Examine diagram(s) and network configurations to verify that an accurate network diagram(s) exists in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement. 1.2.3.b Examine documentation and interview responsible personnel to verify that the network diagram(s) is accurate and updated when there are changes to the environment.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"1.2.3"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: An accurate data-flow diagram(s) is maintained that meets the following:
Shows all account data flows across systems and networks.
Updated as needed upon changes to the environment
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: A representation of all transmissions of account data between system components and across network segments is maintained and available.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: A data-flow diagram(s) or other technical or topological solution that identifies flows of account data across systems and networks can be used to meet this requirement.
[Purpose]: An up-to-date, readily available data-flow diagram helps an organization understand and keep track of the scope of its environment by showing how account data flows across networks and between individual systems and devices. Maintaining an up-to-date data-flow diagram(s) prevents account data from being overlooked and unknowingly left unsecured.
[Good Practice]: The data-flow diagram should include all connection points where account data is received into and sent out of the network, including connections to open, public networks, application processing flows, storage, transmissions between systems and networks, and file backups. The data-flow diagram is meant to be in addition to the network diagram and should reconcile with and augment the network diagram. As a best practice, entities can consider including the following in their data-flow diagrams:
All processing flows of account data, including authorization, capture, settlement, chargeback, and refunds.
All distinct acceptance channels, including card-present, card-not-present, and ecommerce.
All types of data receipt or transmission, including any involving hard copy/paper media.
The flow of account data from the point where it enters the environment, to its final disposition.
Where account data is transmitted and processed, where it is stored, and whether storage is short term or long term.
The source of all account data received (for example, customers, third party, etc.), and any entities with which account data is shared.
Date of last update, and names of people that made and approved the updates.
Defined Approach Requirements: All services, protocols, and ports allowed are identified, approved, and have a defined business need.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Unauthorized network traffic (services, protocols, or packets destined for specific ports) cannot enter or leave the network.
[Purpose]: Compromises often happen due to unused or insecure services (for example, telnet and FTP), protocols, and ports, since these can lead to unnecessary points of access being opened into the CDE. Additionally, services, protocols, and ports that are enabled but not in use are often overlooked and left unsecured and unpatched. By identifying the services, protocols, and ports necessary for business, entities can ensure that all other services, protocols, and ports are disabled or removed.
[Good Practice]: The security risk associated with each service, protocol, and port allowed should be understood. Approvals should be granted by personnel independent of those managing the configuration. Approving personnel should possess knowledge and accountability appropriate for making approval decisions.
","uuid":"a3744399-30ec-4718-882e-fbbb94907b61","family":"Install and Maintain Network Security Controls","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"1.2.5 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"1.2.5.a Examine documentation to verify that a list exists of all allowed services, protocols, and ports, including business justification and approval for each. 1.2.5.b Examine configuration settings for NSCs to verify that only approved services, protocols, and ports are in use.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"1.2.5"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Security features are defined and implemented for all services, protocols, and ports that are in use and considered to be insecure, such that the risk is mitigated.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: The specific risks associated with the use of insecure services, protocols, and ports are understood, assessed, and appropriately mitigated.
[Purpose]: Compromises take advantage of insecure network configurations.
[Good Practice]: If insecure services, protocols, or ports are necessary for business, the risk posed by these services, protocols, and ports should be clearly understood and accepted by the organization, the use of the service, protocol, or port should be justified, and the security features that mitigate the risk of using these services, protocols, and ports should be defined and implemented by the entity.
[Further Information]: For guidance on services, protocols, or ports considered to be insecure, refer to industry standards and guidance (for example, from NIST, ENISA, OWASP).
","uuid":"2eb88a10-8e95-4f46-bf6a-2f64c7a630ef","family":"Install and Maintain Network Security Controls","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"1.2.6 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"1.2.6.a Examine documentation that identifies all insecure services, protocols, and ports in use to verify that for each, security features are defined to mitigate the risk. 1.2.6.b Examine configuration settings for NSCs to verify that the defined security features are implemented for each identified insecure service, protocol, and port.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"1.2.6"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Configurations of NSCs are reviewed at least once every six months to confirm they are relevant and effective.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: NSC configurations that allow or restrict access to trusted networks are verified periodically to ensure that only authorized connections with a current business justification are permitted.
[Purpose]: Such a review gives the organization an opportunity to clean up any unneeded, outdated, or incorrect rules and configurations which could be utilized by an unauthorized person. Furthermore, it ensures that all rules and configurations allow only authorized services, protocols, and ports that match the documented business justifications.
[Good Practice]: This review, which can be implemented using manual, automated, or system-based methods, is intended to confirm that the settings that manage traffic rules, what is allowed in and out of the network, match the approved configurations. The review should provide confirmation that all permitted access has a justified business reason. Any discrepancies or uncertainties about a rule or configuration should be escalated for resolution. While this requirement specifies that this review occur at least once every six months, organizations with a high volume of changes to their network configurations may wish to consider performing reviews more frequently to ensure that the configurations continue to meet the needs of the business.
","uuid":"05b07663-06c4-4cbf-96e1-141e8ad7702c","family":"Install and Maintain Network Security Controls","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"1.2.7 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"1.2.7.a Examine documentation to verify procedures are defined for reviewing configurations of NSCs at least once every six months. 1.2.7.b Examine documentation of reviews of configurations for NSCs and interview responsible personnel to verify that reviews occur at least once every six months. 1.2.7.c Examine configurations for NSCs to verify that configurations identified as no longer being supported by a business justification are removed or updated.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"1.2.7"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Configuration files for NSCs are:
Secured from unauthorized access.
Kept consistent with active network configurations
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: NSCs cannot be defined or modified using untrusted configuration objects (including files)
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: Any file or setting used to configure or synchronize NSCs is considered to be a “configuration file.” This includes files, automated and system-based controls, scripts, settings, infrastructure as code, or other parameters that are backed up, archived, or stored remotely.
[Purpose]: To prevent unauthorized configurations from being applied to the network, stored files with configurations for network controls need to be kept up to date and secured against unauthorized changes. Keeping configuration information current and secure ensures that the correct settings for NSCs are applied whenever the configuration is run.
[Examples]: If the secure configuration for a router is stored in non-volatile memory, when that router is restarted or rebooted, these controls should ensure that its secure configuration is reinstated.
","uuid":"77451ae6-aae0-4779-85b8-b60b37cb90ba","family":"Install and Maintain Network Security Controls","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"1.2.8","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"1.2.8 Examine configuration files for NSCs to verify they are in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"1.2.8"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Inbound traffic to the CDE is restricted as follows:
To only traffic that is necessary.
All other traffic is specifically denied.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Unauthorized traffic cannot enter the CDE.
[Purpose]: This requirement aims to prevent malicious individuals from accessing the entity’s network via unauthorized IP addresses or from using services, protocols, or ports in an unauthorized manner.
[Good Practice]: All traffic inbound to the CDE, regardless of where it originates, should be evaluated to ensure it follows established, authorized rules. Connections should be inspected to ensure traffic is restricted to only authorized communications—for example, by restricting source/destination addresses and ports, and blocking of content.
[Examples]: Implementing a rule that denies all inbound and outbound traffic that is not specifically needed— for example, by using an explicit “deny all” or implicit deny after allow statement—helps to prevent inadvertent holes that would allow unintended and potentially harmful traffic.
","uuid":"ba233b91-3fa9-413d-a480-34d91059edcd","family":"Install and Maintain Network Security Controls","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"1.3.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"1.3.1.a Examine configuration standards for NSCs to verify that they define restricting inbound traffic to the CDE is in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement. 1.3.1.b Examine configurations of NSCs to verify that inbound traffic to the CDE is restricted in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"1.3.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Outbound traffic from the CDE is restricted as follows:
To only traffic that is necessary.
All other traffic is specifically denied. \\
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Unauthorized traffic cannot leave the CDE.
[Purpose]: This requirement aims to prevent malicious individuals and compromised system components within the entity’s network from communicating with an untrusted external host.
[Good Practice]: All traffic outbound from the CDE, regardless of the destination, should be evaluated to ensure it follows established, authorized rules. Connections should be inspected to restrict traffic to only authorized communications—for example, by restricting source/destination addresses and ports, and blocking of content.
[Examples]: Implementing a rule that denies all inbound and outbound traffic that is not specifically needed— for example, by using an explicit “deny all” or implicit deny after allow statement—helps to prevent inadvertent holes that would allow unintended and potentially harmful traffic.
","uuid":"23f52199-bd90-4e84-adf9-c34e0d002b4d","family":"Install and Maintain Network Security Controls","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"1.3.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"1.3.2.a Examine configuration standards for NSCs to verify that they define restricting outbound traffic from the CDE in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement. 1.3.2.b Examine configurations of NSCs to verify that outbound traffic from the CDE is restricted in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"1.3.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: NSCs are installed between all wireless networks and the CDE, regardless of whether the wireless network is a CDE, such that:
All wireless traffic from wireless networks into the CDE is denied by default.
Only wireless traffic with an authorized business purpose is allowed into the CDE.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Unauthorized traffic cannot traverse network boundaries between any wireless networks and wired environments in the CDE.
[Purpose]: The known (or unknown) implementation and exploitation of wireless technology within a network is a common path for malicious individuals to gain access to the network and account data. If a wireless device or network is installed without the entity’s knowledge, a malicious individual could easily and “invisibly” enter the network. If NSCs do not restrict access from wireless networks into the CDE, malicious individuals that gain unauthorized access to the wireless network can easily connect to the CDE and compromise account information.
","uuid":"dc9d7b3a-4e92-4b98-b02f-9b7850733d8d","family":"Install and Maintain Network Security Controls","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"1.3.3 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"1.3.3 Examine configuration settings and network diagrams to verify that NSCs are implemented between all wireless networks and the CDE, in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"1.3.3"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: NSCs are implemented between trusted and untrusted networks.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Unauthorized traffic cannot traverse network boundaries between trusted and untrusted networks.
[Purpose]: Implementing NSCs at every connection coming into and out of trusted networks allows the entity to monitor and control access and minimizes the chances of a malicious individual obtaining access to the internal network via an unprotected connection.
[Examples]: An entity could implement a DMZ, which is a part of the network that manages connections between an untrusted network (for examples of untrusted networks refer to the Requirement 1 Overview) and services that an organization needs to have available to the public, such as a web server. Please note that if an entity’s DMZ processes or transmits account data (for example, e-commerce website), it is also considered a CDE.
","uuid":"1e26bf0b-4c6f-4d50-8214-abf618e74eee","family":"Install and Maintain Network Security Controls","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"1.4.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"1.4.1.a Examine configuration standards and network diagrams to verify that NSCs are defined between trusted and untrusted networks. 1.4.1.b Examine network configurations to verify that NSCs are in place between trusted and untrusted networks, in accordance with the documented configuration standards and network diagrams.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"1.4.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Inbound traffic from untrusted networks to trusted networks is restricted to:
Communications with system components that are authorized to provide publicly accessible services, protocols, and ports.
Stateful responses to communications initiated by system components in a trusted network.
All other traffic is denied.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Only traffic that is authorized or that is a response to a system component in the trusted network can enter a trusted network from an untrusted network.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: The intent of this requirement is to address communication sessions between trusted and untrusted networks, rather than the specifics of protocols. This requirement does not limit the use of UDP or other connectionless network protocols if state is maintained by the NSC.
[Purpose]: Ensuring that public access to a system component is specifically authorized reduces the risk of system components being unnecessarily exposed to untrusted networks.
[Good Practice]: System components that provide publicly accessible services, such as email, web, and DNS servers, are the most vulnerable to threats originating from untrusted networks. Ideally, such systems are placed within a dedicated trusted network that is public facing (for example, a DMZ) but that is separated via NSCs from more sensitive internal systems, which helps protect the rest of the network in the event these externally accessible systems are compromised. This functionality is intended to prevent malicious actors from accessing the organization's internal network from the Internet, or from using services, protocols, or ports in an unauthorized manner. Where this functionality is provided as a built-in feature of an NSC, the entity should ensure that its configurations do not result in the functionality being disabled or bypassed.
[Definitions]: Maintaining the \"state\" (or status) for each connection into a network means the NSC “knows” whether an apparent response to a previous connection is a valid, authorized response (since the NSC retains each connection’s status) or whether it is malicious traffic trying to fool the NSC into allowing the connection.
Defined Approach Requirements: Anti-spoofing measures are implemented to detect and block forged source IP addresses from entering the trusted network.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Packets with forged IP source addresses cannot enter a trusted network.
[Purpose]: Filtering packets coming into the trusted network helps to, among other things, ensure packets are not “spoofed” to appear as if they are coming from an organization’s own internal network. For example, anti-spoofing measures prevent internal addresses originating from the Internet from passing into the DMZ.
[Good Practice]: Products usually come with anti-spoofing set as a default and may not be configurable. Entities should consult the vendor's documentation for more information.
[Examples]: Normally, a packet contains the IP address of the computer that originally sent it so other computers in the network know where the packet originated. Malicious individuals will often try to spoof (or imitate) the sending IP address to fool the target system into believing the packet is from a trusted source.
","uuid":"40cd6e8c-8b0a-4087-b998-472bd5eff81d","family":"Install and Maintain Network Security Controls","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"1.4.3 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"1.4.3 Examine vendor documentation and configurations for NSCs to verify that anti-spoofing measures are implemented to detect and block forged source IP addresses from entering the trusted network.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"1.4.3"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: System components that store cardholder data are not directly accessible from untrusted networks
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Stored cardholder data cannot be accessed from untrusted networks.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement is not intended to apply to storage of account data in volatile memory but does apply where memory is being treated as persistent storage (for example, RAM disk). Account data can only be stored in volatile memory during the time necessary to support the associated business process (for example, until completion of the related payment card transaction). Stored cardholder data cannot be accessed from untrusted networks.
[Purpose]: Cardholder data that is directly accessible from an untrusted network, for example, because it is stored on a system within the DMZ or in a cloud database service, is easier for an external attacker to access because there are fewer defensive layers to penetrate. Using NSCs to ensure that system components that store cardholder data (such as a database or a file) can only be directly accessed from trusted networks can prevent unauthorized network traffic from reaching the system component.
Defined Approach Requirements: The disclosure of internal IP addresses and routing information is limited to only authorized parties.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Internal network information is protected from unauthorized disclosure.
[Purpose]: Restricting the disclosure of internal, private, and local IP addresses is useful to prevent a hacker from obtaining knowledge of these IP addresses and using that information to access the network.
[Good Practice]: Methods used to meet the intent of this requirement may vary, depending on the specific networking technology being used. For example, the controls used to meet this requirement may be different for IPv4 networks than for IPv6 networks.
[Examples]: Methods to obscure IP addressing may include, but are not limited to:
IPv4 Network Address Translation (NAT).
Placing system components behind proxy servers/NSCs.
Removal or filtering of route advertisements for internal networks that use registered addressing.
Internal use of RFC 1918 (IPv4) or use IPv6 privacy extension (RFC 4941) when initiating outgoing sessions to the internet.
Defined Approach Requirements: Security controls are implemented on any computing devices, including company- and employee-owned devices, that connect to both untrusted networks (including the Internet) and the CDE as follows:
Specific configuration settings are defined to prevent threats being introduced into the entity’s network.
Security controls are actively running.
Security controls are not alterable by users of the computing devices unless specifically documented and authorized by management on a case-by-case basis for a limited period.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Devices that connect to untrusted environments and also connect to the CDE cannot introduce threats to the entity’s CDE.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: These security controls may be temporarily disabled only if there is legitimate technical need, as authorized by management on a case-by-case basis. If these security controls need to be disabled for a specific purpose, it must be formally authorized. Additional security measures may also need to be implemented for the period during which these security controls are not active. This requirement applies to employee-owned and company-owned computing devices. Systems that cannot be managed by corporate policy introduce weaknesses and provide opportunities that malicious individuals may exploit.
[Purpose]: Computing devices that are allowed to connect to the Internet from outside the corporate environment—for example, desktops, laptops, tablets, smartphones, and other mobile computing devices used by employees—are more vulnerable to Internet-based threats. Use of security controls such as host-based controls (for example, personal firewall software or end-point protection solutions), network-based security controls (for example, firewalls, networkbased heuristics inspection, and malware simulation), or hardware, helps to protect devices from Internet-based attacks, which could use the device to gain access to the organization’s systems and data when the device reconnects to the network.
[Good Practice]: The specific configuration settings are determined by the entity and should be consistent with its network security policies and procedures. Where there is a legitimate need to temporarily disable security controls on a company-owned or employee-owned device that connects to both an untrusted network and the CDE—for example, to support a specific maintenance activity or investigation of a technical problem—the reason for taking such action is understood and approved by an appropriate management representative. Any disabling or altering of these security controls, including on administrators’ own devices, is performed by authorized personnel. It is recognized that administrators have privileges that may allow them to disable security controls on their own computers, but there should be alerting mechanisms in place when such controls are disabled and follow up that occurs to ensure processes were followed.
[Examples]: Practices include forbidding split-tunneling of VPNs for employee-owned or corporate-owned mobile devices and requiring that such devices boot up into a VPN.
Defined Approach Requirements: All security policies and operational procedures that are identified in Requirement 2 are:
Documented.
Kept up to date.
In use.
Known to all affected parties.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Expectations, controls, and oversight for meeting activities within Requirement 2 are defined and adhered to by affected personnel. All supporting activities are repeatable, consistently applied, and conform to management’s intent.
[Purpose]: Requirement 2.1.1 is about effectively managing and maintaining the various policies and procedures specified throughout Requirement 2. While it is important to define the specific policies or procedures called out in Requirement 2, it is equally important to ensure they are properly documented, maintained, and disseminated.
[Good Practice]: It is important to update policies and procedures as needed to address changes in processes, technologies, and business objectives. For this reason, consider updating these documents as soon as possible after a change occurs and not only on a periodic cycle
[Definitions]: Security policies define the entity’s security objectives and principles. Operational procedures describe how to perform activities, and define the controls, methods, and processes that are followed to achieve the desired result in a consistent manner and in accordance with policy objectives.
","uuid":"2e4bd288-44eb-4c09-b32b-5567b688ad49","family":"Apply Secure Configurations to All System Components","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"2.1.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"2.1.1 Examine documentation and interview personnel to verify that security policies and operational procedures identified in Requirement 2 are managed in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"2.1.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Roles and responsibilities for performing activities in Requirement 2 are documented, assigned, and understood.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Day-to-day responsibilities for performing all the activities in Requirement 2 are allocated. Personnel are accountable for successful, continuous operation of these requirements.
[Purpose]: If roles and responsibilities are not formally assigned, personnel may not be aware of their day-to-day responsibilities and critical activities may not occur.
[Good Practice]: Roles and responsibilities may be documented within policies and procedures or maintained within separate documents. As part of communicating roles and responsibilities, entities can consider having personnel acknowledge their acceptance and understanding of their assigned roles and responsibilities.
[Examples]: A method to document roles and responsibilities is a responsibility assignment matrix that includes who is responsible, accountable, consulted, and informed (also called a RACI matrix).
","uuid":"a3c3f943-896d-4f9e-809e-f26aa35657da","family":"Apply Secure Configurations to All System Components","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"2.1.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"2.1.2.a Examine documentation to verify that descriptions of roles and responsibilities for performing activities in Requirement 2 are documented and assigned. 2.1.2.b Interview personnel with responsibility for performing activities in Requirement 2 to verify that roles and responsibilities are assigned as documented and are understood.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"2.1.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Configuration standards are developed, implemented, and maintained to:
Cover all system components.
Address all known security vulnerabilities.
Be consistent with industry-accepted system hardening standards or vendor hardening recommendations.
Be updated as new vulnerability issues are identified, as defined in Requirement 6.3.1.
Be applied when new systems are configured and verified as in place before or immediately after a system component is connected to a production environment
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: All system components are configured securely and consistently and in accordance with industry-accepted hardening standards or vendor recommendations
[Purpose]: There are known weaknesses with many operating systems, databases, network devices, software, applications, container images, and other devices used by an entity or within an entity’s environment. There are also known ways to configure these system components to fix security vulnerabilities. Fixing security vulnerabilities reduces the opportunities available to an attacker. By developing standards, entities ensure their system components will be configured consistently and securely, and address the protection of devices for which full hardening may be more difficult.
[Good Practice]: Keeping up to date with current industry guidance will help the entity maintain secure configurations. The specific controls to be applied to a system will vary and should be appropriate for the type and function of the system. Numerous security organizations have established system-hardening guidelines and recommendations, which advise how to correct common, known weaknesses.
[Further Information]: Sources for guidance on configuration standards include but are not limited to: Center for Internet Security (CIS), International Organization for Standardization (ISO), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Cloud Security Alliance, and product vendors.
Defined Approach Requirements: Vendor default accounts are managed as follows:
If the vendor default account(s) will be used, the default password is changed per Requirement 8.3.6.
If the vendor default account(s) will not be used, the account is removed or disabled.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: System components cannot be accessed using default passwords.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This applies to ALL vendor default accounts and passwords, including, but not limited to, those used by operating systems, software that provides security services, application and system accounts, point-of-sale (POS) terminals, payment applications, and Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) defaults. This requirement also applies where a system component is not installed within an entity’s environment, for example, software and applications that are part of the CDE and are accessed via a cloud subscription service.
[Purpose]: Malicious individuals often use vendor default account names and passwords to compromise operating systems, applications, and the systems on which they are installed. Because these default settings are often published and are well known, changing these settings will make systems less vulnerable to attack.
[Good Practice]: All vendor default accounts should be identified, and their purpose and use understood. It is important to establish controls for application and system accounts, including those used to deploy and maintain cloud services so that they do not use default passwords and are not usable by unauthorized individuals. Where a default account is not intended to be used, changing the default password to a unique password that meets PCI DSS Requirement 8.3.6, removing any access to the default account, and then disabling the account, will prevent a malicious individual from re-enabling the account and gaining access with the default password. Using an isolated staging network to install and configure new systems is recommended and can also be used to confirm that default credentials have not been introduced into production environments.
[Examples]: Defaults to be considered include user IDs, passwords, and other authentication credentials commonly used by vendors in their products.
Defined Approach Requirements: Primary functions requiring different security levels are managed as follows:
• Only one primary function exists on a system component,
OR
• Primary functions with differing security levels that exist on the same system component are isolated from each other,
OR
• Primary functions with differing security levels on the same system component are all secured to the level required by the function with the highest security need.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Primary functions with lower security needs cannot affect the security of primary functions with higher security needs on the same system component
[Purpose]: Systems containing a combination of services, protocols, and daemons for their primary function will have a security profile appropriate to allow that function to operate effectively. For example, systems that need to be directly connected to the Internet would have a particular profile, like a DNS server, web server, or an e-commerce server. Conversely, other system components may operate a primary function comprising a different set of services, protocols, and daemons that performs functions that an entity does not want exposed to the Internet. This requirement aims to ensure that different functions do not impact the security profiles of other services in a way which may cause them to operate at a higher or lower security level.
[Good Practice]: Ideally, each function should be placed on different system components. This can be achieved by implementing only one primary function on each system component. Another option is to isolate primary functions on the same system component that have different security levels, for example, isolating web servers (which need to be directly connected to the Internet) from application and database servers. If a system component contains primary functions that need different security levels, a third option is to implement additional controls to ensure that the resultant security level of the primary function(s) with higher security needs is not reduced by the presence of the lower security primary functions. Additionally, the functions with a lower security level should be isolated and/or secured to ensure they cannot access or affect the resources of another system function, and do not introduce security weaknesses to other functions on the same server. Functions of differing security levels may be isolated by either physical or logical controls. For example, a database system should not also be hosting web services unless using controls like virtualization technologies to isolate and contain the functions into separate sub-systems. Another example is using virtual instances or providing dedicated memory access by system function. Where virtualization technologies are used, the security levels should be identified and managed for each virtual component. Examples of considerations for virtualized environments include:
The function of each application, container, or virtual server instance
How virtual machines (VMs) or containers are stored and secured.
Defined Approach Requirements: Only necessary services, protocols, daemons, and functions are enabled, and all unnecessary functionality is removed or disabled.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: System components cannot be compromised by exploiting unnecessary functionality present in the system component.
[Purpose]: Unnecessary services and functions can provide additional opportunities for malicious individuals to gain access to a system. By removing or disabling all unnecessary services, protocols, daemons, and functions, organizations can focus on securing the functions that are required and reduce the risk that unknown or unnecessary functions will be exploited.
[Good Practice]: There are many protocols that could be enabled by default that are commonly used by malicious individuals to compromise a network. Disabling or removing all services, functions, and protocols that are not used minimizes the potential attack surface—for example, by removing or disabling an unused FTP or web server.
[Examples]: Unnecessary functionality may include, but is not limited to scripts, drivers, features, subsystems, file systems, interfaces (USB and Bluetooth), and unnecessary web servers.
","uuid":"50f848bf-5d6a-4d5f-b366-a0bdea3d7a2e","family":"Apply Secure Configurations to All System Components","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"2.2.4 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"2.2.4.a Examine system configuration standards to verify necessary system services, protocols, and daemons are identified and documented. 2.2.4.b Examine system configurations to verify the following: () All unnecessary functionality is removed or disabled. () Only required functionality, as documented in the configuration standards, is enabled.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"2.2.4"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: If any insecure services, protocols, or daemons are present:
Business justification is documented.
Additional security features are documented and implemented that reduce the risk of using insecure services, protocols, or daemons.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: System components cannot be compromised by exploiting insecure services, protocols, or daemons.
[Purpose]: Ensuring that all insecure services, protocols, and daemons are adequately secured with appropriate security features makes it more difficult for malicious individuals to exploit common points of compromise within a network.
[Good Practice]: Enabling security features before new system components are deployed will prevent insecure configurations from being introduced into the environment. Some vendor solutions may provide additional security functions to assist with securing an insecure process.
[Further Information]: For guidance on services, protocols, or daemons considered to be insecure, refer to industry standards and guidance (for example, as published by NIST, ENISA, and OWASP).
","uuid":"e40f7757-e598-49d0-8fd2-3700061363e4","family":"Apply Secure Configurations to All System Components","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"2.2.5 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"2.2.5.a If any insecure services, protocols, or daemons are present, examine system configuration standards and interview personnel to verify they are managed and implemented in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement. 2.2.5.b If any insecure services, protocols, or daemons, are present, examine configuration settings to verify that additional security features are implemented to reduce the risk of using insecure services, daemons, and protocols.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"2.2.5"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: System security parameters are configured to prevent misuse.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: System components cannot be compromised because of incorrect security parameter configuration.
[Purpose]: Correctly configuring security parameters provided in system components takes advantage of the capabilities of the system component to defeat malicious attacks.
[Good Practice]: System configuration standards and related processes should specifically address security settings and parameters that have known security implications for each type of system in use. For systems to be configured securely, personnel responsible for configuration and/or administering systems should be knowledgeable in the specific security parameters and settings that apply to the system. Considerations should also include secure settings for parameters used to access cloud portals.
[Further Information]: Refer to vendor documentation and industry references noted in Requirement 2.2.1 for information about applicable security parameters for each type of system.
","uuid":"170ce640-9f06-458b-9949-c2d302ceab15","family":"Apply Secure Configurations to All System Components","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"2.2.6 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"2.2.6.a Examine system configuration standards to verify they include configuring system security parameters to prevent misuse. 2.2.6.b Interview system administrators and/or security managers to verify they have knowledge of common security parameter settings for system components. 2.2.6.c Examine system configurations to verify that common security parameters are set appropriately and in accordance with the system configuration standards.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"2.2.6"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: All non-console administrative access is encrypted using strong cryptography.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Cleartext administrative authorization factors cannot be read or intercepted from any network transmissions.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This includes administrative access via browser-based interfaces and application programming interfaces (APIs).
[Purpose]: If non-console (including remote) administration does not use encrypted communications, administrative authorization factors (such as IDs and passwords) can be revealed to an eavesdropper. A malicious individual could use this information to access the network, become administrator, and steal data.
[Good Practice]: Whichever security protocol is used, it should be configured to use only secure versions and configurations to prevent use of an insecure connection—for example, by using only trusted certificates, supporting only strong encryption, and not supporting fallback to weaker, insecure protocols or methods.
[Examples]: Cleartext protocols (such as HTTP, telnet, etc.) do not encrypt traffic or logon details, making it easy for an eavesdropper to intercept this information. Non-console access may be facilitated by technologies that provide alternative access to systems, including but not limited to, out-of-band (OOB), lights-out management (LOM), Intelligent Platform Management Interface (IPMI), and keyboard, video, mouse (KVM) switches with remote capabilities. These and other non-console access technologies and methods must be secured with strong cryptography.
[Further Information]: Refer to industry standards and best practices such as NIST SP 800-52 and SP 800-57.
","uuid":"dc7c4035-7424-49af-8cc2-7d922fda1bab","family":"Apply Secure Configurations to All System Components","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"2.2.7 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"2.2.7.a Examine system configuration standards to verify they include encrypting all non-console administrative access using strong cryptography. 2.2.7.b Observe an administrator log on to system components and examine system configurations to verify that non-console administrative access is managed in accordance with this requirement. 2.2.7.c Examine settings for system components and authentication services to verify that insecure remote login services are not available for nonconsole administrative access. 2.2.7.d Examine vendor documentation and interview personnel to verify that strong cryptography for the technology in use is implemented according to industry best practices and/or vendor recommendations.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"2.2.7"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: For wireless environments connected to the CDE or transmitting account data, all wireless vendor defaults are changed at installation or are confirmed to be secure, including but not limited to:
Default wireless encryption keys.
Passwords on wireless access points.
SNMP defaults.
Any other security-related wireless vendor defaults.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Wireless networks cannot be accessed using vendor default passwords or default configurations.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This includes, but is not limited to, default wireless encryption keys, passwords on wireless access points, SNMP defaults, and any other securityrelated wireless vendor defaults.
[Purpose]: If wireless networks are not implemented with sufficient security configurations (including changing default settings), wireless sniffers can eavesdrop on the traffic, easily capture data and passwords, and easily enter and attack the network.
[Good Practice]: Wireless passwords should be constructed so that they are resistant to offline brute force attacks.
","uuid":"76067f2b-e1c9-44e3-94a5-ffa5afb88c4e","family":"Apply Secure Configurations to All System Components","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"2.3.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"2.3.1.a Examine policies and procedures and interview responsible personnel to verify that processes are defined for wireless vendor defaults to either change them upon installation or to confirm them to be secure in accordance with all elements of this requirement. 2.3.1.b Examine vendor documentation and observe a system administrator logging into wireless devices to verify: () SNMP defaults are not used. () Default passwords/passphrases on wireless access points are not used. 2.3.1.c Examine vendor documentation and wireless configuration settings to verify other security-related wireless vendor defaults were changed, if applicable.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"2.3.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: For wireless environments connected to the CDE or transmitting account data, wireless encryption keys are changed as follows:
Whenever personnel with knowledge of the key leave the company or the role for which the knowledge was necessary.
Whenever a key is suspected of or known to be compromised.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Knowledge of wireless encryption keys cannot allow unauthorized access to wireless networks.
[Purpose]: Changing wireless encryption keys whenever someone with knowledge of the key leaves the organization or moves to a role that no longer requires knowledge of the key, helps keep knowledge of keys limited to only those with a business need to know. Also, changing wireless encryption keys whenever a key is suspected or known to be comprised makes a wireless network more resistant to compromise.
[Good Practice]: This goal can be accomplished in multiple ways, including periodic changes of keys, changing keys via a defined “joiners-movers-leavers” (JML) process, implementing additional technical controls, and not using fixed pre-shared keys. In addition, any keys that are known to be, or suspected of being, compromised should be managed in accordance with the entity’s incident response plan at Requirement 12.10.1.
","uuid":"917f4b11-e5d7-47da-ab11-cf8995842ef4","family":"Apply Secure Configurations to All System Components","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"2.3.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"2.3.2 Interview responsible personnel and examine key-management documentation to verify that wireless encryption keys are changed in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"2.3.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: All security policies and operational procedures that are identified in Requirement 3 are:
Documented.
Kept up to date.
In use.
Known to all affected parties.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Expectations, controls, and oversight for meeting activities within Requirement 3 are defined and adhered to by affected personnel. All supporting activities are repeatable, consistently applied, and conform to management’s intent.
[Purpose]: Requirement 3.1.1 is about effectively managing and maintaining the various policies and procedures specified throughout Requirement 3. While it is important to define the specific policies or procedures called out in Requirement 3, it is equally important to ensure they are properly documented, maintained, and disseminated.
[Good Practice]: It is important to update policies and procedures as needed to address changes in processes, technologies, and business objectives. For this reason, consider updating these documents as soon as possible after a change occurs and not only on a periodic cycle.
[Definitions]: Security policies define the entity’s security objectives and principles. Operational procedures describe how to perform activities, and define the controls, methods, and processes that are followed to achieve the desired result in a consistent manner and in accordance with policy objectives.
","uuid":"a53c5d48-c823-465f-9ad4-a908a429308b","family":"Protect Stored Account Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"3.1.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"3.1.1 Examine documentation and interview personnel to verify that security policies and operational procedures identified in Requirement 3 are managed in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"3.1.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Roles and responsibilities for performing activities in Requirement 3 are documented, assigned, and understood.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Day-to-day responsibilities for performing all the activities in Requirement 3 are allocated. Personnel are accountable for successful, continuous operation of these requirements.
[Purpose]: If roles and responsibilities are not formally assigned, personnel may not be aware of their day-to-day responsibilities, and critical activities may not occur.
[Good Practice]: Roles and responsibilities may be documented within policies and procedures or maintained within separate documents. As part of communicating roles and responsibilities, entities can consider having personnel acknowledge their acceptance and understanding of their assigned roles and responsibilities.
[Examples]: A method to document roles and responsibilities is a responsibility assignment matrix that includes who is responsible, accountable, consulted, and informed (also called a RACI matrix).
","uuid":"1e727c4b-07b5-4207-b822-576236f17078","family":"Protect Stored Account Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"3.1.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"3.1.2.a Examine documentation to verify that descriptions of roles and responsibilities performing activities in Requirement 3 are documented and assigned. 3.1.2.b Interview personnel with responsibility for performing activities in Requirement 3 to verify that roles and responsibilities are assigned as documented and are understood.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"3.1.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Account data storage is kept to a minimum through implementation of data retention and disposal policies, procedures, and processes that include at least the following:
Coverage for all locations of stored account data.
Coverage for any sensitive authentication data (SAD) stored prior to completion of authorization. This bullet is a best practice until its effective date; refer to Applicability Notes below for details.
Limiting data storage amount and retention time to that which is required for legal or regulatory, and/or business requirements.
Specific retention requirements for stored account data that defines length of retention period and includes a documented business justification.
Processes for secure deletion or rendering account data unrecoverable when no longer needed per the retention policy.
A process for verifying, at least once every three months, that stored account data exceeding the defined retention period has been securely deleted or rendered unrecoverable
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Account data is retained only where necessary and for the least amount of time needed and is securely deleted or rendered unrecoverable when no longer needed.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: Where account data is stored by a TPSP (for example, in a cloud environment), entities are responsible for working with their service providers to understand how the TPSP meets this requirement for the entity. Considerations include ensuring that all geographic instances of a data element are securely deleted. The bullet above (for coverage of SAD stored prior to completion of authorization) is a best practice until 31 March 2025, after which it will be required as part of Requirement 3.2.1 and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment
[Purpose]: A formal data retention policy identifies what data needs to be retained, for how long, and where that data resides so it can be securely destroyed or deleted as soon as it is no longer needed. The only account data that may be stored after authorization is the primary account number or PAN (rendered unreadable), expiration date, cardholder name, and service code. The storage of SAD data prior to the completion of the authorization process is also included in the data retention and disposal policy so that storage of this sensitive data is kept to minimum, and only retained for the defined amount of time.
[Good Practice]: When identifying locations of stored account data, consider all processes and personnel with access to the data, as data could have been moved and stored in different locations than originally defined. Storage locations that are often overlooked include backup and archive systems, removable data storage devices, paper-based media, and audio recordings. To define appropriate retention requirements, an entity first needs to understand its own business needs as well as any legal or regulatory obligations that apply to its industry or to the type of data being retained. Implementing an automated process to ensure data is automatically and securely deleted upon its defined retention limit can help ensure that account data is not retained beyond what is necessary for business, legal, or regulatory purposes. Methods of eliminating data when it exceeds the retention period include secure deletion to complete removal of the data or rendering it unrecoverable and unable to be reconstructed. Identifying and securely eliminating stored data that has exceeded its specified retention period prevents unnecessary retention of data that is no longer needed. This process may be automated, manual, or a combination of both. The deletion function in most operating systems is not “secure deletion” as it allows deleted data to be recovered, so instead, a dedicated secure deletion function or application must be used to make data unrecoverable. Remember, if you don't need it, don't store it!
[Examples]: An automated, programmatic procedure could be run to locate and remove data, or a manual review of data storage areas could be performed. Whichever method is used, it is a good idea to monitor the process to ensure it is completed successfully, and that the results are recorded and validated as being complete. Implementing secure deletion methods ensures that the data cannot be retrieved when it is no longer needed.
[Further Information]: See NIST SP 800-88 Rev. 1, Guidelines for Media Sanitization.
","uuid":"442dfb0d-5e44-40fe-849c-c474de3fa10f","family":"Protect Stored Account Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"3.2.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"3.2.1.a Examine the data retention and disposal policies, procedures, and processes and interview personnel to verify processes are defined to include all elements specified in this requirement. 3.2.1.b Examine files and system records on system components where account data is stored to verify that the data storage amount and retention time does not exceed the requirements defined in the data retention policy. 3.2.1.c Observe the mechanisms used to render account data unrecoverable to verify data cannot be recovered.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"3.2.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: SAD is not retained after authorization, even if encrypted. All sensitive authentication data received is rendered unrecoverable upon completion of the authorization process.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: This requirement is not eligible for the customized approach.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement does not apply to issuers and companies that support issuing services (where SAD is needed for a legitimate issuing business need) and have a business justification to store the sensitive authentication data. Refer to Requirement 3.3.3 for additional requirements specifically for issuers. Sensitive authentication data includes the data cited in Requirements 3.3.1.1 through 3.3.1.3.
[Purpose]: SAD is very valuable to malicious individuals as it allows them to generate counterfeit payment cards and create fraudulent transactions. Therefore, the storage of SAD upon completion of the authorization process is prohibited.
[Definitions]: The authorization process completes when a merchant receives a transaction response (for example, an approval or decline).
","uuid":"28efa49c-bf7f-4315-b0fd-c03a3ce81bd6","family":"Protect Stored Account Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"3.3.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"3.3.1.a If SAD is received, examine documented policies, procedures, and system configurations to verify the data is not retained after authorization. 3.3.1.b If SAD is received, examine the documented procedures and observe the secure data deletion processes to verify the data is rendered unrecoverable upon completion of the authorization process.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"3.3.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: The full contents of any track are not retained upon completion of the authorization process.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: This requirement is not eligible for the customized approach.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: In the normal course of business, the following data elements from the track may need to be retained:
Cardholder name.
Primary account number (PAN).
Expiration date.
Service code.
To minimize risk, store securely only these data elements as needed for business.
[Purpose]: If full contents of any track (from the magnetic stripe on the back of a card if present, equivalent data contained on a chip, or elsewhere) is stored, malicious individuals who obtain that data can use it to reproduce payment cards and complete fraudulent transactions.
[Definitions]: Full track data is alternatively called full track, track, track 1, track 2, and magnetic-stripe data. Each track contains a number of data elements, and this requirement specifies only those that may be retained post-authorization.
[Examples]: Data sources to review to ensure that the full contents of any track are not retained upon completion of the authorization process include, but are not limited to:
Incoming transaction data.
All logs (for example, transaction, history, debugging, error).
History files.
Trace files.
Database schemas.
Contents of databases, and on-premise and cloud data stores.
Any existing memory/crash dump files.
Defined Approach Requirements: The card verification code is not retained upon completion of the authorization process.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: This requirement is not eligible for the customized approach.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: The card verification code is the three- or four-digit number printed on the front or back of a payment card used to verify card-not-present transactions.
[Purpose]: If card verification code data is stolen, malicious individuals can execute fraudulent Internet and mail-order/telephone-order (MO/TO) transactions. Not storing this data reduces the probability of it being compromised.
[Examples]: If card verification codes are stored on paper media prior to completion of authorization, a method of erasing or covering the codes should prevent them from being read after authorization is complete. Example methods of rendering the codes unreadable include removing the code with scissors and applying a suitably opaque and unremovable marker over the code. Data sources to review to ensure that the card verification code is not retained upon completion of the authorization process include, but are not limited to:
Incoming transaction data.
All logs (for example, transaction, history, debugging, error).
History files.
Trace files.
Database schemas.
Contents of databases, and on-premise and cloud data stores.
Any existing memory/crash dump files.
Defined Approach Requirements: The personal identification number (PIN) and the PIN block are not retained upon completion of the authorization process.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: This requirement is not eligible for the customized approach.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: PIN blocks are encrypted during the natural course of transaction processes, but even if an entity encrypts the PIN block again, it is still not allowed to be stored after the completion of the authorization process.
[Purpose]: PIN and PIN blocks should be known only to the card owner or entity that issued the card. If this data is stolen, malicious individuals can execute fraudulent PIN-based transactions (for example, in-store purchases and ATM withdrawals). Not storing this data reduces the probability of it being compromised.
[Examples]: Data sources to review to ensure that PIN and PIN blocks are not retained upon completion of the authorization process include, but are not limited to:
Incoming transaction data.
All logs (for example, transaction, history, debugging, error).
History files.
Trace files.
Database schemas.
Contents of databases, and on-premise and cloud data stores.
Any existing memory/crash dump files.
Defined Approach Requirements: SAD that is stored electronically prior to completion of authorization is encrypted using strong cryptography
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: This requirement is not eligible for the customized approach.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: Whether SAD is permitted to be stored prior to authorization is determined by the organizations that manage compliance programs (for example, payment brands and acquirers). Contact the organizations of interest for any additional criteria. This requirement applies to all storage of SAD, even if no PAN is present in the environment. Refer to Requirement 3.2.1 for an additional requirement that applies if SAD is stored prior to completion of authorization. This requirement does not apply to issuers and companies that support issuing services where there is a legitimate issuing business justification to store SAD). Refer to Requirement 3.3.3 for requirements specifically for issuers. This requirement does not replace how PIN blocks are required to be managed, nor does it mean that a properly encrypted PIN block needs to be encrypted again. This requirement is a best practice until 31 March 2025, after which it will be required and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment.
[Purpose]: SAD can be used by malicious individuals to increase the probability of successfully generating counterfeit payment cards and creating fraudulent transactions.
[Good Practice]: Entities should consider encrypting SAD with a different cryptographic key than is used to encrypt PAN. Note that this does not mean that PAN present in SAD (as part of track data) would need to be separately encrypted.
[Definitions]: The authorization process is completed as soon as the response to an authorization request response—that is, an approval or decline—is received.
","uuid":"4f62335b-d782-4858-9eeb-e5507653941d","family":"Protect Stored Account Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"3.3.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"3.3.2 Examine data stores, system configurations, and/or vendor documentation to verify that all SAD that is stored electronically prior to completion of authorization is encrypted using strong cryptography.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"3.3.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Additional requirement for issuers and companies that support issuing services and store sensitive authentication data: Any storage of sensitive authentication data is:
Limited to that which is needed for a legitimate issuing business need and is secured.
Encrypted using strong cryptography. This bullet is a best practice until its effective date; refer to Applicability Notes below for details
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Sensitive authentication data is retained only as required to support issuing functions and is secured from unauthorized access.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement applies only to issuers and companies that support issuing services and store sensitive authentication data. Entities that issue payment cards or that perform or support issuing services will often create and control sensitive authentication data as part of the issuing function. It is allowable for companies that perform, facilitate, or support issuing services to store sensitive authentication data ONLY IF they have a legitimate business need to store such data. PCI DSS requirements are intended for all entities that store, process, or transmit account data, including issuers. The only exception for issuers and issuer processors is that sensitive authentication data may be retained if there is a legitimate reason to do so. Any such data must be stored securely and in accordance with all PCI DSS and specific payment brand requirements. The bullet above (for encrypting stored SAD with strong cryptography) is a best practice until 31 March 2025, after which it will be required as part of Requirement 3.3.3 and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment.
[Purpose]: SAD can be used by malicious individuals to increase the probability of successfully generating counterfeit payment cards and creating fraudulent transactions.
[Good Practice]: Entities should consider encrypting SAD with a different cryptographic key than is used to encrypt PAN. Note that this does not mean that PAN present in SAD (as part of track data) would need to be separately encrypted.
[Definitions]: Legitimate issuing business need means that the data is needed to facilitate the issuing business process.
[Further Information]: Refer to ISO/DIS 9564-5 Financial services — Personal Identification Number (PIN) management and security — Part 5: Methods for the generation, change, and verification of PINs and card security data using the advanced encryption standard.
Defined Approach Requirements: PAN is masked when displayed (the BIN and last four digits are the maximum number of digits to be displayed), such that only personnel with a legitimate business need can see more than the BIN and last four digits of the PAN.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: PAN displays are restricted to the minimum number of digits necessary to meet a defined business need.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement does not supersede stricter requirements in place for displays of cardholder data—for example, legal or payment brand requirements for point-of-sale (POS) receipts. This requirement relates to protection of PAN where it is displayed on screens, paper receipts, printouts, etc., and is not to be confused with Requirement 3.5.1 for protection of PAN when stored, processed, or transmitted.
[Purpose]: The display of full PAN on computer screens, payment card receipts, paper reports, etc. can result in this data being obtained by unauthorized individuals and used fraudulently. Ensuring that the full PAN is displayed only for those with a legitimate business need minimizes the risk of unauthorized persons gaining access to PAN data.
[Good Practice]: Applying access controls according to defined roles is one way to limit access to viewing full PAN to only those individuals with a defined business need. The masking approach should always display only the number of digits needed to perform a specific business function. For example, if only the last four digits are needed to perform a business function, PAN should be masked to only show the last four digits. As another example, if a function needs to view to the bank identification number (BIN) for routing purposes, unmask only the BIN digits for that function.
[Definitions]: Masking is not synonymous with truncation and these terms cannot be used interchangeably. Masking refers to the concealment of certain digits during display or printing, even when the entire PAN is stored on a system. This is different from truncation, in which the truncated digits are removed and cannot be retrieved within the system. Masked PAN could be “unmasked”, but there is no \"un-truncation\" without recreating the PAN from another source.
[Further Information]: For more information about masking and truncation, see PCI SSC’s FAQs on these topics.
Defined Approach Requirements: When using remote-access technologies, technical controls prevent copy and/or relocation of PAN for all personnel, except for those with documented, explicit authorization and a legitimate, defined business need.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: PAN cannot be copied or relocated by unauthorized personnel using remote-access technologies.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: Storing or relocating PAN onto local hard drives, removable electronic media, and other storage devices brings these devices into scope for PCI DSS. This requirement is a best practice until 31 March 2025, after which it will be required and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment.
[Purpose]: Relocation of PAN to unauthorized storage devices is a common way for this data to be obtained and used fraudulently. Methods to ensure that only those with explicit authorization and a legitimate business reason can copy or relocate PAN minimizes the risk of unauthorized persons gaining access to PAN.
[Good Practice]: Copying and relocation of PAN should only be done to storage devices that are permissible and authorized for that individual.
[Definitions]: A virtual desktop is an example of a remote-access technology. Storage devices include, but are not limited to, local hard drives, virtual drives, removable electronic media, network drives, and cloud storage.
[Further Information]: Vendor documentation for the remote-access technology in use will provide information about the system settings needed to implement this requirement.
","uuid":"c0717dce-ef30-4bab-838e-b5c865bd7336","family":"Protect Stored Account Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"3.4.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"3.4.2.a Examine documented policies and procedures and documented evidence for technical controls that prevent copy and/or relocation of PAN when using remote-access technologies onto local hard drives or removable electronic media to verify the following: () Technical controls prevent all personnel not specifically authorized from copying and/or relocating PAN. () A list of personnel with permission to copy and/or relocate PAN is maintained, together with the documented, explicit authorization and legitimate, defined business need. 3.4.2.b Examine configurations for remote-access technologies to verify that technical controls to prevent copy and/or relocation of PAN for all personnel, unless explicitly authorized. 3.4.2.c Observe processes and interview personnel to verify that only personnel with documented, explicit authorization and a legitimate, defined business need have permission to copy and/or relocate PAN when using remoteaccess technologies.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"3.4.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: 1 PAN is rendered unreadable anywhere it is stored by using any of the following approaches:
One-way hashes based on strong cryptography of the entire PAN.
Truncation (hashing cannot be used to replace the truncated segment of PAN). – If hashed and truncated versions of the same PAN, or different truncation formats of the same PAN, are present in an environment, additional controls are in place such that the different versions cannot be correlated to reconstruct the original PAN.
Index tokens.
Strong cryptography with associated key-management processes and procedures.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Cleartext PAN cannot be read from storage media.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: It is a relatively trivial effort for a malicious individual to reconstruct original PAN data if they have access to both the truncated and hashed version of a PAN. This requirement applies to PANs stored in primary storage (databases, or flat files such as text files spreadsheets) as well as non-primary storage (backup, audit logs, exception, or troubleshooting logs) must all be protected. This requirement does not preclude the use of temporary files containing cleartext PAN while encrypting and decrypting PAN.
[Purpose]: The removal of cleartext stored PAN is a defense in depth control designed to protect the data if an unauthorized individual gains access to stored data by taking advantage of a vulnerability or misconfiguration of an entity’s primary access control. Secondary independent control systems (for example governing access to, and use of, cryptography and decryption keys) prevent the failure of a primary access control system leading to a breach of confidentiality of stored PAN. If hashing is used to remove stored cleartext PAN, by correlating hashed and truncated versions of a given PAN, a malicious individual can easily derive the original PAN value. Controls that prevent the correlation of this data will help ensure that the original PAN remains unreadable.
[Further Information]: For information about truncation formats and truncation in general, see PCI SSC’s FAQs on the topic. Sources for information about index tokens include:
PCI SSC’s Tokenization Product Security Guidelines (https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/docume nts/Tokenization_Product_Security_Guidelines .pdf)
ANSI X9.119-2-2017: Retail Financial Services - Requirements For Protection Of Sensitive Payment Card Data - Part 2: Implementing Post-Authorization Tokenization Systems
Defined Approach Requirements: 1 Hashes used to render PAN unreadable (per the first bullet of Requirement 3.5.1) are keyed cryptographic hashes of the entire PAN, with associated key-management processes and procedures in accordance with Requirements 3.6 and 3.7.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement applies to PANs stored in primary storage (databases, or flat files such as text files spreadsheets) as well as non-primary storage (backup, audit logs, exception, or troubleshooting logs) must all be protected. This requirement does not preclude the use of temporary files containing cleartext PAN while encrypting and decrypting PAN. This requirement is considered a best practice until 31 March 2025, after which it will be required and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment.
[Purpose]: The removal of cleartext stored PAN is a defense in depth control designed to protect the data if an unauthorized individual gains access to stored data by taking advantage of a vulnerability or misconfiguration of an entity’s primary access control. Secondary independent control systems (for example governing access to, and use of, cryptography and decryption keys) prevent the failure of a primary access control system leading to a breach of confidentiality of stored PAN.
[Good Practice]: A hashing function that incorporates a randomly generated secret key provides brute force attack resistance and secret authentication integrity.
[Further Information]: Appropriate keyed cryptographic hashing algorithms include but are not limited to: HMAC, CMAC, and GMAC, with an effective cryptographic strength of at least 128-bits (NIST SP 800-131Ar2). Refer to the following for more information about HMAC, CMAC, and GMAC, respectively: NIST SP 800-107r1, NIST SP 800-38B, and NIST SP 800-38D). See NIST SP 800-107 (Revision 1): Recommendation for Applications Using Approved Hash Algorithms §5.3.
","uuid":"1f7fef2b-8837-4a28-8d19-17764c15da7c","family":"Protect Stored Account Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"3.5.1.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"3.5.1.1.a Examine documentation about the hashing method used to render PAN unreadable, including the vendor, type of system/process, and the encryption algorithms (as applicable) to verify that the hashing method results in keyed cryptographic hashes of the entire PAN, with associated key management processes and procedures. 3.5.1.1.b Examine documentation about the key management procedures and processes associated with the keyed cryptographic hashes to verify keys are managed in accordance with Requirements 3.6 and 3.7. 3.5.1.1.c Examine data repositories to verify the PAN is rendered unreadable. 3.5.1.1.d Examine audit logs, including payment application logs, to verify the PAN is rendered unreadable.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"3.5.1.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: If disk-level or partition-level encryption (rather than file-, column-, or field-level database encryption) is used to render PAN unreadable, it is implemented only as follows:
On removable electronic media
OR
If used for non-removable electronic media, PAN is also rendered unreadable via another mechanism that meets Requirement 3.5.1.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: This requirement is not eligible for the customized approach.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: While disk encryption may still be present on these types of devices, it cannot be the only mechanism used to protect PAN stored on those systems. Any stored PAN must also be rendered unreadable per Requirement 3.5.1—for example, through truncation or a data-level encryption mechanism. Full disk encryption helps to protect data in the event of physical loss of a disk and therefore its use is appropriate only for removable electronic media storage devices. Media that is part of a data center architecture (for example, hot-swappable drives, bulk tape-backups) is considered non-removable electronic media to which Requirement 3.5.1 applies. Disk or partition encryption implementations must also meet all other PCI DSS encryption and keymanagement requirements. This requirement is a best practice until 31 March 2025, after which it will be required and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment.
[Purpose]: Disk-level and partition-level encryption typically encrypts the entire disk or partition using the same key, with all data automatically decrypted when the system runs or when an authorized user requests it. For this reason, disk-level encryption is not appropriate to protect stored PAN on computers, laptops, servers, storage arrays, or any other system that provides transparent decryption upon user authentication.
[Further Information]: Where available, following vendors’ hardening and industry best practice guidelines can assist in securing PAN on these devices.
","uuid":"ebdd3219-0812-484c-be9b-18ef6b044e6f","family":"Protect Stored Account Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"3.5.1.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"3.5.1.2.a Examine encryption processes to verify that, if disk-level or partition-level encryption is used to render PAN unreadable, it is implemented only as follows: () On removable electronic media, OR () If used for non-removable electronic media, examine encryption processes used to verify that PAN is also rendered unreadable via another method that meets Requirement 3.5.1. 3.5.1.2.b Examine configurations and/or vendor documentation and observe encryption processes to verify the system is configured according to vendor documentation the result is that the disk or the partition is rendered unreadable.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"3.5.1.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: If disk-level or partition-level encryption is used (rather than file-, column-, or field--level database encryption) to render PAN unreadable, it is managed as follows:
Logical access is managed separately and independently of native operating system authentication and access control mechanisms.
Decryption keys are not associated with user accounts.
Authentication factors (passwords, passphrases, or cryptographic keys) that allow access to unencrypted data are stored securely.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Disk encryption implementations are configured to require independent authentication and logical access controls for decryption.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: Disk or partition encryption implementations must also meet all other PCI DSS encryption and keymanagement requirements.
[Purpose]: Disk-level encryption typically encrypts the entire disk or partition using the same key, with all data automatically decrypted when the system runs or when an authorized user requests it. Many diskencryption solutions intercept operating system read/write operations and perform the appropriate cryptographic transformations without any special action by the user other than supplying a password or passphrase at system start-up or at the beginning of a session. This provides no protection from a malicious individual that has already managed to gain access to a valid user account.
[Good Practice]: Full disk encryption helps to protect data in the event of physical loss of a disk and therefore its use is best limited only to removable electronic media storage devices.
","uuid":"4e79a116-42df-44b7-b16a-7cb2266e4873","family":"Protect Stored Account Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"3.5.1.3 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"3.5.1.3.a If disk-level or partition-level encryption is used to render PAN unreadable, examine the system configuration and observe the authentication process to verify that logical access is implemented in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement. 3.5.1.3.b Examine files containing authentication factors (passwords, passphrases, or cryptographic keys) and interview personnel to verify that authentication factors that allow access to unencrypted data are stored securely and are independent from the native operating system’s authentication and access control methods.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"3.5.1.3"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Procedures are defined and implemented to protect cryptographic keys used to protect stored account data against disclosure and misuse that include:
Access to keys is restricted to the fewest number of custodians necessary.
Key-encrypting keys are at least as strong as the data-encrypting keys they protect.
Key-encrypting keys are stored separately from data-encrypting keys.
Keys are stored securely in the fewest possible locations and forms.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Processes that protect cryptographic keys used to protect stored account data against disclosure and misuse are defined and implemented.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement applies to keys used to encrypt stored account data and to key-encrypting keys used to protect data-encrypting keys. The requirement to protect keys used to protect stored account data from disclosure and misuse applies to both data-encrypting keys and keyencrypting keys. Because one key-encrypting key may grant access to many data-encrypting keys, the key-encrypting keys require strong protection measures.
[Purpose]: Cryptographic keys must be strongly protected because those who obtain access will be able to decrypt data.
[Good Practice]: Having a centralized key management system based on industry standards is recommended for managing cryptographic keys.
[Further Information]: The entity’s key management procedures will benefit through alignment with industry requirements, Sources for information on cryptographic key management life cycles include:
ISO 11568-1 Banking — Key management (retail) — Part 1: Principles (specifically Chapter 10 and the referenced Parts 2 & 4)
NIST SP 800-57 Part 1 Revision 5— Recommendation for Key Management, Part 1: General.
Defined Approach Requirements: Additional requirement for service providers only: A documented description of the cryptographic architecture is maintained that includes:
Details of all algorithms, protocols, and keys used for the protection of stored account data, including key strength and expiry date.
Preventing the use of the same cryptographic keys in production and test environments. This bullet is a best practice until its effective date; refer to Applicability Notes below for details.
Description of the key usage for each key.
Inventory of any hardware security modules (HSMs), key management systems (KMS), and other secure cryptographic devices (SCDs) used for key management, including type and location of devices, as outlined in Requirement 12.3.4.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Accurate details of the cryptographic architecture are maintained and available.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement applies only when the entity being assessed is a service provider. In cloud HSM implementations, responsibility for the cryptographic architecture according to this Requirement will be shared between the cloud provider and the cloud customer. The bullet above (for including, in the cryptographic architecture, that the use of the same cryptographic keys in production and test is prevented) is a best practice until 31 March 2025, after which it will be required as part of Requirement 3.6.1.1 and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment.
[Purpose]: Maintaining current documentation of the cryptographic architecture enables an entity to understand the algorithms, protocols, and cryptographic keys used to protect stored account data, as well as the devices that generate, use, and protect the keys. This allows an entity to keep pace with evolving threats to its architecture and plan for updates as the assurance level provided by different algorithms and key strengths changes. Maintaining such documentation also allows an entity to detect lost or missing keys or key-management devices and identify unauthorized additions to its cryptographic architecture. The use of the same cryptographic keys in both production and test environments introduces a risk of exposing the key if the test environment is not at the same security level as the production environment.
[Good Practice]: Having an automated reporting mechanism can assist with maintenance of the cryptographic attributes.
","uuid":"5c13df3c-2b03-411d-885f-3f622a50c7ba","family":"Protect Stored Account Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"3.6.1.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"3.6.1.1 Additional testing procedure for service provider assessments only: Interview responsible personnel and examine documentation to verify that a document exists to describe the cryptographic architecture that includes all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"3.6.1.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Secret and private keys used to encrypt/decrypt stored account data are stored in one (or more) of the following forms at all times:
Encrypted with a key-encrypting key that is at least as strong as the data-encrypting key, and that is stored separately from the dataencrypting key.
Within a secure cryptographic device (SCD), such as a hardware security module (HSM) or PTS-approved point-of-interaction device.
As at least two full-length key components or key shares, in accordance with an industry-accepted method.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Secret and private keys are stored in a secure form that prevents unauthorized retrieval or access.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: It is not required that public keys be stored in one of these forms. Cryptographic keys stored as part of a key management system (KMS) that employs SCDs are acceptable. A cryptographic key that is split into two parts does not meet this requirement. Secret or private keys stored as key components or key shares must be generated via one of the following:
Using an approved random number generator and within an SCD,
OR
According to ISO 19592 or equivalent industry standard for generation of secret key shares.
[Purpose]: Storing cryptographic keys securely prevents unauthorized or unnecessary access that could result in the exposure of stored account data. Storing keys separately means they are stored such that if the location of one key is compromised, the second key is not also compromised.
[Good Practice]: Where data-encrypting keys are stored in an HSM, the HSM interaction channel should be protected to prevent interception of encryption or decryption operations.
","uuid":"fd12fe63-1dd9-4f64-bbfb-c5ea4cdc2e63","family":"Protect Stored Account Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"3.6.1.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"3.6.1.2.a Examine documented procedures to verify it is defined that cryptographic keys used to encrypt/decrypt stored account data must exist only in one (or more) of the forms specified in this requirement. 3.6.1.2.b Examine system configurations and key storage locations to verify that cryptographic keys used to encrypt/decrypt stored account data exist in one (or more) of the forms specified in this requirement. 3.6.1.2.c Wherever key-encrypting keys are used, examine system configurations and key storage locations to verify: () Key-encrypting keys are at least as strong as the data-encrypting keys they protect. () Key-encrypting keys are stored separately from data-encrypting keys.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"3.6.1.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Access to cleartext cryptographic key components is restricted to the fewest number of custodians necessary.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Access to cleartext cryptographic key components is restricted to necessary personnel.
[Purpose]: Restricting the number of people who have access to cleartext cryptographic key components reduces the risk of stored account data being retrieved or rendered visible by unauthorized parties.
[Good Practice]: Only personnel with defined key custodian responsibilities (creating, altering, rotating, distributing, or otherwise maintaining encryption keys) should be granted access to key components. Ideally this will be a very small number of people.
","uuid":"5dfa3f06-5254-45ba-b582-955de5558f4f","family":"Protect Stored Account Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"3.6.1.3 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"3.6.1.3 Examine user access lists to verify that access to cleartext cryptographic key components is restricted to the fewest number of custodians necessary.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"3.6.1.3"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Cryptographic keys are stored in the fewest possible locations.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Cryptographic keys are retained only where necessary.
[Purpose]: Storing any cryptographic keys in the fewest locations helps an organization track and monitor all key locations and minimizes the potential for keys to be exposed to unauthorized parties.
","uuid":"478c999d-5861-49b4-a63b-f9bd31449920","family":"Protect Stored Account Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"3.6.1.4 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"3.6.1.4 Examine key storage locations and observe processes to verify that keys are stored in the fewest possible locations.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"3.6.1.4"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Key-management policies and procedures are implemented to include generation of strong cryptographic keys used to protect stored account data.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Strong cryptographic keys are generated.
[Purpose]: Use of strong cryptographic keys significantly increases the level of security of encrypted account data.
[Further Information]: See the sources referenced at \"Cryptographic Key Generation in Appendix G.
","uuid":"158c1c73-eeb6-4785-9b97-3df5943d8d90","family":"Protect Stored Account Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"3.7.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"3.7.1.a Examine the documented key-management policies and procedures for keys used for protection of stored account data to verify that they define generation of strong cryptographic keys. 3.7.1.b Observe the method for generating keys to verify that strong keys are generated.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"3.7.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Key-management policies and procedures are implemented to include secure distribution of cryptographic keys used to protect stored account data.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Cryptographic keys are secured during distribution.
[Purpose]: Secure distribution or conveyance of secret or private cryptographic keys means that keys are distributed only to authorized custodians, as identified in Requirement 3.6.1.2, and are never distributed insecurely.
","uuid":"965243bf-8021-41a0-a42e-8ed2964866f5","family":"Protect Stored Account Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"3.7.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"3.7.2.a Examine the documented key-management policies and procedures for keys used for protection of stored account data to verify that they define secure distribution of cryptographic keys. 3.7.2.b Observe the method for distributing keys to verify that keys are distributed securely.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"3.7.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Key-management policies and procedures are implemented to include secure storage of cryptographic keys used to protect stored account data.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Cryptographic keys are secured when stored.
[Purpose]: Storing keys without proper protection could provide access to attackers, resulting in the decryption and exposure of account data.
[Good Practice]: Data encryption keys can be protected by encrypting them with a key-encrypting key. Keys can be stored in a Hardware Security Module (HSM). Secret or private keys that can decrypt data should never be present in source code.
","uuid":"48f6244f-9293-4711-8fd8-0ca5cf42afab","family":"Protect Stored Account Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"3.7.3 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"3.7.3.a Examine the documented key-management policies and procedures for keys used for protection of stored account data to verify that they define secure storage of cryptographic keys. 3.7.3.b Observe the method for storing keys to verify that keys are stored securely.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"3.7.3"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Key management policies and procedures are implemented for cryptographic key changes for keys that have reached the end of their cryptoperiod, as defined by the associated application vendor or key owner, and based on industry best practices and guidelines, including the following:
A defined cryptoperiod for each key type in use.
A process for key changes at the end of the defined cryptoperiod.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Cryptographic keys are not used beyond their defined cryptoperiod.
[Purpose]: Changing encryption keys when they reach the end of their cryptoperiod is imperative to minimize the risk of someone obtaining the encryption keys and using them to decrypt data.
[Definitions]: A cryptoperiod is the time span during which a cryptographic key can be used for its defined purpose. Cryptoperiods are often defined in terms of the period for which the key is active and/or the amount of cipher-text that has been produced by the key. Considerations for defining the cryptoperiod include, but are not limited to, the strength of the underlying algorithm, size or length of the key, risk of key compromise, and the sensitivity of the data being encrypted.
[Further Information]: NIST SP 800-57 Part 1, Revision 5, Section 5.3 Cryptoperiods - provides guidance for establishing the time span during which a specific key is authorized for use by legitimate entities, or the keys for a given system will remain in effect. See Table 1 of SP 800-57 Part 1 for suggested cryptoperiods for different key types.
","uuid":"a3f3af6b-03c1-44d2-8537-8189a77da40d","family":"Protect Stored Account Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"3.7.4 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"3.7.4.a Examine the documented key-management policies and procedures for keys used for protection of stored account data to verify that they define changes to cryptographic keys that have reached the end of their cryptoperiod and include all elements specified in this requirement. 3.7.4.b Interview personnel, examine documentation, and observe key storage locations to verify that keys are changed at the end of the defined cryptoperiod(s).","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"3.7.4"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Key management policies procedures are implemented to include the retirement, replacement, or destruction of keys used to protect stored account data, as deemed necessary when:
The key has reached the end of its defined cryptoperiod.
The integrity of the key has been weakened, including when personnel with knowledge of a cleartext key component leaves the company, or the role for which the key component was known.
The key is suspected of or known to be compromised.
Retired or replaced keys are not used for encryption operations.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Keys are removed from active use when it is suspected or known that the integrity of the key is weakened.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: If retired or replaced cryptographic keys need to be retained, these keys must be securely archived (for example, by using a key-encryption key).
[Purpose]: Keys that are no longer required, keys with weakened integrity, and keys that are known or suspected to be compromised, should be archived, revoked, and/or destroyed to ensure that the keys can no longer be used. If such keys need to be kept (for example, to support archived encrypted data), they should be strongly protected.
[Good Practice]: Archived cryptographic keys should be used only for decryption/verification purposes. The encryption solution should provide for and facilitate a process to replace keys that are due for replacement or that are known to be, or suspected of being, compromised. In addition, any keys that are known to be, or suspected of being, compromised should be managed in accordance with the entity’s incident response plan per Requirement 12.10.1.
[Further Information]: Industry best practices for archiving retired keys are outlined in NIST SP 800-57 Part 1, Revision 5, Section 8.3.1, and includes maintaining the archive with a trusted third party and storing archived key information separately from operational data.
","uuid":"ba18ed08-e366-4d25-910f-03f303faa338","family":"Protect Stored Account Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"3.7.5 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"3.7.5.a Examine the documented key-management policies and procedures for keys used for protection of stored account data and verify that they define retirement, replacement, or destruction of keys in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement. 3.7.5.b Interview personnel to verify that processes are implemented in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"3.7.5"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Where manual cleartext cryptographic keymanagement operations are performed by personnel, key-management policies and procedures are implemented include managing these operations using split knowledge and dual control.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Cleartext secret or private keys cannot be known by anyone. Operations involving cleartext keys cannot be carried out by a single person.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This control is applicable for manual keymanagement operations or where key management is not controlled by the encryption product. A cryptographic key that is simply split into two parts does not meet this requirement. Secret or private keys stored as key components or key shares must be generated via one of the following:
Using an approved random number generator and within a secure cryptographic device (SCD), such as a hardware security module (HSM) or PTS-approved point-of-interaction device, OR
According to ISO 19592 or equivalent industry standard for generation of secret key shares.
[Purpose]: Split knowledge and dual control of keys are used to eliminate the possibility of a single person having access to the whole key and therefore being able to gain unauthorized access to the data.
[Definitions] Split knowledge is a method in which two or more people separately have key components, where each person knows only their own key component, and the individual key components convey no knowledge of other components or of the original cryptographic key. Dual control requires two or more people to authenticate the use of a cryptographic key or perform a key-management function. No single person can access or use the authentication factor (for example, the password, PIN, or key) of another.
[Good Practice]: Where key components or key shares are used, procedures should ensure that no single custodian ever has access to sufficient key components or shares to reconstruct the cryptographic key. For example, in an m-of-n scheme (for example, Shamir), where only two of any three components are required to reconstruct the cryptographic key, a custodian must not have current or prior knowledge of more than one component. If a custodian was previously assigned component A, which was then reassigned, the custodian should not then be assigned component B or C, as this would give the custodian knowledge of two components and the ability to recreate the key.
[Examples]: Key-management operations that might be performed manually include, but are not limited to, key generation, transmission, loading, storage, and destruction.
[Further Information]: Industry standards for managing key components include:
NIST SP 800-57 Part 2, Revision 1 -- Recommendation for Key Management: Part 2 – Best Practices for Key Management Organizations [4.6 Keying Material Distribution]
ISO 11568-2 Banking — Key management (retail) — Part 2: Symmetric ciphers, their key management and life cycle [4.7.2.3 Key components and 4.9.3 Key components]
European Payments Council EPC342-08 Guidelines on Cryptographic Algorithms Usage and Key Management [especially 4.1.4 Key installation].
Defined Approach Requirements: Key management policies and procedures are implemented to include the prevention of unauthorized substitution of cryptographic keys.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Cryptographic keys cannot be substituted by unauthorized personnel.
[Purpose]: If an attacker is able to substitute an entity’s key with a key the attacker knows, the attacker will be able to decrypt all data encrypted with that key.
[Good Practice]: The encryption solution should not allow for or accept substitution of keys from unauthorized sources or unexpected processes. Controls should include ensuring that individuals with access to key components or shares do not have access to other components or shares that form the necessary threshold to derive the key.
","uuid":"1de83bf0-f0a5-4a26-b5b7-e9536a036415","family":"Protect Stored Account Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"3.7.7 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"3.7.7.a Examine the documented key-management policies and procedures for keys used for protection of stored account data and verify that they define prevention of unauthorized substitution of cryptographic keys. 3.7.7.b Interview personnel and/or observe processes to verify that unauthorized substitution of keys is prevented.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"3.7.7"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Key management policies and procedures are implemented to include that cryptographic key custodians formally acknowledge (in writing or electronically) that they understand and accept their key-custodian responsibilities.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Key custodians are knowledgeable about their responsibilities in relation to cryptographic operations and can access assistance and guidance when required.
[Purpose]: This process will help ensure individuals that act as key custodians commit to the key-custodian role and understand and accept the responsibilities. An annual reaffirmation can help remind key custodians of their responsibilities.
[Further Information]: Industry guidance for key custodians and their roles and responsibilities includes:
NIST SP 800-130 A Framework for Designing Cryptographic Key Management Systems [5. Roles and Responsibilities (especially) for Key Custodians]
ISO 11568-1 Banking -- Key management (retail) -- Part 1: Principles [5 Principles of key management (especially b)]
Defined Approach Requirements: Additional requirement for service providers only: Where a service provider shares cryptographic keys with its customers for transmission or storage of account data, guidance on secure transmission, storage and updating of such keys is documented and distributed to the service provider’s customers
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Customers are provided with appropriate key management guidance whenever they receive shared cryptographic keys.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement applies only when the entity being assessed is a service provider.
[Purpose]: Providing guidance to customers on how to securely transmit, store, and update cryptographic keys can help prevent keys from being mismanaged or disclosed to unauthorized entities.
[Further Information]: Numerous industry standards for key management are cited above in the Guidance for Requirements 3.7.1-3.7.8.
","uuid":"43146751-0104-44fa-b524-41049245726a","family":"Protect Stored Account Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"3.7.9 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"3.7.9 Additional testing procedure for service provider assessments only: If the service provider shares cryptographic keys with its customers for transmission or storage of account data, examine the documentation that the service provider provides to its customers to verify it includes guidance on how to securely transmit, store, and update customers’ keys in accordance with all elements specified in Requirements 3.7.1 through 3.7.8 above.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"3.7.9"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: All security policies and operational procedures that are identified in Requirement 4 are:
Documented.
Kept up to date.
In use.
Known to all affected parties.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Expectations, controls, and oversight for meeting activities within Requirement 4 are defined and adhered to by affected personnel. All supporting activities are repeatable, consistently applied, and conform to management’s intent.
[Purpose]: Requirement 4.1.1 is about effectively managing and maintaining the various policies and procedures specified throughout Requirement 4. While it is important to define the specific policies or procedures called out in Requirement 4, it is equally important to ensure they are properly documented, maintained, and disseminated.
[Good Practice]: It is important to update policies and procedures as needed to address changes in processes, technologies, and business objectives. For this reason, consider updating these documents as soon as possible after a change occurs and not only on a periodic cycle.
[Definitions]: Security policies define the entity’s security objectives and principles. Operational procedures describe how to perform activities, and define the controls, methods, and processes that are followed to achieve the desired result in a consistent manner and in accordance with policy objectives. Policies and procedures, including updates, are actively communicated to all affected personnel, and are supported by operating procedures describing how to perform activities.
","uuid":"6e80b509-b170-48a4-8083-d846ac54720b","family":"Protect Cardholder Data with Strong Cryptography During Transmission Over Open, Public Networks","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"4.1.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"4.1.1 Examine documentation and interview personnel to verify that security policies and operational procedures identified in Requirement 4 are managed in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"4.1.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Roles and responsibilities for performing activities in Requirement 4 are documented, assigned, and understood.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Day-to-day responsibilities for performing all the activities in Requirement 4 are allocated. Personnel are accountable for successful, continuous operation of these requirements.
[Purpose]: If roles and responsibilities are not formally assigned, personnel may not be aware of their day-to-day responsibilities and critical activities may not occur.
[Good Practice]: Roles and responsibilities may be documented within policies and procedures or maintained within separate documents. As part of communicating roles and responsibilities, entities can consider having personnel acknowledge their acceptance and understanding of their assigned roles and responsibilities.
[Examples]: A method to document roles and responsibilities is a responsibility assignment matrix that includes who is responsible, accountable, consulted, and informed (also called a RACI matrix).
","uuid":"61de68d2-ea23-4442-bf22-88cffb94d6a6","family":"Protect Cardholder Data with Strong Cryptography During Transmission Over Open, Public Networks","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"4.1.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"4.1.2.a Examine documentation to verify that descriptions of roles and responsibilities for performing activities in Requirement 4 are documented and assigned. 4.1.2.b Interview personnel with responsibility for performing activities in Requirement 4 to verify that roles and responsibilities are assigned as documented and are understood.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"4.1.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Strong cryptography and security protocols are implemented as follows to safeguard PAN during transmission over open, public networks:
Only trusted keys and certificates are accepted.
Certificates used to safeguard PAN during transmission over open, public networks are confirmed as valid and are not expired or revoked. This bullet is a best practice until its effective date; refer to applicability notes below for details.
The protocol in use supports only secure versions or configurations and does not support fallback to, or use of insecure versions, algorithms, key sizes, or implementations.
The encryption strength is appropriate for the encryption methodology in use.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Cleartext PAN cannot be read or intercepted from any transmissions over open, public networks.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: There could be occurrences where an entity receives cardholder data unsolicited via an insecure communication channel that was not intended for the purpose of receiving sensitive data. In this situation, the entity can choose to either include the channel in the scope of their CDE and secure it according to PCI DSS or implement measures to prevent the channel from being used for cardholder data. A self-signed certificate may also be acceptable if the certificate is issued by an internal CA within the organization, the certificate’s author is confirmed, and the certificate is verified—for example, via hash or signature—and has not expired. Note that selfsigned certificates where the Distinguished Name (DN) field in the “issued by” and “issued to” field is the same are not acceptable. The bullet above (for confirming that certificates used to safeguard PAN during transmission over open, public networks are valid and are not expired or revoked) is a best practice until 31 March 2025, after which it will be required as part of Requirement 4.2.1 and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment.
[Purpose]: Sensitive information must be encrypted during transmission over public networks because it is easy and common for a malicious individual to intercept and/or divert data while in transit.
[Good Practice]: The network and data-flow diagrams defined in Requirement 1 are useful resources for identifying all connection points where account data is transmitted or received over open, public networks. While not required, it is considered a good practice for entities to also encrypt PAN over their internal networks, and for entities to establish any new network implementations with encrypted communications. PAN transmissions can be protected by encrypting the data before it is transmitted, or by encrypting the session over which the data is transmitted, or both. While it is not required that strong cryptography be applied at both the data level and the session level, it is strongly recommended. If encrypted at the data level, the cryptographic keys used for protecting the data can be managed in accordance with Requirements 3.6 and 3.7. If the data is encrypted at the session level, designated key custodians should be assigned responsibility for managing transmission keys and certificates. Some protocol implementations (such as SSL, SSH v1.0, and early TLS) have known vulnerabilities that an attacker can use to gain access to the cleartext data. It is critical that entities maintain awareness of industry-defined deprecation dates for the cipher suites they are using and are prepared to migrate to newer versions or protocols when older ones are no longer deemed secure. Verifying that certificates are trusted helps ensure the integrity of the secure connection. To be considered trusted, a certificate should be issued from a trusted source, such as a trusted certificate authority (CA), and not be expired. Up-to-date Certificate Revocation Lists (CRLs) or Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) can be used to validate certificates. Techniques to validate certificates may include certificate and public key pinning, where the trusted certificate or a public key is pinned either during development or upon its first use. Entities can also confirm with developers or review source code to ensure that clients and servers reject connections if the certificate is bad. For browser-based TLS certificates, certificate trust can often be verified by clicking on the lock icon that appears next to the address bar.
[Examples]: Open, public networks include, but are not limited to:
The Internet and
Wireless technologies, including Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, cellular technologies, and satellite communications.
[Further Information]: Vendor recommendations and industry best practices can be consulted for information about the proper encryption strength specific to the encryption methodology in use. For more information about strong cryptography and secure protocols, see industry standards and best practices such as NIST SP 800-52 and SP 800-57. For more information about trusted keys and certificates, see NIST Cybersecurity Practice Guide Special Publication 1800-16, Securing Web Transactions: Transport Layer Security (TLS) Server Certificate Management.
","uuid":"9aa14073-4749-4a7f-98e8-f71916b00d1f","family":"Protect Cardholder Data with Strong Cryptography During Transmission Over Open, Public Networks","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"4.2.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"4.2.1.a Examine documented policies and procedures and interview personnel to verify processes are defined to include all elements specified in this requirement. 4.2.1.b Examine system configurations to verify that strong cryptography and security protocols are implemented in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement. 4.2.1.c Examine cardholder data transmissions to verify that all PAN is encrypted with strong cryptography when it is transmitted over open, public networks. 4.2.1.d Examine system configurations to verify that keys and/or certificates that cannot be verified as trusted are rejected.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"4.2.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: An inventory of the entity’s trusted keys and certificates used to protect PAN during transmission is maintained.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: All keys and certificates used to protect PAN during transmission are identified and confirmed as trusted.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement is a best practice until 31 March 2025, after which it will be required and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment.
[Purpose]: The inventory of trusted keys helps the entity keep track of the algorithms, protocols, key strength, key custodians, and key expiry dates. This enables the entity to respond quickly to vulnerabilities discovered in encryption software, certificates, and cryptographic algorithms.
[Good Practice]: For certificates, the inventory should include the issuing CA and certification expiration date.
","uuid":"9bb0826d-8e0a-43a1-8247-c87b89885429","family":"Protect Cardholder Data with Strong Cryptography During Transmission Over Open, Public Networks","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"4.2.1.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"4.2.1.1.a Examine documented policies and procedures to verify processes are defined for the entity to maintain an inventory of its trusted keys and certificates. 4.2.1.1.b Examine the inventory of trusted keys and certificates to verify it is kept up to date.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"4.2.1.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Wireless networks transmitting PAN or connected to the CDE use industry best practices to implement strong cryptography for authentication and transmission.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Cleartext PAN cannot be read or intercepted from wireless network transmissions.
[Purpose]: Since wireless networks do not require physical media to connect, it is important to establish controls limiting who can connect and what transmission protocols will be used. Malicious users use free and widely available tools to eavesdrop on wireless communications. Use of strong cryptography can help limit disclosure of sensitive information across wireless networks. Wireless networks present unique risks to an organization; therefore, they must be identified and protected according to industry requirements. Strong cryptography for authentication and transmission of PAN is required to prevent malicious users from gaining access to the wireless network or utilizing wireless networks to access other internal networks or data.
[Good Practice]: Wireless networks should not permit fallback or downgrade to an insecure protocol or lower encryption strength that does not meet the intent of strong cryptography.
[Further Information]: Review the vendor’s specific documentation for more details on the choice of protocols, configurations, and settings related to cryptography.
","uuid":"e5fb3858-57fc-4025-980c-29b810dfbcd4","family":"Protect Cardholder Data with Strong Cryptography During Transmission Over Open, Public Networks","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"4.2.1.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"4.2.1.2 Examine system configurations to verify that wireless networks transmitting PAN or connected to the CDE use industry best practices to implement strong cryptography for authentication and transmission.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"4.2.1.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Wireless networks transmitting PAN or connected to the CDE use industry best practices to implement strong cryptography for authentication and transmission.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Cleartext PAN cannot be read or intercepted from transmissions using end-user messaging technologies.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement also applies if a customer, or other third-party, requests that PAN is sent to them via end-user messaging technologies. There could be occurrences where an entity receives unsolicited cardholder data via an insecure communication channel that was not intended for transmissions of sensitive data. In this situation, the entity can choose to either include the channel in the scope of their CDE and secure it according to PCI DSS or delete the cardholder data and implement measures to prevent the channel from being used for cardholder data.
[Purpose]: End-user messaging technologies typically can be easily intercepted by packet-sniffing during delivery across internal and public networks.
[Good Practice]: The use of end-user messaging technology to send PAN should only be considered where there is a defined business need.
[Examples]: E-mail, instant messaging, SMS, and chat are examples of the type of end-user messaging technology that this requirement refers to.
","uuid":"230bd2bc-ae01-416e-b4b5-858b0196e03a","family":"Protect Cardholder Data with Strong Cryptography During Transmission Over Open, Public Networks","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"4.2.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"4.2.2.a Examine documented policies and procedures to verify that processes are defined to secure PAN with strong cryptography whenever sent over end-user messaging technologies. 4.2.2.b Examine system configurations and vendor documentation to verify that PAN is secured with strong cryptography whenever it is sent via enduser messaging technologies.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"4.2.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: All security policies and operational procedures that are identified in Requirement 5 are:
Documented.
Kept up to date.
In use.
Known to all affected parties.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Expectations, controls, and oversight for meeting activities within Requirement 5 are defined and adhered to by affected personnel. All supporting activities are repeatable, consistently applied, and conform to management’s intent. |
[Purpose]: Requirement 5.1.1 is about effectively managing and maintaining the various policies and procedures specified throughout Requirement 5. While it is important to define the specific policies or procedures called out in Requirement 5, it is equally important to ensure they are properly documented, maintained, and disseminated.
[Good Practice]: It is important to update policies and procedures as needed to address changes in processes, technologies, and business objectives. For this reason, consider updating these documents as soon as possible after a change occurs and not only on a periodic cycle.
[Definitions]: Security policies define the entity’s security objectives and principles. Operational procedures describe how to perform activities, and define the controls, methods, and processes that are followed to achieve the desired result in a consistent manner and in accordance with policy objectives.
","uuid":"ca7339db-6812-461b-9c44-b371cb51e87b","family":"Protect All Systems and Networks from Malicious Software","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"5.1.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"5.1.1 Examine documentation and interview personnel to verify that security policies and operational procedures identified in Requirement 5 are managed in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"5.1.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Roles and responsibilities for performing activities in Requirement 5 are documented, assigned, and understood.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Day-to-day responsibilities for performing all the activities in Requirement 5 are allocated. Personnel are accountable for successful, continuous operation of these requirements.
[Purpose]: If roles and responsibilities are not formally assigned, networks and systems may not be properly protected from malware.
[Good Practice]: Roles and responsibilities may be documented within policies and procedures or maintained within separate documents. As part of communicating roles and responsibilities, entities can consider having personnel acknowledge their acceptance and understanding of their assigned roles and responsibilities.
[Examples]: A method to document roles and responsibilities is a responsibility assignment matrix that includes who is responsible, accountable, consulted, and informed (also called a RACI matrix).
","uuid":"5259571c-a2c9-43a2-9839-1d2e8b3a6dfd","family":"Protect All Systems and Networks from Malicious Software","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"5.1.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"5.1.2.a Examine documentation to verify that descriptions of roles and responsibilities for performing activities in Requirement 5 are documented and assigned. 5.1.2.b Interview personnel with responsibility for performing activities in Requirement 5 to verify that roles and responsibilities are assigned as documented and are understood.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"5.1.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: An anti-malware solution(s) is deployed on all system components, except for those system components identified in periodic evaluations per Requirement 5.2.3 that concludes the system components are not at risk from malware.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Automated mechanisms are implemented to prevent systems from becoming an attack vector for malware.
[Purpose]: There is a constant stream of attacks targeting newly discovered vulnerabilities in systems previously regarded as secure. Without an antimalware solution that is updated regularly, new forms of malware can be used to attack systems, disable a network, or compromise data.
[Good Practice]: It is beneficial for entities to be aware of \"zeroday\" attacks (those that exploit a previously unknown vulnerability) and consider solutions that focus on behavioral characteristics and will alert and react to unexpected behavior.
[Definitions]: System components known to be affected by malware have active malware exploits available in the real world (not only theoretical exploits).
","uuid":"24f3f4e9-b01c-414c-9530-8f022fcbe956","family":"Protect All Systems and Networks from Malicious Software","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"5.2.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"5.2.1.a Examine system components to verify that an anti-malware solution(s) is deployed on all system components, except for those determined to not be at risk from malware based on periodic evaluations per Requirement 5.2.3. 5.2.1.b For any system components without an anti-malware solution, examine the periodic evaluations to verify the component was evaluated and the evaluation concludes that the component is not at risk from malware.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"5.2.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: The deployed anti-malware solution(s):
Detects all known types of malware.
Removes, blocks, or contains all known types of malware.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Malware cannot execute or infect other system components.
[Purpose]: It is important to protect against all types and forms of malware to prevent unauthorized access.
[Good Practice]: Anti-malware solutions may include a combination of network-based controls, host-based controls, and endpoint security solutions. In addition to signature-based tools, capabilities used by modern anti-malware solutions include sandboxing, privilege escalation controls, and machine learning. Solution techniques include preventing malware from getting into the network and removing or containing malware that does get into the network.
[Examples]: Types of malware include, but are not limited to, viruses, Trojans, worms, spyware, ransomware, keyloggers, rootkits, malicious code, scripts, and links.
","uuid":"21a340a7-1f9b-40e3-b258-0f54d83c892d","family":"Protect All Systems and Networks from Malicious Software","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"5.2.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"5.2.2 Examine vendor documentation and configurations of the anti-malware solution(s) to verify that the solution: () Detects all known types of malware. () Removes, blocks, or contains all known types of malware.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"5.2.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Any system components that are not at risk for malware are evaluated periodically to include the following:
A documented list of all system components not at risk for malware.
Identification and evaluation of evolving malware threats for those system components.
Confirmation whether such system components continue to not require anti-malware protection.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: The entity maintains awareness of evolving malware threats to ensure that any systems not protected from malware are not at risk of infection.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: System components covered by this requirement are those for which there is no anti-malware solution deployed per Requirement 5.2.1.
[Purpose]: Certain systems, at a given point in time, may not currently be commonly targeted or affected by malware. However, industry trends for malware can change quickly, so it is important for organizations to be aware of new malware that might affect their systems—for example, by monitoring vendor security notices and antimalware forums to determine whether its systems might be coming under threat from new and evolving malware.
[Good Practice]: If an entity determines that a particular system is not susceptible to any malware, the determination should be supported by industry evidence, vendor resources, and best practices. The following steps can help entities during their periodic evaluations:
Identification of all system types previously determined to not require malware protection.
Review of industry vulnerability alerts and notices to determine if new threats exist for any identified system.
A documented conclusion about whether the system types remain not susceptible to malware.
A strategy to add malware protection for any system types for which malware protection has become necessary.
Trends in malware should be included in the identification of new security vulnerabilities at Requirement 6.3.1, and methods to address new trends should be incorporated into the entity’s configuration standards and protection mechanisms as needed.
","uuid":"c6a73e6a-75ab-4626-97b7-5c5b6de09c3b","family":"Protect All Systems and Networks from Malicious Software","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"5.2.3 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"5.2.3.a Examine documented policies and procedures to verify that a process is defined for periodic evaluations of any system components that are not at risk for malware that includes all elements specified in this requirement. 5.2.3.b Interview personnel to verify that the evaluations include all elements specified in this requirement. 5.2.3.c Examine the list of system components identified as not at risk of malware and compare to the system components without an anti-malware solution deployed per Requirement 5.2.1 to verify that the system components match for both requirements.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"5.2.3"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: The frequency of periodic evaluations of system components identified as not at risk for malware is defined in the entity’s targeted risk analysis, which is performed according to all elements specified in Requirement 12.3.1.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Systems not known to be at risk from malware are re-evaluated at a frequency that addresses the entity’s risk.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement is a best practice until 31 March 2025, after which it will be required and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment.
[Purpose]: Entities determine the optimum period to undertake the evaluation based on criteria such as the complexity of each entity’s environment and the number of types of systems that are required to be evaluated.
","uuid":"9a58bf0c-8232-40f3-b38c-38b3bcc7904e","family":"Protect All Systems and Networks from Malicious Software","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"5.2.3.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"5.2.3.1.a Examine the entity’s targeted risk analysis for the frequency of periodic evaluations of system components identified as not at risk for malware to verify the risk analysis was performed in accordance with all elements specified in Requirement 12.3.1. 5.2.3.1.b Examine documented results of periodic evaluations of system components identified as not at risk for malware and interview personnel to verify that evaluations are performed at the frequency defined in the entity’s targeted risk analysis performed for this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"5.2.3.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: The anti-malware solution(s) is kept current via automatic updates.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Anti-malware mechanisms can detect and address the latest malware threats.
[Purpose]: For an anti-malware solution to remain effective, it needs to have the latest security updates, signatures, threat analysis engines, and any other malware protections on which the solution relies. Having an automated update process avoids burdening end users with responsibility for manually installing updates and provides greater assurance that anti-malware protection mechanisms are updated as quickly as possible after an update is released.
[Good Practice]: Anti-malware mechanisms should be updated via a trusted source as soon as possible after an update is available. Using a trusted common source to distribute updates to end-user systems helps ensure the integrity and consistency of the solution architecture. Updates may be automatically downloaded to a central location—for example, to allow for testing—prior to being deployed to individual system components.
","uuid":"df0d85d5-be3d-4ddd-8077-05e308e3f184","family":"Protect All Systems and Networks from Malicious Software","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"5.3.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"5.3.1.a Examine anti-malware solution(s) configurations, including any master installation of the software, to verify the solution is configured to perform automatic updates. 5.3.1.b Examine system components and logs, to verify that the anti-malware solution(s) and definitions are current and have been promptly deployed","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"5.3.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: The anti-malware solution(s):
Performs periodic scans and active or real-time scans,
OR
Performs continuous behavioral analysis of systems or processes.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Malware cannot complete execution.
[Purpose]: Periodic scans can identify malware that is present, but currently inactive, within the environment. Some malware, such as zero-day malware, can enter an environment before the scan solution is capable of detecting it. Performing regular periodic scans or continuous behavioral analysis of systems or processes helps ensure that previously undetectable malware can be identified, removed, and investigated to determine how it gained access to the environment.
[Good Practice]: Using a combination of periodic scans (scheduled and on-demand) and active, real-time (on-access) scanning helps ensure that malware residing in both static and dynamic elements of the CDE is addressed. Users should also be able to run ondemand scans on their systems if suspicious activity is detected – this can be useful in the early detection of malware. Scans should include the entire file system, including all disks, memory, and start-up files and boot records (at system restart) to detect all malware upon file execution, including any software that may be resident on a system but not currently active. Scan scope should include all systems and software in the CDE, including those that are often overlooked such as email servers, web browsers, and instant messaging software.
[Definitions]: Active, or real-time, scanning checks files for malware upon any attempt to open, close, rename, or otherwise interact with a file, preventing the malware from being activated.
","uuid":"c1330b77-17ec-46a9-b0b1-eb0e1b0c7584","family":"Protect All Systems and Networks from Malicious Software","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"5.3.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"5.3.2.a Examine anti-malware solution(s) configurations, including any master installation of the software, to verify the solution(s) is configured to perform at least one of the elements specified in this requirement. 5.3.2.b Examine system components, including all operating system types identified as at risk for malware, to verify the solution(s) is enabled in accordance with at least one of the elements specified in this requirement. 5.3.2.c Examine logs and scan results to verify that the solution(s) is enabled in accordance with at least one of the elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"5.3.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: If periodic malware scans are performed to meet Requirement 5.3.2, the frequency of scans is defined in the entity’s targeted risk analysis, which is performed according to all elements specified in Requirement 12.3.1.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Scans by the malware solution are performed at a frequency that addresses the entity’s risk.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement applies to entities conducting periodic malware scans to meet Requirement 5.3.2. This requirement is a best practice until 31 March 2025, after which it will be required and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment.
[Purpose]: Entities can determine the optimum period to undertake periodic scans based on their own assessment of the risks posed to their environments.
","uuid":"f81d9a6d-7f44-444e-af32-82d3ccabf9f7","family":"Protect All Systems and Networks from Malicious Software","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"5.3.2.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"5.3.2.1.a Examine the entity’s targeted risk analysis for the frequency of periodic malware scans to verify the risk analysis was performed in accordance with all elements specified in Requirement 12.3.1. 5.3.2.1.b Examine documented results of periodic malware scans and interview personnel to verify scans are performed at the frequency defined in the entity’s targeted risk analysis performed for this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"5.3.2.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: For removable electronic media, the antimalware solution(s):
Performs automatic scans of when the media is inserted, connected, or logically mounted,
OR
Performs continuous behavioral analysis of systems or processes when the media is inserted, connected, or logically mounted.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Malware cannot be introduced to system components via external removable media.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement is a best practice until 31 March 2025, after which it will be required and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment.
[Purpose]: Portable media devices are often overlooked as an entry method for malware. Attackers will often pre-load malware onto portable devices such as USB and flash drives; connecting an infected device to a computer then triggers the malware, introducing new threats within the environment.
","uuid":"dcbe1aa4-3985-43ef-9833-8edfe4bc70f1","family":"Protect All Systems and Networks from Malicious Software","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"5.3.3 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"5.3.3.a Examine anti-malware solution(s) configurations to verify that, for removable electronic media, the solution is configured to perform at least one of the elements specified in this requirement. 5.3.3.b Examine system components with removable electronic media connected to verify that the solution(s) is enabled in accordance with at least one of the elements as specified in this requirement. 5.3.3.c Examine logs and scan results to verify that the solution(s) is enabled in accordance with at least one of the elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"5.3.3"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Audit logs for the anti-malware solution(s) are enabled and retained in accordance with Requirement 10.5.1.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Historical records of anti-malware actions are immediately available and retained for at least 12 months.
[Purpose]: It is important to track the effectiveness of the anti-malware mechanisms—for example, by confirming that updates and scans are being performed as expected, and that malware is identified and addressed. Audit logs also allow an entity to determine how malware entered the environment and track its activity when inside the entity’s network.
","uuid":"9f9416e6-8e3a-4cbb-ad7f-fbf165eeb45d","family":"Protect All Systems and Networks from Malicious Software","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"5.3.4 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"5.3.4 Examine anti-malware solution(s) configurations to verify logs are enabled and retained in accordance with Requirement 10.5.1.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"5.3.4"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Anti-malware mechanisms cannot be disabled or altered by users, unless specifically documented, and authorized by management on a case-by-case basis for a limited time period.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Anti-malware mechanisms cannot be modified by unauthorized personnel.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: Anti-malware solutions may be temporarily disabled only if there is a legitimate technical need, as authorized by management on a case-by-case basis. If anti-malware protection needs to be disabled for a specific purpose, it must be formally authorized. Additional security measures may also need to be implemented for the period during which anti-malware protection is not active.
[Purpose]: It is important that defensive mechanisms are always running so that malware is detected in real time. Ad-hoc starting and stopping of antimalware solutions could allow malware to propagate unchecked and undetected.
[Good Practice]: Where there is a legitimate need to temporarily disable a system’s anti-malware protection—for example, to support a specific maintenance activity or investigation of a technical problem— the reason for taking such action should be understood and approved by an appropriate management representative. Any disabling or altering of anti-malware mechanisms, including on administrators’ own devices, should be performed by authorized personnel. It is recognized that administrators have privileges that may allow them to disable anti-malware on their own computers, but there should be alerting mechanisms in place when such software is disabled and then follow up that occurs to ensure correct processes were followed.
[Examples]: Additional security measures that may need to be implemented for the period during which antimalware protection is not active include disconnecting the unprotected system from the Internet while the anti-malware protection is disabled and running a full scan once it is reenabled.
","uuid":"f93a493f-cbae-4772-addf-bd01e20d9a61","family":"Protect All Systems and Networks from Malicious Software","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"5.3.5 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"5.3.5.a Examine anti-malware configurations, to verify that the anti-malware mechanisms cannot be disabled or altered by users. 5.3.5.b Interview responsible personnel and observe processes to verify that any requests to disable or alter anti-malware mechanisms are specifically documented and authorized by management on a case-by-case basis for a limited time period.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"5.3.5"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Processes and automated mechanisms are in place to detect and protect personnel against phishing attacks.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Mechanisms are in place to protect against and mitigate risk posed by phishing attacks.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement applies to the automated mechanism. It is not intended that the systems and services providing such automated mechanisms (such as email servers) are brought into scope for PCI DSS. The focus of this requirement is on protecting personnel with access to system components inscope for PCI DSS. Meeting this requirement for technical and automated controls to detect and protect personnel against phishing is not the same as Requirement 12.6.3.1 for security awareness training. Meeting this requirement does not also meet the requirement for providing personnel with security awareness training, and vice versa. This requirement is a best practice until 31 March 2025, after which it will be required and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment.
[Purpose]: Technical controls can limit the number of occasions personnel have to evaluate the veracity of a communication and can also limit the effects of individual responses to phishing.
[Good Practice]: When developing anti-phishing controls, entities are encouraged to consider a combination of approaches. For example, using anti-spoofing controls such as Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance (DMARC), Sender Policy Framework (SPF), and Domain Keys Identified Mail (DKIM) will help stop phishers from spoofing the entity’s domain and impersonating personnel. The deployment of technologies for blocking phishing emails and malware before they reach personnel, such as link scrubbers and server-side anti-malware, can reduce incidents and decrease the time required by personnel to check and report phishing attacks. Additionally, training personnel to recognize and report phishing emails can allow similar emails to be identified and permit them to be removed before being opened. It is recommended (but not required) that antiphishing controls are applied across an entity’s entire organization.
[Definitions]: Phishing is a form of social engineering and describes the different methods used by attackers to trick personnel into disclosing sensitive information, such as user account names and passwords, and account data. Attackers will typically disguise themselves and attempt to appear as a genuine or trusted source, directing personnel to send an email response, click on a web link, or enter data into a compromised website. Mechanisms that can detect and prevent phishing attempts are often included in antimalware solutions.
[Further Information]: See the following for more information about phishing: National Cyber Security Centre - Phishing Attacks: Defending your Organization. US Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency - Report Phishing Sites.
Defined Approach Requirements: All security policies and operational procedures that are identified in Requirement 6 are:
Documented.
Kept up to date.
In use.
Known to all affected parties.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Expectations, controls, and oversight for meeting activities within Requirement 6 are defined and adhered to by affected personnel. All supporting activities are repeatable, consistently applied, and conform to management’s intent.
[Purpose]: Requirement 6.1.1 is about effectively managing and maintaining the various policies and procedures specified throughout Requirement 6. While it is important to define the specific policies or procedures called out in Requirement 6, it is equally important to ensure they are properly documented, maintained, and disseminated.
[Good Practice]: It is important to update policies and procedures as needed to address changes in processes, technologies, and business objectives. For this reason, consider updating these documents as soon as possible after a change occurs and not only on a periodic cycle.
[Definitions]: Security policies define the entity’s security objectives and principles. Operational procedures describe how to perform activities, and define the controls, methods, and processes that are followed to achieve the desired result in a consistent manner and in accordance with policy objectives.
","uuid":"52b5175b-7187-455a-9497-96d085263e0a","family":"Develop and Maintain Secure Systems and Software","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"6.1.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"6.1.1 Examine documentation and interview personnel to verify that security policies and operational procedures identified in Requirement 6 are managed in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"6.1.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Roles and responsibilities for performing activities in Requirement 6 are documented, assigned, and understood.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Day-to-day responsibilities for performing all the activities in Requirement 6 are allocated. Personnel are accountable for successful, continuous operation of these requirements.
[Purpose]: If roles and responsibilities are not formally assigned, systems will not be securely maintained, and their security level will be reduced.
[Good Practice]: Roles and responsibilities may be documented within policies and procedures or maintained within separate documents. As part of communicating roles and responsibilities, entities can consider having personnel acknowledge their acceptance and understanding of their assigned roles and responsibilities.
[Examples]: A method to document roles and responsibilities is a responsibility assignment matrix that includes who is responsible, accountable, consulted, and informed (also called a RACI matrix).
","uuid":"84ab3d81-1fe0-4bb7-ba52-246b8aa15bd2","family":"Develop and Maintain Secure Systems and Software","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"6.1.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"6.1.2.a Examine documentation to verify that descriptions of roles and responsibilities for performing activities in Requirement 6 are documented and assigned. 6.1.2.b Interview personnel responsible for performing activities in Requirement 6 to verify that roles and responsibilities are assigned as documented and are understood.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"6.1.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Bespoke and custom software are developed securely, as follows:
Based on industry standards and/or best practices for secure development.
In accordance with PCI DSS (for example, secure authentication and logging).
Incorporating consideration of information security issues during each stage of the software development lifecycle.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Bespoke and custom software is developed in accordance with PCI DSS and secure development processes throughout the software lifecycle.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This applies to all software developed for or by the entity for the entity’s own use. This includes both bespoke and custom software. This does not apply to third-party software.
[Purpose]: Without the inclusion of security during the requirements definition, design, analysis, and testing phases of software development, security vulnerabilities can be inadvertently or maliciously introduced into the production environment.
[Good Practice]: Understanding how sensitive data is handled by the application—including when stored, transmitted, and in memory—can help identify where data needs to be protected. PCI DSS requirements must be considered when developing software to meet those requirements by design, rather than trying to retrofit the software later.
[Examples]: Secure software lifecycle management methodologies and frameworks include PCI Software Security Framework, BSIMM, OPENSAMM, and works from NIST, ISO, and SAFECode.
Defined Approach Requirements: Software development personnel working on bespoke and custom software are trained at least once every 12 months as follows:
On software security relevant to their job function and development languages.
Including secure software design and secure coding techniques.
Including, if security testing tools are used, how to use the tools for detecting vulnerabilities in software.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Software development personnel remain knowledgeable about secure development practices; software security; and attacks against the languages, frameworks, or applications they develop. Personnel are able to access assistance and guidance when required.
[Purpose]: Having staff knowledgeable in secure coding methods, including techniques defined in Requirement 6.2.4, will help minimize the number of security vulnerabilities introduced through poor coding practices.
[Good Practice]: Training for developers may be provided in-house or by third parties. Training should include, but is not limited to, development languages in use, secure software design, secure coding techniques, use of techniques/methods for finding vulnerabilities in code, processes to prevent reintroducing previously resolved vulnerabilities, and how to use any automated security testing tools for detecting vulnerabilities in software. As industry-accepted secure coding practices change, organizational coding practices and developer training may need to be updated to address new threats.
","uuid":"0d9921b3-31dc-4b6c-b909-cd41db857412","family":"Develop and Maintain Secure Systems and Software","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"6.2.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"6.2.2.a Examine software development procedures to verify that processes are defined for training of software development personnel developing bespoke and custom software that includes all elements specified in this requirement. 6.2.2.b Examine training records and interview personnel to verify that software development personnel working on bespoke and custom software received software security training that is relevant to their job function and development languages in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"6.2.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Bespoke and custom software is reviewed prior to being released into production or to customers, to identify and correct potential coding vulnerabilities, as follows:
Code reviews ensure code is developed according to secure coding guidelines.
Code reviews look for both existing and emerging software vulnerabilities.
Appropriate corrections are implemented prior to release.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Bespoke and custom software cannot be exploited via coding vulnerabilities.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement for code reviews applies to all bespoke and custom software (both internal and public-facing), as part of the system development lifecycle. Public-facing web applications are also subject to additional controls, to address ongoing threats and vulnerabilities after implementation, as defined at PCI DSS Requirement 6.4. Code reviews may be performed using either manual or automated processes, or a combination of both.
[Purpose]: Security vulnerabilities in bespoke and custom software are commonly exploited by malicious individuals to gain access to a network and compromise account data. Vulnerable code is far more difficult and expensive to address after it has been deployed or released into production environments. Requiring a formal review and signoff by management prior to release helps to ensure that code is approved and has been developed in accordance with policies and procedures.
[Good Practice]: The following items should be considered for inclusion in code reviews:
Searching for undocumented features (implant tools, backdoors).
Confirming that software securely uses external components’ functions (libraries, frameworks, APIs, etc.). For example, if a third-party library providing cryptographic functions is used, verify that it was integrated securely.
Checking for correct use of logging to prevent sensitive data from getting into logs.
Analysis of insecure code structures that may contain potential vulnerabilities related to common software attacks identified in Requirements 6.2.5.
Checking the application’s behavior to detect logical vulnerabilities.
Defined Approach Requirements: If manual code reviews are performed for bespoke and custom software prior to release to production, code changes are:
Reviewed by individuals other than the originating code author, and who are knowledgeable about code-review techniques and secure coding practices.
Reviewed and approved by management prior to release.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: The manual code review process cannot be bypassed and is effective at discovering security vulnerabilities.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: Manual code reviews can be conducted by knowledgeable internal personnel or knowledgeable third-party personnel. An individual that has been formally granted accountability for release control and who is neither the original code author nor the code reviewer fulfills the criteria of being management.
[Purpose]: Having code reviewed by someone other than the original author, who is both experienced in code reviews and knowledgeable about secure coding practices, minimizes the possibility that code containing security or logic errors that could affect the security of cardholder data is released into a production environment. Requiring management approval that the code was reviewed limits the ability for the process to be bypassed.
[Good Practice]: Having a formal review methodology and review checklists has been found to improve the quality of the code review process. Code review is a tiring process, and for this reason, it is most effective when reviewers only review small amounts of code at a time. To maintain the effectiveness of code reviews, it is beneficial to monitor the general workload of reviewers and to have them review applications they are familiar with. Code reviews may be performed using either manual or automated processes, or a combination of both. Entitles that rely solely on manual code review should ensure that reviewers maintain their skills through regular training as new vulnerabilities are found, and new secure coding methods are recommended.
[Further Information]: See the OWASP Code Review Guide.
","uuid":"500c9b59-a0a9-4f25-b947-5bcf15dff817","family":"Develop and Maintain Secure Systems and Software","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"6.2.3.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"6.2.3.1.a If manual code reviews are performed for bespoke and custom software prior to release to production, examine documented software development procedures and interview responsible personnel to verify that processes are defined for manual code reviews to be conducted in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement. 6.2.3.1.b Examine evidence of changes to bespoke and custom software and interview personnel to verify that manual code reviews were conducted in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"6.2.3.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Software engineering techniques or other methods are defined and in use by software development personnel to prevent or mitigate common software attacks and related vulnerabilities in bespoke and custom software, including but not limited to the following:
Injection attacks, including SQL, LDAP, XPath, or other command, parameter, object, fault, or injection-type flaws.
Attacks on data and data structures, including attempts to manipulate buffers, pointers, input data, or shared data.
Attacks on cryptography usage, including attempts to exploit weak, insecure, or inappropriate cryptographic implementations, algorithms, cipher suites, or modes of operation.
Attacks on business logic, including attempts to abuse or bypass application features and functionalities through the manipulation of APIs, communication protocols and channels, clientside functionality, or other system/application functions and resources. This includes cross-site scripting (XSS) and cross-site request forgery (CSRF).
Attacks on access control mechanisms, including attempts to bypass or abuse identification, authentication, or authorization mechanisms, or attempts to exploit weaknesses in the implementation of such mechanisms.
Attacks via any “high-risk” vulnerabilities identified in the vulnerability identification process, as defined in Requirement 6.3.1.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Bespoke and custom software cannot be exploited via common attacks and related vulnerabilities.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This applies to all software developed for or by the entity for the entity’s own use. This includes both bespoke and custom software. This does not apply to third-party software.
[Purpose]: Detecting or preventing common errors that result in vulnerable code as early as possible in the software development process lowers the probability that such errors make it through to production and lead to a compromise. Having formal engineering techniques and tools embedded in the development process will catch these errors early. This philosophy is sometimes called “shifting security left.”
[Good Practice]: For both bespoke and custom software, the entity must ensure that code is developed focusing on the prevention or mitigation of common software attacks, including:
Attempts to exploit common coding vulnerabilities (bugs).
Attempts to exploit software design flaws.
Attempts to exploit implementation/configuration flaws.
Enumeration attacks – automated attacks that are actively exploited in payments and abuse identification, authentication, or authorization mechanisms. See the PCI Perspectives blog article “Beware of Account Testing Attacks.”
Researching and documenting software engineering techniques or other methods helps to define how software developers prevent or mitigate various software attacks by features or countermeasures they build into software. This might include identification/authentication mechanisms, access control, input validation routines, etc. Developers should be familiar with different types of vulnerabilities and potential attacks and use measures to avoid potential attack vectors when developing code.
[Examples]: Techniques include automated processes and practices that scan code early in the development cycle when code is checked in to confirm the vulnerabilities are not present.
","uuid":"0e323671-99a8-4cec-a254-fffc62ea8fff","family":"Develop and Maintain Secure Systems and Software","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"6.2.4 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"6.2.4 Examine documented procedures and interview responsible software development personnel to verify that software engineering techniques or other methods are defined and in use by developers of bespoke and custom software to prevent or mitigate all common software attacks as specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"6.2.4"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Security vulnerabilities are identified and managed as follows:
New security vulnerabilities are identified using industry-recognized sources for security vulnerability information, including alerts from international and national computer emergency response teams (CERTs).
Vulnerabilities are assigned a risk ranking based on industry best practices and consideration of potential impact.
Risk rankings identify, at a minimum, all vulnerabilities considered to be a high-risk or critical to the environment.
Vulnerabilities for bespoke and custom, and third-party software (for example operating systems and databases) are covered.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: New system and software vulnerabilities that may impact the security of account data or the CDE are monitored, cataloged, and risk assessed.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement is not achieved by, nor is it the same as, vulnerability scans performed for Requirements 11.3.1 and 11.3.2. This requirement is for a process to actively monitor industry sources for vulnerability information and for the entity to determine the risk ranking to be associated with each vulnerability.
[Purpose]: Classifying the risks (for example, as critical, high, medium, or low) allows organizations to identify, prioritize, and address the highest risk items more quickly and reduce the likelihood that vulnerabilities posing the greatest risk will be exploited.
[Good Practice]: Methods for evaluating vulnerabilities and assigning risk ratings will vary based on an organization’s environment and risk-assessment strategy. When an entity is assigning its risk rankings, it should consider using a formal, objective, justifiable methodology that accurately portrays the risks of the vulnerabilities pertinent to the organization and translates to an appropriate entity-assigned priority for resolution. An organization’s processes for managing vulnerabilities should be integrated with other management processes—for example, risk management, change management, patch management, incident response, application security, as well as proper monitoring and logging of these processes. This will help to ensure all vulnerabilities are properly identified and addressed. Processes should support ongoing evaluation of vulnerabilities. For example, a vulnerability initially identified as low risk could become a higher risk later. Additionally, vulnerabilities, individually considered to be low or medium risk, could collectively pose a high or critical risk if present on the same system, or if exploited on a low-risk system that could result in access to the CDE.
[Examples]: Some organizations that issue alerts to advise entities about urgent vulnerabilities requiring immediate patches/updates are national Computer Emergency Readiness/Response Teams (CERTs) and vendors. Criteria for ranking vulnerabilities may include criticality of a vulnerability identified in an alert from Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams (FIRST) or a CERT, consideration of the CVSS score, the classification by the vendor, and/or type of systems affected.
[Further Information]: Trustworthy sources for vulnerability information include vendor websites, industry newsgroups, mailing lists, etc. If software is developed inhouse, the internal development team should also consider sources of information about new vulnerabilities that may affect internally developed applications. Other methods to ensure new vulnerabilities are identified include solutions that automatically recognize and alert upon detection of unusual behavior. Processes should account for widely published exploits as well as “zero-day” attacks, which target previously unknown vulnerabilities. For bespoke and custom software, the organization may obtain information about libraries, frameworks, compilers, programming languages, etc. from public trusted sources (for example, special resources and resources from component developers). The organization may also independently analyze third-party components and identify vulnerabilities. For control over in-house developed software, the organization may receive such information from external sources. The organization can consider using a “bug bounty” program where it posts information (for example, on its website) so third parties can contact the organization with vulnerability information. External sources may include independent investigators or companies that report to the organization about identified vulnerabilities and may include sources such as the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) or the OWASP Risk Rating Methodology.
","uuid":"4220bc8f-f1ee-436f-a831-1ea3d2bf364c","family":"Develop and Maintain Secure Systems and Software","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"6.3.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"6.3.1.a Examine policies and procedures for identifying and managing security vulnerabilities to verify that processes are defined in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement. 6.3.1.b Interview responsible personnel, examine documentation, and observe processes to verify that security vulnerabilities are identified and managed in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"6.3.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: An inventory of bespoke and custom software, and third-party software components incorporated into bespoke and custom software is maintained to facilitate vulnerability and patch management.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Known vulnerabilities in third-party software components cannot be exploited in bespoke and custom software.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement is a best practice until 31 March 2025, after which it will be required and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment. |
[Purpose]: Identifying and listing all the entity’s bespoke and custom software, and any third-party software that is incorporated into the entity’s bespoke and custom software enables the entity to manage vulnerabilities and patches. Vulnerabilities in third-party components (including libraries, APIs, etc.) embedded in an entity’s software also renders those applications vulnerable to attacks. Knowing which third-party components are used in the entity’s software and monitoring the availability of security patches to address known vulnerabilities is critical to ensuring the security of the software.
[Good Practice]: An entity’s inventory should cover all payment software components and dependencies, including supported execution platforms or environments, third-party libraries, services, and other required functionalities. There are many different types of solutions that can help with managing software inventories, such as software composition analysis tools, application discovery tools, and mobile device management.
","uuid":"b52cc97e-0dfd-4bc8-a99e-bdd7f6cd7e15","family":"Develop and Maintain Secure Systems and Software","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"6.3.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"6.3.2.a Examine documentation and interview personnel to verify that an inventory of bespoke and custom software and third-party software components incorporated into bespoke and custom software is maintained, and that the inventory is used to identify and address vulnerabilities. 6.3.2.b Examine software documentation, including for bespoke and custom software that integrates third-party software components, and compare it to the inventory to verify that the inventory includes the bespoke and custom software and third-party software components.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"6.3.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: All system components are protected from known vulnerabilities by installing applicable security patches/updates as follows:
Critical or high-security patches/updates (identified according to the risk ranking process at Requirement 6.3.1) are installed within one month of release.
All other applicable security patches/updates are installed within an appropriate time frame as determined by the entity (for example, within three months of release).
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: System components cannot be compromised via the exploitation of a known vulnerability.
[Purpose]: New exploits are constantly being discovered, and these can permit attacks against systems that have previously been considered secure. If the most recent security patches/updates are not implemented on critical systems as soon as possible, a malicious actor can use these exploits to attack or disable a system or gain access to sensitive data.
[Good Practice]: Prioritizing security patches/updates for critical infrastructure ensures that high-priority systems and devices are protected from vulnerabilities as soon as possible after a patch is released. An entity’s patching cadence should factor in any re-evaluation of vulnerabilities and subsequent changes in the criticality of a vulnerability per Requirement 6.3.1. For example, a vulnerability initially identified as low risk could become a higher risk later. Additionally, vulnerabilities individually considered to be low or medium risk could collectively pose a high or critical risk if present on the same system, or if exploited on a low-risk system that could result in access to the CDE.
","uuid":"ca843076-e381-4745-a94d-742140c48e8c","family":"Develop and Maintain Secure Systems and Software","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"6.3.3 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"6.3.3.a Examine policies and procedures to verify processes are defined for addressing vulnerabilities by installing applicable security patches/updates in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement. 6.3.3.b Examine system components and related software and compare the list of installed security patches/updates to the most recent security patch/update information to verify vulnerabilities are addressed in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"6.3.3"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: For public-facing web applications, new threats and vulnerabilities are addressed on an ongoing basis and these applications are protected against known attacks as follows:
Reviewing public-facing web applications via manual or automated application vulnerability security assessment tools or methods as follows:
– At least once every 12 months and after significant changes.
– By an entity that specializes in application security.
– Including, at a minimum, all common software attacks in Requirement 6.2.4.
– All vulnerabilities are ranked in accordance with requirement 6.3.1.
– All vulnerabilities are corrected.
– The application is re-evaluated after the corrections
OR
Installing an automated technical solution(s) that continually detects and prevents web-based attacks as follows:
– Installed in front of public-facing web applications to detect and prevent webbased attacks.
– Actively running and up to date as applicable.
– Generating audit logs.
– Configured to either block web-based attacks or generate an alert that is immediately investigated
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Public-facing web applications are protected against malicious attacks.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This assessment is not the same as the vulnerability scans performed for Requirement 11.3.1 and 11.3.2. This requirement will be superseded by Requirement 6.4.2 after 31 March 2025 when Requirement 6.4.2 becomes effective.
[Purpose]: Public-facing web applications are those that are available to the public (not only for internal use). These applications are primary targets for attackers, and poorly coded web applications provide an easy path for attackers to gain access to sensitive data and systems.
[Good Practice]: Manual or automated vulnerability security assessment tools or methods review and/or test the application for vulnerabilities. Common assessment tools include specialized web scanners that perform automatic analysis of web application protection. When using automated technical solutions, it is important to include processes that facilitate timely responses to alerts generated by the solutions so that any detected attacks can be mitigated.
[Examples]: A web application firewall (WAF) installed in front of public-facing web applications to check all traffic is an example of an automated technical solution that detects and prevents web-based attacks (for example, the attacks included in Requirement 6.2.4). WAFs filter and block nonessential traffic at the application layer. A properly configured WAF helps to prevent application-layer attacks on applications that are improperly coded or configured. Another example of an automated technical solution is Runtime Application Self-Protection (RASP) technologies. When implemented correctly, RASP solutions can detect and block anomalous behavior by the software during execution. While WAFs typically monitor the application perimeter, RASP solutions monitor and block behavior within the application.
","uuid":"0ead136e-2c40-48ec-ad73-9b13766f4347","family":"Develop and Maintain Secure Systems and Software","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"6.4.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"6.4.1 For public-facing web applications, ensure that either one of the required methods is in place as follows: () If manual or automated vulnerability security assessment tools or methods are in use, examine documented processes, interview personnel, and examine records of application security assessments to verify that public-facing web applications are reviewed in accordance with all elements of this requirement specific to the tool/method. OR () If an automated technical solution(s) is installed that continually detects and prevents webbased attacks, examine the system configuration settings and audit logs, and interview responsible personnel to verify that the automated technical solution(s) is installed in accordance with all elements of this requirement specific to the solution(s).","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"6.4.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: For public-facing web applications, an automated technical solution is deployed that continually detects and prevents web-based attacks, with at least the following:
Is installed in front of public-facing web applications and is configured to detect and prevent web-based attacks.
Actively running and up to date as applicable.
Generating audit logs.
Configured to either block web-based attacks or generate an alert that is immediately investigated.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Public-facing web applications are protected in real time against malicious attacks.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This new requirement will replace Requirement 6.4.1 once its effective date is reached. This requirement is a best practice until 31 March 2025, after which it will be required and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment.
[Purpose]: Public-facing web applications are primary targets for attackers, and poorly coded web applications provide an easy path for attackers to gain access to sensitive data and systems.
[Good Practice]: When using automated technical solutions, it is important to include processes that facilitate timely responses to alerts generated by the solutions so that any detected attacks can be mitigated. Such solutions may also be used to automate mitigation, for example rate-limiting controls, which can be implemented to mitigate against brute-force attacks and enumeration attacks.
[Examples]: A web application firewall (WAF), which can be either on-premise or cloud-based, installed in front of public-facing web applications to check all traffic, is an example of an automated technical solution that detects and prevents web-based attacks (for example, the attacks included in Requirement 6.2.4). WAFs filter and block nonessential traffic at the application layer. A properly configured WAF helps to prevent application-layer attacks on applications that are improperly coded or configured.
","uuid":"91951704-a4ba-4eeb-899d-75643aebe1e1","family":"Develop and Maintain Secure Systems and Software","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"6.4.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"6.4.2 For public-facing web applications, examine the system configuration settings and audit logs, and interview responsible personnel to verify that an automated technical solution that detects and prevents web-based attacks is in place in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"6.4.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: All payment page scripts that are loaded and executed in the consumer’s browser are managed as follows:
A method is implemented to confirm that each script is authorized.
A method is implemented to assure the integrity of each script.
An inventory of all scripts is maintained with written justification as to why each is necessary.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Unauthorized code cannot be present in the payment page as it is rendered in the consumer’s browser.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement applies to all scripts loaded from the entity’s environment and scripts loaded from third and fourth parties. This requirement is a best practice until 31 March 2025, after which it will be required and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment.
[Purpose]: Scripts loaded and executed in the payment page can have their functionality altered without the entity’s knowledge and can also have the functionality to load additional external scripts (for example, advertising and tracking, tag management systems). Such seemingly harmless scripts can be used by potential attackers to upload malicious scripts that can read and exfiltrate cardholder data from the consumer browser. Ensuring that the functionality of all such scripts is understood to be necessary for the operation of the payment page minimizes the number of scripts that could be tampered with. Ensuring that scripts have been explicitly authorized reduces the probability of unnecessary scripts being added to the payment page without appropriate management approval. Using techniques to prevent tampering with the script will minimize the probability of the script being modified to carry out unauthorized behavior, such as skimming the cardholder data from the payment page.
[Good Practice]: Scripts may be authorized by manual or automated (e.g., workflow) processes. Where the payment page will be loaded into an inline frame (IFRAME), restricting the location that the payment page can be loaded from, using the parent page’s Content Security Policy (CSP) can help prevent unauthorized content being substituted for the payment page.
[Definitions]: “Necessary” for this requirement means that the entity’s review of each script justifies and confirms why it is needed for the functionality of the payment page to accept a payment transaction.
[Examples]: The integrity of scripts can be enforced by several different mechanisms including, but not limited to:
Sub-resource integrity (SRI), which allows the consumer browser to validate that a script has not been tampered with.
A CSP, which limits the locations the consumer browser can load a script from and transmit account data to.
Proprietary script or tag-management systems, which can prevent malicious script execution.
Defined Approach Requirements: Changes to all system components in the production environment are made according to established procedures that include:
Reason for, and description of, the change.
Documentation of security impact.
Documented change approval by authorized parties.
Testing to verify that the change does not adversely impact system security.
For bespoke and custom software changes, all updates are tested for compliance with Requirement 6.2.4 before being deployed into production.
Procedures to address failures and return to a secure state.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: All changes are tracked, authorized, and evaluated for impact and security, and changes are managed to avoid unintended effects to the security of system components.
[Purpose]: Change management procedures must be applied to all changes—including the addition, removal, or modification of any system component—in the production environment. It is important to document the reason for a change and the change description so that relevant parties understand and agree the change is needed. Likewise, documenting the impacts of the change allows all affected parties to plan appropriately for any processing changes.
[Good Practice]: Approval by authorized parties confirms that the change is legitimate and that the change is sanctioned by the organization. Changes should be approved by individuals with the appropriate authority and knowledge to understand the impact of the change. Thorough testing by the entity confirms that the security of the environment is not reduced by implementing a change and that all existing security controls either remain in place or are replaced with equal or stronger security controls after the change. The specific testing to be performed will vary according to the type of change and system component(s) affected. For each change, it is important to have documented procedures that address any failures and provide instructions on how to return to a secure state in case the change fails or adversely affects the security of an application or system. These procedures will allow the application or system to be restored to its previous secure state.
","uuid":"e29d80df-d521-484f-a19b-685d18cd938b","family":"Develop and Maintain Secure Systems and Software","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"6.5.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"6.5.1.a Examine documented change control procedures to verify procedures are defined for changes to all system components in the production environment to include all elements specified in this requirement. 6.5.1.b Examine recent changes to system components and trace those changes back to related change control documentation. For each change examined, verify the change is implemented in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"6.5.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Upon completion of a significant change, all applicable PCI DSS requirements are confirmed to be in place on all new or changed systems and networks, and documentation is updated as applicable.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: All system components are verified after a significant change to be compliant with the applicable PCI DSS requirements.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: These significant changes should also be captured and reflected in the entity’s annual PCI DSS scope confirmation activity per Requirement 12.5.2.
[Purpose]: Having processes to analyze significant changes helps ensure that all appropriate PCI DSS controls are applied to any systems or networks added or changed within the in-scope environment, and that PCI DSS requirements continue to be met to secure the environment.
[Good Practice]: Building this validation into change management processes helps ensure that device inventories and configuration standards are kept up to date and security controls are applied where needed.
[Examples]: Applicable PCI DSS requirements that could be impacted include, but are not limited to:
Network and data-flow diagrams are updated to reflect changes.
Systems are configured per configuration standards, with all default passwords changed and unnecessary services disabled.
Systems are protected with required controls—for example, file integrity monitoring (FIM), anti-malware, patches, and audit logging.
Sensitive authentication data is not stored, and all account data storage is documented and incorporated into data retention policy and procedures.
New systems are included in the quarterly vulnerability scanning process.
Systems are scanned for internal and external vulnerabilities after significant changes per Requirements 11.3.1.3 and 11.3.2.1.
Defined Approach Requirements: Pre-production environments are separated from production environments and the separation is enforced with access controls.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Pre-production environments cannot introduce risks and vulnerabilities into production environments.
[Purpose]: Due to the constantly changing state of pre- production environments, they are often less secure than the production environment.
[Good Practice]: Organizations must clearly understand which environments are test environments or development environments and how these environments interact on the level of networks and applications.
[Definitions]: Pre-production environments include development, testing, user acceptance testing (UAT), etc. Even where production infrastructure is used to facilitate testing or development, production environments still need to be separated (logically or physically) from preproduction functionality such that vulnerabilities introduced as a result of pre-production activities do not adversely affect production systems.
","uuid":"3e0946f1-ebf1-4c49-85f1-0b672d62d4cd","family":"Develop and Maintain Secure Systems and Software","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"6.5.3 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"6.5.3.a Examine policies and procedures to verify that processes are defined for separating the preproduction environment from the production environment via access controls that enforce the separation. 6.5.3.b Examine network documentation and configurations of network security controls to verify that the pre-production environment is separate from the production environment(s). 6.5.3.c Examine access control settings to verify that access controls are in place to enforce separation between the pre-production and production environment(s).","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"6.5.3"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Roles and functions are separated between production and pre-production environments to provide accountability such that only reviewed and approved changes are deployed.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Job roles and accountability that differentiate between pre-production and production activities are defined and managed to minimize the risk of unauthorized, unintentional, or inappropriate actions.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: In environments with limited personnel where individuals perform multiple roles or functions, this same goal can be achieved with additional procedural controls that provide accountability. For example, a developer may also be an administrator that uses an administrator-level account with elevated privileges in the development environment and, for their developer role, they use a separate account with user-level access to the production environment.
[Purpose]: The goal of separating roles and functions between production and pre-production environments is to reduce the number of personnel with access to the production environment and account data and thereby minimize risk of unauthorized, unintentional, or inappropriate access to data and system components and help ensure that access is limited to those individuals with a business need for such access. The intent of this control is to separate critical activities to provide oversight and review to catch errors and minimize the chances of fraud or theft (since two people would need to collude in order to hide an activity). Separating roles and functions, also referred to as separation or segregation of duties, is a key internal control concept to protect an entity’s assets.
Defined Approach Requirements: Live PANs are not used in pre-production environments, except where those environments are included in the CDE and protected in accordance with all applicable PCI DSS requirements.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Live PANs cannot be present in pre-production environments outside the CDE.
[Purpose]: Use of live PANs outside of protected CDEs provides malicious individuals with the opportunity to gain unauthorized access to cardholder data.
[Good Practice]: Entities can minimize their storage of live PANs by only storing them in pre-production when strictly necessary for a specific and defined testing purpose and securely deleting that data after use. If an entity requires PANs specifically designed for test purposes, these can be obtained from acquirers.
[Definitions]: Live PANs refer to valid PANs (not test PANs) that have the potential to be used to conduct payment transactions. Additionally, when payment cards expire, the same PAN is often reused with a different expiry date. All PANs must be verified as being unable to conduct payment transactions before they are excluded from PCI DSS scope. It is the responsibility of the entity to confirm that PANs are not live.
","uuid":"946fbf41-9297-4fa8-8873-b06fe9756dac","family":"Develop and Maintain Secure Systems and Software","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"6.5.5 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"6.5.5.a Examine policies and procedures to verify that processes are defined for not using live PANs in pre-production environments, except where those environments are in a CDE and protected in accordance with all applicable PCI DSS requirements. 6.5.5.b Observe testing processes and interview personnel to verify procedures are in place to ensure live PANs are not used in pre-production environments, except where those environments are in a CDE and protected in accordance with all applicable PCI DSS requirements. 6.5.5.c Examine pre-production test data to verify live PANs are not used in pre-production environments, except where those environments are in a CDE and protected in accordance with all applicable PCI DSS requirements.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"6.5.5"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Test data and test accounts are removed from system components before the system goes into production.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Test data and test accounts cannot exist in production environments.
[Purpose]: This data may give away information about the functioning of an application or system and is an easy target for unauthorized individuals to exploit to gain access to systems. Possession of such information could facilitate compromise of the system and related account data.
","uuid":"30e648cc-5f1d-4f7c-ae82-8e8d0a9a49a6","family":"Develop and Maintain Secure Systems and Software","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"6.5.6 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"6.5.6.a Examine policies and procedures to verify that processes are defined for removal of test data and test accounts from system components before the system goes into production. 6.5.6.b Observe testing processes for both off-theshelf software and in-house applications, and interview personnel to verify test data and test accounts are removed before a system goes into production. 6.5.6.c Examine data and accounts for recently installed or updated off-the-shelf software and inhouse applications to verify there is no test data or test accounts on systems in production.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"6.5.6"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: All security policies and operational procedures that are identified in Requirement 7 are:
Documented.
Kept up to date.
In use.
Known to all affected parties.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Expectations, controls, and oversight for meeting activities within Requirement 7 are defined and adhered to by affected personnel. All supporting activities are repeatable, consistently applied, and conform to management’s intent.
[Purpose]: Requirement 7.1.1 is about effectively managing and maintaining the various policies and procedures specified throughout Requirement 7. While it is important to define the specific policies or procedures called out in Requirement 7, it is equally important to ensure they are properly documented, maintained, and disseminated.
[Good Practice]: It is important to update policies and procedures as needed to address changes in processes, technologies, and business objectives. For this reason, consider updating these documents as soon as possible after a change occurs and not only on a periodic cycle.
[Definitions]: Security policies define the entity’s security objectives and principles. Operational procedures describe how to perform activities, and define the controls, methods, and processes that are followed to achieve the desired result in a consistent manner and in accordance with policy objectives.
","uuid":"0fd1a4da-70ca-452c-bba5-b6abc2b128fd","family":"Restrict Access to System Components and Cardholder Data by Business Need to Know","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"7.1.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"7.1.1 Examine documentation and interview personnel to verify that security policies and operational procedures identified in Requirement 7 are managed in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"7.1.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Roles and responsibilities for performing activities in Requirement 7 are documented, assigned, and understood.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Day-to-day responsibilities for performing all the activities in Requirement 7 are allocated. Personnel are accountable for successful, continuous operation of these requirements.
[Purpose]: If roles and responsibilities are not formally assigned, personnel may not be aware of their day-to-day responsibilities, and critical activities may not occur.
[Good Practice]: Roles and responsibilities may be documented within policies and procedures or maintained within separate documents. As part of communicating roles and responsibilities, entities can consider having personnel acknowledge their acceptance and understanding of their assigned roles and responsibilities.
[Examples]: A method to document roles and responsibilities is a responsibility assignment matrix that includes who is responsible, accountable, consulted, and informed (also called a RACI matrix).
","uuid":"06709d62-06ee-4ea2-adbc-574358a31aa6","family":"Restrict Access to System Components and Cardholder Data by Business Need to Know","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"7.1.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"7.1.2.a Examine documentation to verify that descriptions of roles and responsibilities for performing activities in Requirement 7 are documented and assigned. 7.1.2.b Interview personnel with responsibility for performing activities in Requirement 7 to verify that roles and responsibilities are assigned as and are understood.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"7.1.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: An access control model is defined and includes granting access as follows:
Appropriate access depending on the entity’s business and access needs.
Access to system components and data resources that is based on users’ job classification and functions.
The least privileges required (for example, user, administrator) to perform a job function.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Access requirements are established according to job functions following least-privilege and need-toknow principles.
[Purpose]: Defining an access control model that is appropriate for the entity’s technology and access control philosophy supports a consistent and uniform way of allocating access and reduces the possibility of errors such as the granting of excessive rights.
[Good Practice]: A factor to consider when defining access needs is the separation of duties principle. This principle is intended to prevent fraud and misuse or theft of resources. For example, 1) dividing missioncritical functions and information system support functions among different individuals and/or functions, 2) establishing roles such that information system support activities are performed by different functions/individuals (for example, system management, programming, configuration management, quality assurance and testing, and network security), and 3) ensuring security personnel administering access control functions do not also administer audit functions. In environments where one individual performs multiple functions, such as administration and security operations, duties may be assigned so that no single individual has end-to-end control of a process without an independent checkpoint. For example, responsibility for configuration and responsibility for approving changes could be assigned to separate individuals.
[Definitions]: Key elements of an access control model include:
Resources to be protected (the systems/devices/data to which access is needed),
Job functions that need access to the resource (for example, system administrator, call-center personnel, store clerk), and
Which activities each job function needs to perform (for example, read/write or query).
Once job functions, resources, and activities per job functions are defined, individuals can be granted access accordingly.
[Examples]: Access control models that entities can consider include role-based access control (RBAC) and attribute-based access control (ABAC). The access control model used by a given entity depends on their business and access needs.
","uuid":"a1a7f903-08f4-44ff-83b3-aabe64a368fb","family":"Restrict Access to System Components and Cardholder Data by Business Need to Know","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"7.2.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"7.2.1.a Examine documented policies and procedures and interview personnel to verify the access control model is defined in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement. 7.2.1.b Examine access control model settings and verify that access needs are appropriately defined in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"7.2.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Access is assigned to users, including privileged users, based on:
Job classification and function.
Least privileges necessary to perform job responsibilities.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Access to systems and data is limited to only the access needed to perform job functions, as defined in the related access roles.
[Purpose]: Assigning least privileges helps prevent users without sufficient knowledge about the application from incorrectly or accidentally changing application configuration or altering its security settings. Enforcing least privilege also helps to minimize the scope of damage if an unauthorized person gains access to a user ID.
[Good Practice]: Access rights are granted to a user by assignment to one or several functions. Assess is assigned depending on the specific user functions and with the minimum scope required for the job. When assigning privileged access, it is important to assign individuals only the privileges they need to perform their job (the “least privileges”). For example, the database administrator or backup administrator should not be assigned the same privileges as the overall systems administrator. Once needs are defined for user functions (per PCI DSS requirement 7.2.1), it is easy to grant individuals access according to their job classification and function by using the alreadycreated roles. Entities may wish to consider use of Privileged Access Management (PAM), which is a method to grant access to privileged accounts only when those privileges are required, immediately revoking that access once they are no longer needed.
","uuid":"572888d8-01f2-414f-b202-47900e53de32","family":"Restrict Access to System Components and Cardholder Data by Business Need to Know","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"7.2.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"7.2.2.a Examine policies and procedures to verify they cover assigning access to users in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement. 7.2.2.b Examine user access settings, including for privileged users, and interview responsible management personnel to verify that privileges assigned are in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement. 7.2.2.c Interview personnel responsible for assigning access to verify that privileged user access is assigned in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"7.2.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Required privileges are approved by authorized personnel.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Access privileges cannot be granted to users without appropriate, documented authorization.
[Purpose]: Documented approval (for example, in writing or electronically) assures that those with access and privileges are known and authorized by management, and that their access is necessary for their job function.
","uuid":"8a96150b-d65b-4476-b96f-0a653ed689c4","family":"Restrict Access to System Components and Cardholder Data by Business Need to Know","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"7.2.3 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"7.2.3.a Examine policies and procedures to verify they define processes for approval of all privileges by authorized personnel. 7.2.3.b Examine user IDs and assigned privileges, and compare with documented approvals to verify that: () Documented approval exists for the assigned privileges. () The approval was by authorized personnel. () Specified privileges match the roles assigned to the individual.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"7.2.3"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: All user accounts and related access privileges, including third-party/vendor accounts, are reviewed as follows:
At least once every six months.
To ensure user accounts and access remain appropriate based on job function.
Any inappropriate access is addressed.
Management acknowledges that access remains appropriate.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Account privilege assignments are verified periodically by management as correct, and nonconformities are remediated.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement applies to all user accounts and related access privileges, including those used by personnel and third parties/vendors, and accounts used to access third-party cloud services. See Requirements 7.2.5 and 7.2.5.1 and 8.6.1 through 8.6.3 for controls for application and system accounts. This requirement is a best practice until 31 March 2025, after which it will be required and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment.
[Purpose]: Regular review of access rights helps to detect excessive access rights remaining after user job responsibilities change, system functions change, or other modifications. If excessive user rights are not revoked in due time, they may be used by malicious users for unauthorized access. This review provides another opportunity to ensure that accounts for all terminated users have been removed (if any were missed at the time of termination), as well as to ensure that any third parties that no longer need access have had their access terminated.
[Good Practice]: When a user transfers into a new role or a new department, typically the privileges and access associated with their former role are no longer required. Continued access to privileges or functions that are no longer required may introduce the risk of misuse or errors. Therefore, when responsibilities change, processes that revalidate access help to ensure user access is appropriate for the user’s new responsibilities. Entities can consider implementing a regular, repeatable process for conducting reviews of access rights, and assigning “data owners” that are responsible for managing and monitoring access to data related to their job function and that also ensure user access remains current and appropriate. As an example, a direct manager could review team access monthly, while the senior manager reviews their groups’ access quarterly, both making updates to access as needed. The intent of these best practices is to support and facilitate conducting the reviews at least once every 6 months.
","uuid":"7c0a7969-56df-4ddb-9f0b-937448e0f347","family":"Restrict Access to System Components and Cardholder Data by Business Need to Know","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"7.2.4 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"7.2.4.a Examine policies and procedures to verify they define processes to review all user accounts and related access privileges, including thirdparty/vendor accounts, in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement. 7.2.4.b Interview responsible personnel and examine documented results of periodic reviews of user accounts to verify that all the results are in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"7.2.4"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: All application and system accounts and related access privileges are assigned and managed as follows:
Based on the least privileges necessary for the operability of the system or application.
Access is limited to the systems, applications, or processes that specifically require their use.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Access rights granted to application and system accounts are limited to only the access needed for the operability of that application or system.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement is a best practice until 31 March 2025, after which it will be required and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment.
[Purpose]: It is important to establish the appropriate access level for application or system accounts. If such accounts are compromised, malicious users will receive the same access level as that granted to the application or system. Therefore, it is important to ensure limited access is granted to system and application accounts on the same basis as to user accounts.
[Good Practice]: Entities may want to consider establishing a baseline when setting up these application and system accounts including the following as applicable to the organization:
Making sure that the account is not a member of a privileged group such as domain administrators, local administrators, or root.
Restricting which computers the account can be used on.
Restricting hours of use.
Removing any additional settings like VPN access and remote access.
Defined Approach Requirements: All access by application and system accounts and related access privileges are reviewed as follows:
Periodically (at the frequency defined in the entity’s targeted risk analysis, which is performed according to all elements specified in Requirement 12.3.1).
The application/system access remains appropriate for the function being performed.
Any inappropriate access is addressed.
Management acknowledges that access remains appropriate.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Application and system account privilege assignments are verified periodically by management as correct, and nonconformities are remediated.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement is a best practice until 31 March 2025, after which it will be required and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment.
[Purpose]: Regular review of access rights helps to detect excessive access rights remaining after system functions change, or other application or system modifications occur. If excessive rights are not removed when no longer needed, they may be used by malicious users for unauthorized access.
","uuid":"de370be3-969e-4401-a541-94ad35f5087c","family":"Restrict Access to System Components and Cardholder Data by Business Need to Know","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"7.2.5.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"7.2.5.1.a Examine policies and procedures to verify they define processes to review all application and system accounts and related access privileges in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement. 7.2.5.1.b Examine the entity’s targeted risk analysis for the frequency of periodic reviews of application and system accounts and related access privileges to verify the risk analysis was performed in accordance with all elements specified in Requirement 12.3.1. 7.2.5.1.c Interview responsible personnel and examine documented results of periodic reviews of system and application accounts and related privileges to verify that the reviews occur in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"7.2.5.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: All user access to query repositories of stored cardholder data is restricted as follows:
Via applications or other programmatic methods, with access and allowed actions based on user roles and least privileges.
Only the responsible administrator(s) can directly access or query repositories of stored CHD.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Direct unfiltered (ad hoc) query access to cardholder data repositories is prohibited, unless performed by an authorized administrator.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement applies to controls for user access to query repositories of stored cardholder data. See Requirements 7.2.5 and 7.2.5.1 and 8.6.1 through 8.6.3 for controls for application and system accounts.
[Purpose]: The misuse of query access to repositories of cardholder data has been a regular cause of data breaches. Limiting such access to administrators reduces the risk of such access being abused by unauthorized users.
[Definitions]: “Programmatic methods” means granting access through means such as database stored procedures that allow users to perform controlled actions to data in a table, rather than via direct, unfiltered access to the data repository by end users (except for the responsible administrator(s), who need direct access to the database for their administrative duties).
[Good Practice]: Typical user actions include moving, copying, and deleting data. Also consider the scope of privilege needed when granting access. For example, access can be granted to specific objects such as data elements, files, tables, indexes, views, and stored routines. Granting access to repositories of cardholder data should follow the same process as all other granted access, meaning that it is based on roles, with only the privileges assigned to each user that are needed to perform their job functions.
","uuid":"d031fb17-147b-4132-899e-cf0ec1d564d3","family":"Restrict Access to System Components and Cardholder Data by Business Need to Know","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"7.2.6 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"7.2.6.a Examine policies and procedures and interview personnel to verify processes are defined for granting user access to query repositories of stored cardholder data, in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement. 7.2.6.b Examine configuration settings for querying repositories of stored cardholder data to verify they are in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"7.2.6"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: An access control system(s) is in place that restricts access based on a user’s need to know and covers all system components.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Access rights and privileges are managed via mechanisms intended for that purpose.
[Purpose]: Without a mechanism to restrict access based on user’s need to know, a user may unknowingly be granted access to cardholder data. Access control systems automate the process of restricting access and assigning privileges.
","uuid":"0b303f27-6bcc-42ed-8182-56fcb996b4ea","family":"Restrict Access to System Components and Cardholder Data by Business Need to Know","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"7.3.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"7.3.1 Examine vendor documentation and system settings to verify that access is managed for each system component via an access control system(s) that restricts access based on a user’s need to know and covers all system components.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"7.3.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: The access control system(s) is configured to enforce permissions assigned to individuals, applications, and systems based on job classification and function.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Individual account access rights and privileges to systems, applications, and data are only inherited from group membership.
[Purpose]: Restricting privileged access with an access control system reduces the opportunity for errors in the assignment of permissions to individuals, applications, and systems.
","uuid":"e202df62-ebc0-406b-8d9a-467577c84b1e","family":"Restrict Access to System Components and Cardholder Data by Business Need to Know","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"7.3.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"7.3.2 Examine vendor documentation and system settings to verify that the access control system(s) is configured to enforce permissions assigned to individuals, applications, and systems based on job classification and function.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"7.3.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: The access control system(s) is set to “deny all” by default.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Access rights and privileges are prohibited unless expressly permitted.
[Purpose]: A default setting of “deny all” ensures no one is granted access unless a rule is established specifically granting such access.
[Good Practice]: It is important to check the default configuration of access control systems because some are set by default to “allow all,” thereby permitting access unless/until a rule is written to specifically deny it.
","uuid":"cfcd26a0-f568-4984-8d8d-e701c3363668","family":"Restrict Access to System Components and Cardholder Data by Business Need to Know","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"7.3.3 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"7.3.3 Examine vendor documentation and system settings to verify that the access control system(s) is set to “deny all” by default.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"7.3.3"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: All security policies and operational procedures that are identified in Requirement 8 are:
Documented.
Kept up to date.
In use.
Known to all affected parties.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Expectations, controls, and oversight for meeting activities within Requirement 8 are defined and adhered to by affected personnel. All supporting activities are repeatable, consistently applied, and conform to management’s intent.
[Purpose]: Requirement 8.1.1 is about effectively managing and maintaining the various policies and procedures specified throughout Requirement 8. While it is important to define the specific policies or procedures called out in Requirement 8, it is equally important to ensure they are properly documented, maintained, and disseminated.
[Good Practice]: It is important to update policies and procedures as needed to address changes in processes, technologies, and business objectives. For this reason, consider updating these documents as soon as possible after a change occurs and not only on a periodic cycle.
[Definitions]: Security policies define the entity’s security objectives and principles. Operational procedures describe how to perform activities, and define the controls, methods, and processes that are followed to achieve the desired result in a consistent manner and in accordance with policy objectives.
","uuid":"73baae50-b904-48a5-8d1a-21a75e2798e5","family":"Identify Users and Authenticate Access to System Components","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"8.1.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"8.1.1 Examine documentation and interview personnel to verify that security policies and operational procedures that are identified in Requirement 8 are managed in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"8.1.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Roles and responsibilities for performing activities in Requirement 8 are documented, assigned, and understood.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Day-to-day responsibilities for performing all the activities in Requirement 8 are allocated. Personnel are accountable for successful, continuous operation of these requirements.
[Purpose]: If roles and responsibilities are not formally assigned, personnel may not be aware of their day-to-day responsibilities and critical activities may not occur.
[Good Practice]: Roles and responsibilities may be documented within policies and procedures or maintained within separate documents. As part of communicating roles and responsibilities, entities can consider having personnel acknowledge their acceptance and understanding of their assigned roles and responsibilities.
[Examples]: A method to document roles and responsibilities is a responsibility assignment matrix that includes who is responsible, accountable, consulted, and informed (also called a RACI matrix).
","uuid":"b3ad7dd2-6963-42bf-86db-4e3e8b522d74","family":"Identify Users and Authenticate Access to System Components","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"8.1.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"8.1.2.a Examine documentation to verify that descriptions of roles and responsibilities for performing activities in Requirement 8 are documented and assigned. 8.1.2.b Interview personnel with responsibility for performing activities in Requirement 8 to verify that roles and responsibilities are assigned as documented and are understood.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"8.1.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: All users are assigned a unique ID before access to system components or cardholder data is allowed.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: All actions by all users are attributable to an individual.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement is not intended to apply to user accounts within point-of-sale terminals that have access to only one card number at a time to facilitate a single transaction (such as IDs used by cashiers on point-of-sale terminals).
[Purpose]: The ability to trace actions performed on a computer system to an individual establishes accountability and traceability and is fundamental to establishing effective access controls. By ensuring each user is uniquely identified, instead of using one ID for several employees, an organization can maintain individual responsibility for actions and an effective record in the audit log per employee. In addition, this will assist with issue resolution and containment when misuse or malicious intent occurs.
","uuid":"66e7a62c-1812-43bb-86a3-e4bda6d26aee","family":"Identify Users and Authenticate Access to System Components","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"8.2.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"8.2.1.a Interview responsible personnel to verify that all users are assigned a unique ID for access to system components and cardholder data. 8.2.1.b Examine audit logs and other evidence to verify that access to system components and cardholder data can be uniquely identified and associated with individuals.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"8.2.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Group, shared, or generic accounts, or other shared authentication credentials are only used when necessary on an exception basis, and are managed as follows:
Account use is prevented unless needed for an exceptional circumstance.
Use is limited to the time needed for the exceptional circumstance.
Business justification for use is documented.
Use is explicitly approved by management.
Individual user identity is confirmed before access to an account is granted.
Every action taken is attributable to an individual user.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: All actions performed by users with generic, system, or shared IDs are attributable to an individual person.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement is not intended to apply to user accounts within point-of-sale terminals that have access to only one card number at a time to facilitate a single transaction (such as IDs used by cashiers on point-of-sale terminals).
[Purpose]: Group, shared, or generic (or default) accounts are typically delivered with software or operating systems—for example, root or with privileges associated with a specific function, such as an administrator. If multiple users share the same authentication credentials (for example, user account and password), it becomes impossible to trace system access and activities to an individual. In turn, this prevents an entity from assigning accountability for, or having effective logging of, an individual’s actions since a given action could have been performed by anyone in the group with knowledge of the user ID and associated authentication factors. The ability to associate individuals to the actions performed with an account is essential to provide individual accountability and traceability regarding who performed an action, what action was performed, and when that action occurred.
[Good Practice]: If shared accounts are used for any reason, strong management controls need to be established to maintain individual accountability and traceability.
[Examples]: Tools and techniques can facilitate both management and security of these types of accounts and confirm individual user identity before access to an account is granted. Entities can consider password vaults or other systemmanaged controls such as the sudo command. An example of an exceptional circumstance is where all other authentication methods have failed, and a shared account is needed for emergency use or “break the glass” administrator access.
","uuid":"eda61335-7c18-4ce1-9d22-b6c4af18967c","family":"Identify Users and Authenticate Access to System Components","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"8.2.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"8.2.2.a Examine user account lists on system components and applicable documentation to verify that shared authentication credentials are only used when necessary, on an exception basis, and are managed in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement. 8.2.2.b Examine authentication policies and procedures to verify processes are defined for shared authentication credentials such that they are only used when necessary, on an exception basis, and are managed in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement. 8.2.2.c Interview system administrators to verify that shared authentication credentials are only used when necessary, on an exception basis, and are managed in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"8.2.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Additional requirement for service providers only: Service providers with remote access to customer premises use unique authentication factors for each customer premises.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: A service provider’s credential used for one customer cannot be used for any other customer.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement applies only when the entity being assessed is a service provider. This requirement is not intended to apply to service providers accessing their own shared services environments, where multiple customer environments are hosted. If service provider employees use shared authentication factors to remotely access customer premises, these factors must be unique per customer and managed in accordance with Requirement 8.2.2.
[Purpose]: Service providers with remote access to customer premises typically use this access to support POS POI systems or provide other remote services. If a service provider uses the same authentication factors to access multiple customers, all the service provider’s customers can easily be compromised if an attacker compromises that one factor. Criminals know this and deliberately target service providers looking for a shared authentication factor that gives them remote access to many merchants via that single factor.
[Examples]: Technologies such as multi-factor mechanisms that provide a unique credential for each connection (such as a single-use password) could also meet the intent of this requirement.
","uuid":"28a38cf0-0a0e-4b74-ac9b-9d4b14c2d5ec","family":"Identify Users and Authenticate Access to System Components","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"8.2.3 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"8.2.3 Additional testing procedure for service provider assessments only: Examine authentication policies and procedures and interview personnel to verify that service providers with remote access to customer premises use unique authentication factors for remote access to each customer premises.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"8.2.3"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Addition, deletion, and modification of user IDs, authentication factors, and other identifier objects are managed as follows:
Authorized with the appropriate approval.
Implemented with only the privileges specified on the documented approval.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Lifecycle events for user IDs and authentication factors cannot occur without appropriate authorization.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement applies to all user accounts, including employees, contractors, consultants, temporary workers, and third-party vendors.
[Purpose]: It is imperative that the lifecycle of a user ID (additions, deletions, and modifications) is controlled so that only authorized accounts can perform functions, actions are auditable, and privileges are limited to only what is required. Attackers often compromise an existing account and then escalate the privileges of that account to perform unauthorized acts, or they may create new IDs to continue their activity in the background. It is essential to detect and respond when user accounts are created or changed outside the normal change process or without corresponding authorization.
","uuid":"b588fe09-c9fe-4773-b6c7-2933fc19d835","family":"Identify Users and Authenticate Access to System Components","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"8.2.4 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"8.2.4 Examine documented authorizations across various phases of the account lifecycle (additions, modifications, and deletions) and examine system settings to verify the activity has been managed in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"8.2.4"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Access for terminated users is immediately revoked.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: The accounts of terminated users cannot be used.
[Purpose]: If an employee or third party/vendor has left the company and still has access to the network via their user account, unnecessary or malicious access to cardholder data could occur—either by the former employee or by a malicious user who exploits the old and/or unused account.
","uuid":"61507aa0-a0b1-472f-95fe-bc1a5986809a","family":"Identify Users and Authenticate Access to System Components","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"8.2.5 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"8.2.5.a Examine information sources for terminated users and review current user access lists—for both local and remote access—to verify that terminated user IDs have been deactivated or removed from the access lists. 8.2.5.b Interview responsible personnel to verify that all physical authentication factors—such as, smart cards, tokens, etc.—have been returned or deactivated for terminated users.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"8.2.5"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Inactive user accounts are removed or disabled within 90 days of inactivity.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Inactive user accounts cannot be used.
[Purpose]: Accounts that are not used regularly are often targets of attack since it is less likely that any changes, such as a changed password, will be noticed. As such, these accounts may be more easily exploited and used to access cardholder data.
[Good Practice]: Where it may be reasonably anticipated that an account will not be used for an extended period of time, such as an extended leave of absence, the account should be disabled as soon as the leave begins, rather than waiting 90 days.
","uuid":"972eb8b5-ef0a-4664-8b03-0198b50a9a1e","family":"Identify Users and Authenticate Access to System Components","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"8.2.6 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"8.2.6 Examine user accounts and last logon information, and interview personnel to verify that any inactive user accounts are removed or disabled within 90 days of inactivity.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"8.2.6"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Accounts used by third parties to access, support, or maintain system components via remote access are managed as follows:
Enabled only during the time period needed and disabled when not in use.
Use is monitored for unexpected activity.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Third party remote access cannot be used except where specifically authorized and use is overseen by management.
[Purpose]: Allowing third parties to have 24/7 access into an entity’s systems and networks in case they need to provide support increases the chances of unauthorized access. This access could result in an unauthorized user in the third party’s environment or a malicious individual using the always-available external entry point into an entity’s network. Where third parties do need access 24/7, it should be documented, justified, monitored, and tied to specific service reasons.
[Good Practice]: Enabling access only for the time periods needed and disabling it as soon as it is no longer required helps prevent misuse of these connections. Additionally, consider assigning third parties a start and stop date for their access in accordance with their service contract. Monitoring third-party access helps ensure that third parties are accessing only the systems necessary and only during approved time frames. Any unusual activity using third-party accounts should be followed up and resolved.
","uuid":"359a97af-b466-4b7a-9a94-de95f1483b50","family":"Identify Users and Authenticate Access to System Components","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"8.2.7 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"8.2.7 Interview personnel, examine documentation for managing accounts, and examine evidence to verify that accounts used by third parties for remote access are managed according to all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"8.2.7"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: If a user session has been idle for more than 15 minutes, the user is required to re-authenticate to re-activate the terminal or session.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: A user session cannot be used except by the authorized user.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement is not intended to apply to user accounts on point-of-sale terminals that have access to only one card number at a time to facilitate a single transaction (such as IDs used by cashiers on point-of-sale terminals). This requirement is not meant to prevent legitimate activities from being performed while the console/PC is unattended.
[Purpose]: When users walk away from an open machine with access to system components or cardholder data, there is a risk that the machine may be used by others in the user’s absence, resulting in unauthorized account access and/or misuse.
[Good Practice]: The re-authentication can be applied either at the system level to protect all sessions running on that machine or at the application level. Entities may also want to consider staging controls in succession to further restrict the access of an unattended session as time passes. For example, the screensaver may activate after 15 minutes and log off the user after an hour. However, timeout controls must balance the risk of access and exposure with the impact to the user and purpose of the access. If a user needs to run a program from an unattended computer, the user can log in to the computer to initiate the program, and then “lock” the computer so that no one else can use the user’s login while the computer is unattended.
[Examples]: One way to meet this requirement is to configure an automated screensaver to launch whenever the console is idle for 15 minutes and requiring the logged-in user to enter their password to unlock the screen.
","uuid":"87075eb5-75f4-48b8-a680-3b89b33866a0","family":"Identify Users and Authenticate Access to System Components","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"8.2.8 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"8.2.8 Examine system configuration settings to verify that system/session idle timeout features for user sessions have been set to 15 minutes or less.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"8.2.8"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: All user access to system components for users and administrators is authenticated via at least one of the following authentication factors:
Something you know, such as a password or passphrase.
Something you have, such as a token device or smart card.
Something you are, such as a biometric element.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: An account cannot be accessed except with a combination of user identity and an authentication factor.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement is not intended to apply to user accounts on point-of-sale terminals that have access to only one card number at a time to facilitate a single transaction (such as IDs used by cashiers on point-of-sale terminals). This requirement does not supersede multi-factor authentication (MFA) requirements but applies to those in-scope systems not otherwise subject to MFA requirements. A digital certificate is a valid option for “something you have” if it is unique for a particular user.
[Purpose]: When used in addition to unique IDs, an authentication factor helps protect user IDs from being compromised, since the attacker needs to have the unique ID and compromise the associated authentication factor(s).
[Good Practice]: A common approach for a malicious individual to compromise a system is to exploit weak or nonexistent authentication factors (for example, passwords/passphrases). Requiring strong authentication factors helps protect against this attack.
[Further Information]: See fidoalliance.org for more information about using tokens, smart cards, or biometrics as authentication factors
","uuid":"2e6efcf1-8012-4173-af20-125330c7dc56","family":"Identify Users and Authenticate Access to System Components","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"8.3.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"8.3.1.a Examine documentation describing the authentication factor(s) used to verify that user access to system components is authenticated via at least one authentication factor specified in this requirement. 8.3.1.b For each type of authentication factor used with each type of system component, observe an authentication to verify that authentication is functioning consistently with documented authentication factor(s).","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"8.3.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Strong cryptography is used to render all authentication factors unreadable during transmission and storage on all system components.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Cleartext authentication factors cannot be obtained, derived, or reused from the interception of communications or from stored data.
[Purpose]: Network devices and applications have been known to transmit unencrypted, readable authentication factors (such as passwords and passphrases) across the network and/or store these values without encryption. As a result, a malicious individual can easily intercept this information during transmission using a “sniffer,” or directly access unencrypted authentication factors in files where they are stored, and then use this data to gain unauthorized access.
","uuid":"4b24e596-b671-4efd-92f4-2fd6ab352bd7","family":"Identify Users and Authenticate Access to System Components","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"8.3.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"8.3.2.a Examine vendor documentation and system configuration settings to verify that authentication factors are rendered unreadable with strong cryptography during transmission and storage. 8.3.2.b Examine repositories of authentication factors to verify that they are unreadable during storage. 8.3.2.c Examine data transmissions to verify that authentication factors are unreadable during transmission.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"8.3.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: User identity is verified before modifying any authentication factor.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Unauthorized individuals cannot gain system access by impersonating the identity of an authorized user.
[Purpose]: Malicious individuals use \"social engineering” techniques to impersonate a user of a system — for example, calling a help desk and acting as a legitimate user—to have an authentication factor changed so they can use a valid user ID. Requiring positive identification of a user reduces the probability of this type of attack succeeding.
[Good Practice]: Modifications to authentication factors for which user identity should be verified include but are not limited to performing password resets, provisioning new hardware or software tokens, and generating new keys.
[Examples]: Methods to verify a user’s identity include a secret question/answer, knowledge-based information, and calling the user back at a known and previously established phone number.
","uuid":"e5bd6920-42b6-4ca6-be68-6d88a3265f27","family":"Identify Users and Authenticate Access to System Components","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"8.3.3 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"8.3.3 Examine procedures for modifying authentication factors and observe security personnel to verify that when a user requests a modification of an authentication factor, the user’s identity is verified before the authentication factor is modified.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"8.3.3"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Invalid authentication attempts are limited by:
Locking out the user ID after not more than 10 attempts.
Setting the lockout duration to a minimum of 30 minutes or until the user’s identity is confirmed.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: An authentication factor cannot be guessed in a brute force, online attack.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement is not intended to apply to user accounts on point-of-sale terminals that have access to only one card number at a time to facilitate a single transaction (such as IDs used by cashiers on point-of-sale terminals).
[Purpose]: Without account-lockout mechanisms in place, an attacker can continually try to guess a password through manual or automated tools (for example, password cracking) until the attacker succeeds and gains access to a user’s account. If an account is locked out due to someone continually trying to guess a password, controls to delay reactivation of the locked account stop the malicious individual from guessing the password, as they will have to stop for a minimum of 30 minutes until the account is reactivated.
[Good Practice]: Before reactivating a locked account, the user’s identity should be confirmed. For example, the administrator or help desk personnel can validate that the actual account owner is requesting reactivation, or there may be password reset selfservice mechanisms that the account owner uses to verify their identity.
","uuid":"3c265742-97f8-40fd-ad0b-d45f01ff1a6d","family":"Identify Users and Authenticate Access to System Components","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"8.3.4 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"8.3.4.a Examine system configuration settings to verify that authentication parameters are set to require that user accounts be locked out after not more than 10 invalid logon attempts. 8.3.4.b Examine system configuration settings to verify that password parameters are set to require that once a user account is locked out, it remains locked for a minimum of 30 minutes or until the user’s identity is confirmed.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"8.3.4"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: If passwords/passphrases are used as authentication factors to meet Requirement 8.3.1, they are set and reset for each user as follows
Set to a unique value for first-time use and upon reset.
Forced to be changed immediately after the first use.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: An initial or reset password/passphrase assigned to a user cannot be used by an unauthorized user.
[Purpose]: If the same password/passphrase is used for every new user, an internal user, former employee, or malicious individual may know or easily discover the value and use it to gain access to accounts before the authorized user attempts to use the password.
","uuid":"4e3ab858-14c2-42a1-abe2-a2684439ded8","family":"Identify Users and Authenticate Access to System Components","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"8.3.5 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"8.3.5 Examine procedures for setting and resetting passwords/passphrases (if used as authentication factors to meet Requirement 8.3.1) and observe security personnel to verify that passwords/passphrases are set and reset in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"8.3.5"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: If passwords/passphrases are used as authentication factors to meet Requirement 8.3.1, they meet the following minimum level of complexity:
A minimum length of 12 characters (or IF the system does not support 12 characters, a minimum length of eight characters).
Contain both numeric and alphabetic characters.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: A guessed password/passphrase cannot be verified by either an online or offline brute force attack.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement is not intended to apply to:
User accounts on point-of-sale terminals that have access to only one card number at a time to facilitate a single transaction (such as IDs used by cashiers on point-of-sale terminals).
Application or system accounts, which are governed by requirements in section 8.6. This requirement is a best practice until 31 March 2025, after which it will be required and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment. Until 31 March 2025, passwords must be a minimum length of seven characters in accordance with PCI DSS v3.2.1 Requirement 8.2.3.
[Purpose]: Strong passwords/passphrases may be the first line of defense into a network since a malicious individual will often first try to find accounts with weak, static, or non-existent passwords. If passwords are short or easily guessable, it is relatively easy for a malicious individual to find these weak accounts and compromise a network under the guise of a valid user ID.
[Good Practice]: Password/passphrase strength is dependent on password/passphrase complexity, length, and randomness. Passwords/passphrases should be sufficiently complex, so they are impractical for an attacker to guess or otherwise discover its value. Entities can consider adding increased complexity by requiring the use of special characters and upper- and lower-case characters, in addition to the minimum standards outlined by this requirement. Additional complexity increases the time required for offline brute force attacks of hashed passwords/passphrases. Another option for increasing the resistance of passwords to guessing attacks is by comparing proposed password/passphrases to a bad password list and having users provide new passwords for any passwords found on the list.
","uuid":"b9c22b12-3e01-45bc-93ea-aed9f3f76375","family":"Identify Users and Authenticate Access to System Components","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"8.3.6 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"8.3.6 Examine system configuration settings to verify that user password/passphrase complexity parameters are set in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"8.3.6"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Individuals are not allowed to submit a new password/passphrase that is the same as any of the last four passwords/passphrases used.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: A previously used password cannot be used to gain access to an account for at least 12 months.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement is not intended to apply to user accounts on point-of-sale terminals that have access to only one card number at a time to facilitate a single transaction (such as IDs used by cashiers on point-of-sale terminals).
[Purpose]: If password history is not maintained, the effectiveness of changing passwords is reduced, as previous passwords can be reused over and over. Requiring that passwords cannot be reused for a period reduces the likelihood that passwords that have been guessed or brute-forced will be reused in the future. Passwords or passphrases may have previously been changed due to suspicion of compromise or because the password or passphrase exceeded its effective use period, both of which are reasons why previously used passwords should not be reused.
","uuid":"b1564a99-5821-447c-806e-e2ac84013207","family":"Identify Users and Authenticate Access to System Components","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"8.3.7 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"8.3.7 Examine system configuration settings to verify that password parameters are set to require that new passwords/passphrases cannot be the same as the four previously used passwords/passphrases.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"8.3.7"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Authentication policies and procedures are documented and communicated to all users including:
Guidance on selecting strong authentication factors.
Guidance for how users should protect their authentication factors.
Instructions not to reuse previously used passwords/passphrases.
Instructions to change passwords/passphrases if there is any suspicion or knowledge that the password/passphrases have been compromised and how to report the incident.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Users are knowledgeable about the correct use of authentication factors and can access assistance and guidance when required.
[Purpose]: Communicating authentication policies and procedures to all users helps them to understand and abide by the policies.
[Good Practice]: Guidance on selecting strong passwords may include suggestions to help personnel select hard-to-guess passwords that do not contain dictionary words or information about the user, such as the user ID, names of family members, date of birth, etc. Guidance for protecting authentication factors may include not writing down passwords or not saving them in insecure files, and being alert to malicious individuals who may try to exploit their passwords (for example, by calling an employee and asking for their password so the caller can “troubleshoot a problem”). Alternatively, entities can implement processes to confirm passwords meet password policy, for example, by comparing password choices to a list of unacceptable passwords and having users choose a new password for any that match with one on the list. Instructing users to change passwords if there is a chance the password is no longer secure can prevent malicious users from using a legitimate password to gain unauthorized access.
","uuid":"b9299173-1761-4290-95b0-d3232a3bae65","family":"Identify Users and Authenticate Access to System Components","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"8.3.8 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"8.3.8.a Examine procedures and interview personnel to verify that authentication policies and procedures are distributed to all users. 8.3.8.b Review authentication policies and procedures that are distributed to users and verify they include the elements specified in this requirement. 8.3.8.c Interview users to verify that they are familiar with authentication policies and procedures.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"8.3.8"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: If passwords/passphrases are used as the only authentication factor for user access (i.e., in any single-factor authentication implementation) then either:
Passwords/passphrases are changed at least once every 90 days,
OR
The security posture of accounts is dynamically analyzed, and real-time access to resources is automatically determined accordingly.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: An undetected compromised password/passphrase cannot be used indefinitely.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement applies to in-scope system components that are not in the CDE because these components are not subject to MFA requirements. This requirement is not intended to apply to user accounts on point-of-sale terminals that have access to only one card number at a time to facilitate a single transaction (such as IDs used by cashiers on point-of-sale terminals). This requirement does not apply to service providers’ customer accounts but does apply to accounts for service provider personnel.
[Purpose]: Access to in-scope system components that are not in the CDE may be provided using a single authentication factor, such as a password/passphrase, token device or smart card, or biometric attribute. Where passwords/passphrases are employed as the only authentication factor for such access, additional controls are required to protect the integrity of the password/passphrase.
[Good Practice]: Passwords/passphrases that are valid for a long time without a change provide malicious individuals with more time to break the password/phrase. Periodically changing passwords offers less time for a malicious individual to crack a password/passphrase and less time to use a compromised password. Using a password/passphrase as the only authentication factor provides a single point of failure if compromised. Therefore, in these implementations, controls are needed to minimize how long malicious activity could occur via a compromised password/passphrase. Dynamically analyzing an account’s security posture is another option that allows for more rapid detection and response to address potentially compromised credentials. Such analysis takes a number of data points, which may include device integrity, location, access times, and the resources accessed to determine in real time whether an account can be granted access to a requested resource. In this way, access can be denied and accounts blocked if it is suspected that authentication credentials have been compromised.
[Further Information]: For information about using dynamic analysis to manage user access to resources, see NIST SP 800-207 Zero Trust Architecture.
","uuid":"33e017d7-947c-4cb6-960a-ce391c7f5e1e","family":"Identify Users and Authenticate Access to System Components","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"8.3.9 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"8.3.9 If passwords/passphrases are used as the only authentication factor for user access, inspect system configuration settings to verify that passwords/passphrases are managed in accordance with ONE of the elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"8.3.9"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Additional requirement for service providers only: If passwords/passphrases are used as the only authentication factor for customer user access to cardholder data (i.e., in any singlefactor authentication implementation), then guidance is provided to customer users including:
Guidance for customers to change their user passwords/passphrases periodically.
Guidance as to when, and under what circumstances, passwords/passphrases are to be changed.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Passwords/passphrases for service providers’ customers cannot be used indefinitely.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement applies only when the entity being assessed is a service provider. This requirement does not apply to accounts of consumer users accessing their own payment card information. This requirement for service providers will be superseded by Requirement 8.3.10.1 once 8.3.10.1 becomes effective.
[Purpose]: Using a password/passphrase as the only authentication factor provides a single point of failure if compromised. Therefore, in these implementations, controls are needed to minimize how long malicious activity could occur via a compromised password/passphrase.
[Good Practice]: Passwords/passphrases that are valid for a long time without a change provide malicious individuals with more time to break the password/phrase. Periodically changing passwords offers less time for a malicious individual to crack a password/passphrase and less time to use a compromised password.
","uuid":"5b15b6f6-bb11-41b2-8ff3-40ef2f76f875","family":"Identify Users and Authenticate Access to System Components","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"8.3.10 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"8.3.10 Additional testing procedure for service provider assessments only: If passwords/passphrases are used as the only authentication factor for customer user access to cardholder data, examine guidance provided to customer users to verify that the guidance includes all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"8.3.10"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Additional requirement for service providers only: If passwords/passphrases are used as the only authentication factor for customer user access (i.e., in any single-factor authentication implementation) then either:
Passwords/passphrases are changed at least once every 90 days,
OR
The security posture of accounts is dynamically analyzed, and real-time access to resources is automatically determined accordingly.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Passwords/passphrases for service providers’ customers cannot be used indefinitely.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement applies only when the entity being assessed is a service provider. This requirement does not apply to accounts of consumer users accessing their own payment card information. This requirement is a best practice until 31 March 2025, after which it will be required and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment. Until this requirement is effective on 31 March 2025, service providers may meet either Requirement 8.3.10 or 8.3.10.1.
[Purpose]: Using a password/passphrase as the only authentication factor provides a single point of failure if compromised. Therefore, in these implementations, controls are needed to minimize how long malicious activity could occur via a compromised password/passphrase.
[Good Practice]: Passwords/passphrases that are valid for a long time without a change provide malicious individuals with more time to break the password/phrase. Periodically changing passwords offers less time for a malicious individual to crack a password/passphrase and less time to use a compromised password. Dynamically analyzing an account’s security posture is another option that allows for more rapid detection and response to address potentially compromised credentials. Such analysis takes a number of data points which may include device integrity, location, access times, and the resources accessed to determine in real time whether an account can be granted access to a requested resource. In this way, access can be denied and accounts blocked if it is suspected that account credentials have been compromised.
[Further Information]: For information about using dynamic analysis to manage user access to resources, refer to NIST SP 800-207 Zero Trust Architecture.
","uuid":"30b04ef5-2696-436c-ae14-60f4c4e8af3b","family":"Identify Users and Authenticate Access to System Components","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"8.3.10.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"8.3.10.1 Additional testing procedure for service provider assessments only: If passwords/passphrases are used as the only authentication factor for customer user access, inspect system configuration settings to verify that passwords/passphrases are managed in accordance with ONE of the elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"8.3.10.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Where authentication factors such as physical or logical security tokens, smart cards, or certificates are used:
Factors are assigned to an individual user and not shared among multiple users.
Physical and/or logical controls ensure only the intended user can use that factor to gain access.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: An authentication factor cannot be used by anyone other than the user to which it is assigned.
[Purpose]: If multiple users can use authentication factors such as tokens, smart cards, and certificates, it may be impossible to identify the individual using the authentication mechanism.
[Good Practice]: Having physical and/or logical controls (for example, a PIN, biometric data, or a password) to uniquely authenticate the user of the account will prevent unauthorized users from gaining access to the user account through use of a shared authentication factor.
","uuid":"67621913-ac2a-413a-9b19-11cea7e31c1f","family":"Identify Users and Authenticate Access to System Components","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"8.3.11 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"8.3.11.a Examine authentication policies and procedures to verify that procedures for using authentication factors such as physical security tokens, smart cards, and certificates are defined and include all elements specified in this requirement. 8.3.11.b Interview security personnel to verify authentication factors are assigned to an individual user and not shared among multiple users. 8.3.11.c Examine system configuration settings and/or observe physical controls, as applicable, to verify that controls are implemented to ensure only the intended user can use that factor to gain access.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"8.3.11"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: MFA is implemented for all non-console access into the CDE for personnel with administrative access.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Administrative access to the CDE cannot be obtained by the use of a single authentication factor.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: The requirement for MFA for non-console administrative access applies to all personnel with elevated or increased privileges accessing the CDE via a non-console connection—that is, via logical access occurring over a network interface rather than via a direct, physical connection. MFA is considered a best practice for non-console administrative access to in-scope system components that are not part of the CDE.
[Purpose]: Requiring more than one type of authentication factor reduces the probability that an attacker can gain access to a system by masquerading as a legitimate user, because the attacker would need to compromise multiple authentication factors. This is especially true in environments where traditionally the single authentication factor employed was something a user knows such as a password or passphrase.
[Definitions]: Using one factor twice (for example, using two separate passwords) is not considered multifactor authentication.
","uuid":"bba75ff2-0698-470a-aa89-5e429401820a","family":"Identify Users and Authenticate Access to System Components","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"8.4.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"8.4.1.a Examine network and/or system configurations to verify MFA is required for all nonconsole into the CDE for personnel with administrative access. 8.4.1.b Observe administrator personnel logging into the CDE and verify that MFA is required.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"8.4.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: MFA is implemented for all access into the CDE.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Access into the CDE cannot be obtained by the use of a single authentication factor.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement does not apply to:
Application or system accounts performing automated functions.
User accounts on point-of-sale terminals that have access to only one card number at a time to facilitate a single transaction (such as IDs used by cashiers on point-of-sale terminals).
MFA is required for both types of access specified in Requirements 8.4.2 and 8.4.3. Therefore, applying MFA to one type of access does not replace the need to apply another instance of MFA to the other type of access. If an individual first connects to the entity’s network via remote access, and then later initiates a connection into the CDE from within the network, per this requirement the individual would authenticate using MFA twice, once when connecting via remote access to the entity’s network and once when connecting via non-console administrative access from the entity’s network into the CDE. The MFA requirements apply for all types of system components, including cloud, hosted systems, and on-premises applications, network security devices, workstations, servers, and endpoints, and includes access directly to an entity’s networks or systems as well as web-based access to an application or function. MFA for remote access into the CDE can be implemented at the network or system/application level; it does not have to be applied at both levels. For example, if MFA is used when a user connects to the CDE network, it does not have to be used when the user logs into each system or application within the CDE. This requirement is a best practice until 31 March 2025, after which it will be required and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment.
[Purpose]: Requiring more than one type of authentication factor reduces the probability that an attacker can gain access to a system by masquerading as a legitimate user, because the attacker would need to compromise multiple authentication factors. This is especially true in environments where traditionally the single authentication factor employed was something a user knows such as a password or passphrase.
[Definitions]: Using one factor twice (for example, using two separate passwords) is not considered multifactor authentication.
","uuid":"c9fd7acc-58ab-44e7-9b0f-1937d58f9a82","family":"Identify Users and Authenticate Access to System Components","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"8.4.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"8.4.2.a Examine network and/or system configurations to verify MFA is implemented for all access into the CDE. 8.4.2.b Observe personnel logging in to the CDE and examine evidence to verify that MFA is required.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"8.4.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: MFA is implemented for all remote network access originating from outside the entity’s network that could access or impact the CDE as follows:
All remote access by all personnel, both users and administrators, originating from outside the entity’s network.
All remote access by third parties and vendors.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Remote access to the entity’s network cannot be obtained by using a single authentication factor.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: The requirement for MFA for remote access originating from outside the entity’s network applies to all user accounts that can access the network remotely, where that remote access leads to or could lead to access into the CDE. If remote access is to a part of the entity’s network that is properly segmented from the CDE, such that remote users cannot access or impact the CDE, MFA for remote access to that part of the network is not required. However, MFA is required for any remote access to networks with access to the CDE and is recommended for all remote access to the entity’s networks. The MFA requirements apply for all types of system components, including cloud, hosted systems, and on-premises applications, network security devices, workstations, servers, and endpoints, and includes access directly to an entity’s networks or systems as well as web-based access to an application or function.
[Purpose]: Requiring more than one type of authentication factor reduces the probability that an attacker can gain access to a system by masquerading as a legitimate user, because the attacker would need to compromise multiple authentication factors. This is especially true in environments where traditionally the single authentication factor employed was something a user knows, such as a password or passphrase.
[Definitions]: Multi-factor authentication (MFA) requires an individual to present a minimum of two of the three authentication factors specified in Requirement 8.3.1 before access is granted. Using one factor twice (for example, using two separate passwords) is not considered multifactor authentication.
","uuid":"5c0a5868-deda-4c55-95af-3e55de9a5507","family":"Identify Users and Authenticate Access to System Components","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"8.4.3 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"8.4.3.a Examine network and/or system configurations for remote access servers and systems to verify MFA is required in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement. 8.4.3.b Observe personnel (for example, users and administrators) connecting remotely to the network and verify that multi-factor authentication is required.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"8.4.3"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: MFA systems are implemented as follows:
The MFA system is not susceptible to replay attacks.
MFA systems cannot be bypassed by any users, including administrative users unless specifically documented, and authorized by management on an exception basis, for a limited time period.
At least two different types of authentication factors are used.
Success of all authentication factors is required before access is granted.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: MFA systems are resistant to attack and strictly control any administrative overrides.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement is a best practice until 31 March 2025, after which it will be required and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment.
[Purpose]: Poorly configured MFA systems can be bypassed by attackers. This requirement therefore addresses configuration of MFA system(s) that provide MFA for users accessing system components in the CDE.
[Definitions]: Using one type of factor twice (for example, using two separate passwords) is not considered multifactor authentication.
[Further Information]: For more information about MFA systems and features, refer to the following: PCI SSC’s Information Supplement: Multi-Factor Authentication PCI SSC’s Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on this topic.
","uuid":"063bc293-b0cd-439c-a28a-79843941db21","family":"Identify Users and Authenticate Access to System Components","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"8.5.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"8.5.1.a Examine vendor system documentation to verify that the MFA system is not susceptible to replay attacks. 8.5.1.b Examine system configurations for the MFA implementation to verify it is configured in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement. 8.5.1.c Interview responsible personnel and observe processes to verify that any requests to bypass MFA are specifically documented and authorized by management on an exception basis, for a limited time period. 8.5.1.d Observe personnel logging into system components in the CDE to verify that access is granted only after all authentication factors are successful. 8.5.1.e Observe personnel connecting remotely from outside the entity’s network to verify that access is granted only after all authentication factors are successful.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"8.5.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: If accounts used by systems or applications can be used for interactive login, they are managed as follows:
Interactive use is prevented unless needed for an exceptional circumstance.
Interactive use is limited to the time needed for the exceptional circumstance.
Business justification for interactive use is documented.
Interactive use is explicitly approved by management.
Individual user identity is confirmed before access to account is granted.
Every action taken is attributable to an individual user.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: When used interactively, all actions with accounts designated as system or application accounts are authorized and attributable to an individual person.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement is a best practice until 31 March 2025, after which it will be required and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment.
[Purpose]: Like individual user accounts, system and application accounts require accountability and strict management to ensure they are used only for the intended purpose and are not misused. Attackers often compromise system or application accounts to gain access to cardholder data. [Good Practice]: Where possible, configure system and application accounts to disallow interactive login to prevent unauthorized individuals from logging in and using the account with its associated system privileges, and to limit the machines and devices on which the account can be used.
[Definitions]: System or application accounts are those accounts that execute processes or perform tasks on a computer system or application and are not typically accounts that an individual logs into. These accounts usually have elevated privileges that are required to perform specialized tasks or functions. Interactive login is the ability for a person to log into a system or application account in the same manner as a normal user account. Using system and application accounts this way means there is no accountability and traceability of actions taken by the user.
","uuid":"9b092309-13a2-4570-bd20-aa811aa10067","family":"Identify Users and Authenticate Access to System Components","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"8.6.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"8.6.1 Examine application and system accounts that can be used interactively and interview administrative personnel to verify that application and system accounts are managed in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"8.6.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Passwords/passphrases for any application and system accounts that can be used for interactive login are not hard coded in scripts, configuration/property files, or bespoke and custom source code.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Passwords/passphrases used by application and system accounts cannot be used by unauthorized personnel.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: Stored passwords/passphrases are required to be encrypted in accordance with PCI DSS Requirement 8.3.2. This requirement is a best practice until 31 March 2025, after which it will be required and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment.
[Purpose]: Not properly protecting passwords/passphrases used by application and system accounts, especially if those accounts can be used for interactive login, increases the risk and success of unauthorized use of those privileged accounts.
[Good Practice]: Changing these values due to suspected or confirmed disclosure can be particularly difficult to implement. Tools can facilitate both management and security of authentication factors for application and system accounts. For example, consider password vaults or other system-managed controls.
","uuid":"00a6742e-abb6-4c7b-a0fc-e66df6efaf57","family":"Identify Users and Authenticate Access to System Components","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"8.6.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"8.6.2.a Interview personnel and examine system development procedures to verify that processes are defined for application and system accounts that can be used for interactive login, specifying that passwords/passphrases are not hard coded in scripts, configuration/property files, or bespoke and custom source code. 8.6.2.b Examine scripts, configuration/property files, and bespoke and custom source code for application and system accounts that can be used for interactive login, to verify passwords/passphrases for those accounts are not present.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"8.6.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Passwords/passphrases for any application and system accounts are protected against misuse as follows:
Passwords/passphrases are changed periodically (at the frequency defined in the entity’s targeted risk analysis, which is performed according to all elements specified in Requirement 12.3.1) and upon suspicion or confirmation of compromise.
Passwords/passphrases are constructed with sufficient complexity appropriate for how frequently the entity changes the passwords/passphrases.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Passwords/passphrases used by application and system accounts cannot be used indefinitely and are structured to resist brute-force and guessing attacks.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement is a best practice until 31 March 2025, after which it will be required and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment.
[Purpose]: Systems and application accounts pose more inherent security risk than user accounts because they often run in an elevated security context, with access to systems that may not be typically granted to user accounts, such as programmatic access to databases, etc. As a result, special consideration must be made to protect passwords/passphrases used for application and system accounts.
[Good Practice]: Entities should consider the following risk factors when determining how to protect application and system passwords/passphrases against misuse:
How securely the passwords/passphrases are stored (for example, whether they are stored in a password vault).
Staff turnover.
The number of people with access to the authentication factor.
Whether the account can be used for interactive login.
Whether the security posture of accounts is dynamically analyzed, and real-time access to resources is automatically determined accordingly (see Requirement 8.3.9).
All these elements affect the level of risk for application and system accounts and might impact the security of systems accessed by the system and application accounts. Entities should correlate their selected change frequency for application and system passwords/passwords with their selected complexity for those passwords/passphrases – i.e., the complexity should be more rigorous when passwords/passphrases are changed infrequently and can be less rigorous when changed more frequently. For example, a longer change frequency is more justifiable when passwords/passphrases complexity is set to 36 alphanumeric characters with upper- and lowercase letters, numbers, and special characters. Best practices are to consider password changes at least once a year, a password/passphrase length of at least 15 characters, and complexity for the passwords/passphrase of alphanumeric characters, with upper- and lower-case letters, and special characters.
[Further Information]: For information about variability and equivalency of password strength for passwords/passphrases of different formats, see the industry standards (for example, the current version of NIST SP 80063 Digital Identity Guidelines).
","uuid":"5c710c0e-595d-4c20-8a6e-8abe85768e14","family":"Identify Users and Authenticate Access to System Components","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"8.6.3 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"8.6.3.a Examine policies and procedures to verify that procedures are defined to protect passwords/passphrases for application or system accounts against misuse in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement. 8.6.3.b Examine the entity’s targeted risk analysis for the change frequency and complexity for passwords/passphrases used for interactive login to application and system accounts to verify the risk analysis was performed in accordance with all elements specified in Requirement 12.3.1 and addresses: () The frequency defined for periodic changes to application and system passwords/passphrases. () The complexity defined for passwords/passphrases and appropriateness of the complexity relative to the frequency of changes. 8.6.3.c Interview responsible personnel and examine system configuration settings to verify that passwords/passphrases for any application and system accounts that can be used for interactive login are protected against misuse in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"8.6.3"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: All security policies and operational procedures that are identified in Requirement 9 are:
Documented.
Kept up to date.
In use.
Known to all affected parties.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Expectations, controls, and oversight for meeting activities within Requirement 9 are defined and adhered to by affected personnel. All supporting activities are repeatable, consistently applied, and conform to management’s intent.
[Purpose]: Requirement 9.1.1 is about effectively managing and maintaining the various policies and procedures specified throughout Requirement 9. While it is important to define the specific policies or procedures called out in Requirement 9, it is equally important to ensure they are properly documented, maintained, and disseminated.
[Good Practice]: It is important to update policies and procedures as needed to address changes in processes, technologies, and business objectives. For this reason, consider updating these documents as soon as possible after a change occurs and not only on a periodic cycle.
[Definitions]: Security policies define the entity’s security objectives and principles. Operational procedures describe how to perform activities, and define the controls, methods, and processes that are followed to achieve the desired result in a consistent manner and in accordance with policy objectives. Policies and procedures, including updates, are actively communicated to all affected personnel, and are supported by operating procedures describing how to perform activities.
","uuid":"3077efd8-9b04-4cc6-b999-3eb93f7cb1be","family":"Restrict Physical Access to Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"9.1.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"9.1.1 Examine documentation and interview personnel to verify that security policies and operational procedures identified in Requirement 9 are managed in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"9.1.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Roles and responsibilities for performing activities in Requirement 9 are documented, assigned, and understood.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Day-to-day responsibilities for performing all the activities in Requirement 9 are allocated. Personnel are accountable for successful, continuous operation of these requirements.
[Purpose]: If roles and responsibilities are not formally assigned, personnel may not be aware of their day-to-day responsibilities, and critical activities may not occur.
[Good Practice]: Roles and responsibilities may be documented within policies and procedures or maintained within separate documents. As part of communicating roles and responsibilities, entities can consider having personnel acknowledge their acceptance and understanding of their assigned roles and responsibilities. A method to document roles and responsibilities is a responsibility assignment matrix that includes who is responsible, accountable, consulted, and informed (also called a RACI matrix).
","uuid":"7cd00945-c73a-4522-8615-b2b52f34a52c","family":"Restrict Physical Access to Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"9.1.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"9.1.2.a Examine documentation to verify that descriptions of roles and responsibilities for performing activities in Requirement 9 are documented and assigned. 9.1.2.b Interview personnel with responsibility for performing activities in Requirement 9 to verify that roles and responsibilities are assigned as documented and are understood.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"9.1.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Appropriate facility entry controls are in place to restrict physical access to systems in the CDE.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: System components in the CDE cannot be physically accessed by unauthorized personnel.
[Purpose]: Without physical access controls, unauthorized persons could potentially gain access to the CDE and sensitive information, or could alter system configurations, introduce vulnerabilities into the network, or destroy or steal equipment. Therefore, the purpose of this requirement is that physical access to the CDE is controlled via physical security controls such as badge readers or other mechanisms such as lock and key.
[Good Practice]: Whichever mechanism meets this requirement, it must be sufficient for the organization to verify that only authorized personnel are granted access.
[Examples]: Facility entry controls include physical security controls at each computer room, data center, and other physical areas with systems in the CDE. It can also include badge readers or other devices that manage physical access controls, such as lock and key with a current list of all individuals holding the keys.
","uuid":"17e90f17-5151-46ee-9a05-2d77e58cc688","family":"Restrict Physical Access to Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"9.2.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"9.2.1 Observe entry controls and interview responsible personnel to verify that physical security controls are in place to restrict access to systems in the CDE.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"9.2.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Individual physical access to sensitive areas within the CDE is monitored with either video cameras or physical access control mechanisms (or both) as follows:
Entry and exit points to/from sensitive areas within the CDE are monitored.
Monitoring devices or mechanisms are protected from tampering or disabling.
Collected data is reviewed and correlated with other entries.
Collected data is stored for at least three months, unless otherwise restricted by law.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Trusted, verifiable records are maintained of individual physical entry to, and exit from, sensitive areas.
[Purpose]: Maintaining details of individuals entering and exiting the sensitive areas can help with investigations of physical breaches by identifying individuals that physically accessed the sensitive areas, as well as when they entered and exited.
[Good Practice]: Whichever mechanism meets this requirement, it should effectively monitor all entry and exit points to sensitive areas. Criminals attempting to gain physical access to sensitive areas will often try to disable or bypass the monitoring controls. To protect these controls from tampering, video cameras could be positioned so they are out of reach and/or be monitored to detect tampering. Similarly, physical access control mechanisms could be monitored or have physical protections installed to prevent them from being damaged or disabled by malicious individuals.
","uuid":"9a1caadd-e33e-48b0-a33f-0e9cd077869f","family":"Restrict Physical Access to Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"9.2.1.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"9.2.1.1.a Observe locations where individual physical access to sensitive areas within the CDE occurs to verify that either video cameras or physical access control mechanisms (or both) are in place to monitor the entry and exit points. 9.2.1.1.b Observe locations where individual physical access to sensitive areas within the CDE occurs to verify that either video cameras or physical access control mechanisms (or both) are protected from tampering or disabling. 9.2.1.1.c Observe the physical access control mechanisms and/or examine video cameras and interview responsible personnel to verify that: () Collected data from video cameras and/or physical access control mechanisms is reviewed and correlated with other entries. () Collected data is stored for at least three months.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"9.2.1.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Physical and/or logical controls are implemented to restrict use of publicly accessible network jacks within the facility.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Unauthorized devices cannot connect to the entity’s network from public areas within the facility.
[Purpose]: Restricting access to network jacks (or network ports) will prevent malicious individuals from plugging into readily available network jacks and gaining access to the CDE or systems connected to the CDE.
[Good Practice]: Whether logical or physical controls, or a combination of both, are used, they should prevent an individual or device that is not explicitly authorized from being able to connect to the network.
[Examples]: Methods to meet this requirement include network jacks located in public areas and areas accessible to visitors could be disabled and only enabled when network access is explicitly authorized. Alternatively, processes could be implemented to ensure that visitors are escorted at all times in areas with active network jacks.
","uuid":"7773c52f-54dc-491b-93c2-8789a40b2ff6","family":"Restrict Physical Access to Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"9.2.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"9.2.2 Interview responsible personnel and observe locations of publicly accessible network jacks to verify that physical and/or logical controls are in place to restrict access to publicly accessible network jacks within the facility.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"9.2.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Physical access to wireless access points, gateways, networking/communications hardware, and telecommunication lines within the facility is restricted.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Physical networking equipment cannot be accessed by unauthorized personnel.
[Purpose]: Without appropriate physical security over access to wireless components and devices, and computer networking and telecommunications equipment and lines, malicious users could gain access to the entity’s network resources. Additionally, they could connect their own devices to the network to gain unauthorized access to the CDE or systems connected to the CDE. Additionally, securing networking and communications hardware prevents malicious users from intercepting network traffic or physically connecting their own devices to wired network resources.
","uuid":"16baa98e-250e-40ae-ab7a-38c7ea7f856c","family":"Restrict Physical Access to Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"9.2.3 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"9.2.3 Interview responsible personnel and observe locations of hardware and lines to verify that physical access to wireless access points, gateways, networking/communications hardware, and telecommunication lines within the facility is restricted.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"9.2.3"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Access to consoles in sensitive areas is restricted via locking when not in use.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Physical consoles within sensitive areas cannot be used by unauthorized personnel.
[Purpose]: Locking console login screens prevents unauthorized persons from gaining access to sensitive information, altering system configurations, introducing vulnerabilities into the network, or destroying records.
","uuid":"140cdf6c-b835-4890-9a03-983397ffbfc8","family":"Restrict Physical Access to Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"9.2.4 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"9.2.4 Observe a system administrator’s attempt to log into consoles in sensitive areas and verify that they are “locked” to prevent unauthorized use.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"9.2.4"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Procedures are implemented for authorizing and managing physical access of personnel to the CDE, including:
Identifying personnel.
Managing changes to an individual’s physical access requirements.
Revoking or terminating personnel identification.
Limiting access to the identification process or system to authorized personnel.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Requirements for access to the physical CDE are defined and enforced to identify and authorize personnel.
[Purpose]: Establishing procedures for granting, managing, and removing access when it is no longer needed ensures non-authorized individuals are prevented from gaining access to areas containing cardholder data. In addition, it is important to limit access to the actual badging system and badging materials to prevent unauthorized personnel from making their own badges and/or setting up their own access rules.
[Good Practice]: It is important to visually identify the personnel that are physically present, and whether the individual is a visitor or an employee.
[Examples]: One way to identify personnel is to assign them badges.
","uuid":"06ceec16-86f1-47ad-ac29-7ace61108173","family":"Restrict Physical Access to Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"9.3.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"9.3.1.a Examine documented procedures to verify that procedures to authorize and manage physical access of personnel to the CDE are defined in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement. 9.3.1.b Observe identification methods, such as ID badges, and processes to verify that personnel in the CDE are clearly identified. 9.3.1.c Observe processes to verify that access to the identification process, such as a badge system, is limited to authorized personnel.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"9.3.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Physical access to sensitive areas within the CDE for personnel is controlled as follows:
Access is authorized and based on individual job function.
Access is revoked immediately upon termination.
All physical access mechanisms, such as keys, access cards, etc., are returned or disabled upon termination.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Sensitive areas cannot be accessed by unauthorized personnel.
[Purpose]: Controlling physical access to sensitive areas helps ensure that only authorized personnel with a legitimate business need are granted access.
[Good Practice]: Where possible, organizations should have policies and procedures to ensure that before personnel leaving the organization, all physical access mechanisms are returned, or disabled as soon as possible upon their departure. This will ensure personnel cannot gain physical access to sensitive areas once their employment has ended.
","uuid":"907d1dd6-7821-452d-b691-ea08820a0181","family":"Restrict Physical Access to Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"9.3.1.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"9.3.1.1.a Observe personnel in sensitive areas within the CDE, interview responsible personnel, and examine physical access control lists to verify that: () Access to the sensitive area is authorized. () Access is required for the individual’s job function. 9.3.1.1.b Observe processes and interview personnel to verify that access of all personnel is revoked immediately upon termination. 9.3.1.1.c For terminated personnel, examine physical access controls lists and interview responsible personnel to verify that all physical access mechanisms (such as keys, access cards, etc.) were returned or disabled.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"9.3.1.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Procedures are implemented for authorizing and managing visitor access to the CDE, including:
Visitors are authorized before entering.
Visitors are escorted at all times.
Visitors are clearly identified and given a badge or other identification that expires.
Visitor badges or other identification visibly distinguishes visitors from personnel.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Requirements for visitor access to the CDE are defined and enforced. Visitors cannot exceed any authorized physical access allowed while in the CDE.
[Purpose]: Visitor controls are important to reduce the ability of unauthorized and malicious persons to gain access to facilities and potentially to cardholder data. Visitor controls ensure visitors are identifiable as visitors so personnel can monitor their activities, and that their access is restricted to just the duration of their legitimate visit.
","uuid":"d5926edd-f60e-49d0-a37d-7d20b1d189c2","family":"Restrict Physical Access to Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"9.3.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"9.3.2.a Examine documented procedures and interview personnel to verify procedures are defined for authorizing and managing visitor access to the CDE in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement. 9.3.2.b Observe processes when visitors are present in the CDE and interview personnel to verify that visitors are: () Authorized before entering the CDE. () Escorted at all times within the CDE. 9.3.2.c Observe the use of visitor badges or other identification to verify that the badge or other identification does not permit unescorted access to the CDE. 9.3.2.d Observe visitors in the CDE to verify that: () Visitor badges or other identification are being used for all visitors. () Visitor badges or identification easily distinguish visitors from personnel. 9.3.2.e Examine visitor badges or other identification and observe evidence in the badging system to verify visitor badges or other identification expires.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"9.3.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Visitor badges or identification are surrendered or deactivated before visitors leave the facility or at the date of expiration.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Visitor identification or badges cannot be reused after expiration.
[Purpose]: Ensuring that visitor badges are returned or deactivated upon expiry or completion of the visit prevents malicious persons from using a previously authorized pass to gain physical access into the building after the visit has ended.
","uuid":"2637c5cc-20f2-4ced-a2e0-87de609055b6","family":"Restrict Physical Access to Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"9.3.3 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"9.3.3 Observe visitors leaving the facility and interview personnel to verify visitor badges or other identification are surrendered or deactivated before visitors leave the facility or at the date of expiration. upon departure or expiration.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"9.3.3"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: A visitor log is used to maintain a physical record of visitor activity within the facility and within sensitive areas, including:
The visitor’s name and the organization represented.
The date and time of the visit.
The name of the personnel authorizing physical access.
Retaining the log for at least three months, unless otherwise restricted by law.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Records of visitor access that enable the identification of individuals are maintained.
[Purpose]: A visitor log documenting minimum information about the visitor is easy and inexpensive to maintain. It will assist in identifying historical physical access to a building or room and potential access to cardholder data.
[Good Practice]: When logging the date and time of visit, including both in and out times is considered a best practice, since it provides helpful tracking information and provides assurance that a visitor has left at the end of the day. It is also good to verify that a visitor’s ID (driver’s license, etc.) matches the name they put on the visitor log.
","uuid":"afc1758e-99c5-45b0-b8f0-0884f6f95028","family":"Restrict Physical Access to Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"9.3.4 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"9.3.4.a Examine the visitor log and interview responsible personnel to verify that a visitor log is used to record physical access to the facility and sensitive areas. 9.3.4.b Examine the visitor log and verify that the log contains: () The visitor’s name and the organization represented. () The personnel authorizing physical access. () Date and time of visit. 9.3.4.c Examine visitor log storage locations and interview responsible personnel to verify that the log is retained for at least three months, unless otherwise restricted by law.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"9.3.4"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: All media with cardholder data is physically secured.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Media with cardholder data cannot be accessed by unauthorized personnel.
[Purpose]: Controls for physically securing media are intended to prevent unauthorized persons from gaining access to cardholder data on any media. Cardholder data is susceptible to unauthorized viewing, copying, or scanning if it is unprotected while it is on removable or portable media, printed out, or left on someone’s desk.
","uuid":"98192ea7-dd8b-4a89-9abe-b2e8d0bde215","family":"Restrict Physical Access to Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"9.4.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"9.4.1. Examine documentation to verify that the procedures defined for protecting cardholder data include controls for physically securing all media.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"9.4.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Offline media backups with cardholder data are stored in a secure location.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Offline backups cannot be accessed by unauthorized personnel.
[Purpose]: If stored in a non-secured facility, backups containing cardholder data may easily be lost, stolen, or copied for malicious intent.
[Good Practice]: For secure storage of backup media, a good practice is to store media in an off-site facility, such as an alternate or backup site or commercial storage facility.
","uuid":"536e63bc-7bc0-42da-bcda-7dc33ebf5ea9","family":"Restrict Physical Access to Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"9.4.1.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"9.4.1.1.a Examine documentation to verify that procedures are defined for physically securing offline media backups with cardholder data in a secure location. 9.4.1.1.b Examine logs or other documentation and interview responsible personnel at the storage location to verify that offline media backups are stored in a secure location.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"9.4.1.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: The security of the offline media backup location(s) with cardholder data is reviewed at least once every 12 months.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: The security controls protecting offline backups are verified periodically by inspection.
[Purpose]: Conducting regular reviews of the storage facility enables the organization to address identified security issues promptly, minimizing the potential risk. It is important for the entity to be aware of the security of the area where media is being stored.
","uuid":"332b9c6b-2ba4-472a-89a1-103a184aae28","family":"Restrict Physical Access to Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"9.4.1.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"9.4.1.2.a Examine documentation to verify that procedures are defined for reviewing the security of the offline media backup location(s) with cardholder data at least once every 12 months. 9.4.1.2.b Examine documented procedures, logs, or other documentation, and interview responsible personnel at the storage location(s) to verify that the storage location’s security is reviewed at least once every 12 months.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"9.4.1.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: All media with cardholder data is classified in accordance with the sensitivity of the data.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Media are classified and protected appropriately.
[Purpose]: Media not identified as confidential may not be adequately protected or may be lost or stolen.
[Good Practice]: It is important that media be identified such that its classification status is apparent. This does not mean however that the media needs to have a “confidential” label.
","uuid":"5a2f2a59-36b5-4a58-b6bc-328f325d69b6","family":"Restrict Physical Access to Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"9.4.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"9.4.2.a Examine documentation to verify that procedures are defined for classifying media with cardholder data in accordance with the sensitivity of the data. 9.4.2.b Examine media logs or other documentation to verify that all media is classified in accordance with the sensitivity of the data.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"9.4.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Media with cardholder data sent outside the facility is secured as follows:
Media sent outside the facility is logged.
Media is sent by secured courier or other delivery method that can be accurately tracked.
Offsite tracking logs include details about media location.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Media is secured and tracked when transported outside the facility.
[Purpose]: Media may be lost or stolen if sent via a non- trackable method such as regular postal mail. The use of secure couriers to deliver any media that contains cardholder data allows organizations to use their tracking systems to maintain inventory and location of shipments.
","uuid":"5288f3f6-c99c-4e6d-9ca8-b2d5c6f2b4f3","family":"Restrict Physical Access to Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"9.4.3 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"9.4.3.a Examine documentation to verify that procedures are defined for securing media sent outside the facility in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement. 9.4.3.b Interview personnel and examine records to verify that all media sent outside the facility is logged and sent via secured courier or other delivery method that can be tracked. 9.4.3.c Examine offsite tracking logs for all media to verify tracking details are documented.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"9.4.3"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Management approves all media with cardholder data that is moved outside the facility (including when media is distributed to individuals).
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Media cannot leave a facility without the approval of accountable personnel.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: Individuals approving media movements should have the appropriate level of management authority to grant this approval. However, it is not specifically required that such individuals have “manager” as part of their title.
[Purpose]: Without a firm process for ensuring that all media movements are approved before the media is removed from secure areas, the media would not be tracked or appropriately protected, and its location would be unknown, leading to lost or stolen media.
","uuid":"db84d07c-c49f-414e-bd05-c01a19f16923","family":"Restrict Physical Access to Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"9.4.4 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"9.4.4.a Examine documentation to verify that procedures are defined to ensure that media moved outside the facility is approved by management. 9.4.4.b Examine offsite media tracking logs and interview responsible personnel to verify that proper management authorization is obtained for all media moved outside the facility (including media distributed to individuals).","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"9.4.4"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Inventory logs of all electronic media with cardholder data are maintained.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Accurate inventories of stored electronic media are maintained.
[Purpose]: Without careful inventory methods and storage controls, stolen or missing electronic media could go unnoticed for an indefinite amount of time.
","uuid":"410aaed2-3b4a-431a-82d7-639e76c1fe5c","family":"Restrict Physical Access to Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"9.4.5 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"9.4.5.a Examine documentation to verify that procedures are defined to maintain electronic media inventory logs. 9.4.5.b Examine electronic media inventory logs and interview responsible personnel to verify that logs are maintained.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"9.4.5"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Inventories of electronic media with cardholder data are conducted at least once every 12 months.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Media inventories are verified periodically.
[Purpose]: Without careful inventory methods and storage controls, stolen or missing electronic media could go unnoticed for an indefinite amount of time.
","uuid":"7787fc7c-aa2b-40a7-a049-3e355e2efc13","family":"Restrict Physical Access to Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"9.4.5.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"9.4.5.1.a Examine documentation to verify that procedures are defined to conduct inventories of electronic media with cardholder data at least once every 12 months. 9.4.5.1.b Examine electronic media inventory logs and interview personnel to verify that electronic media inventories are performed at least once every 12 months.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"9.4.5.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Hard-copy materials with cardholder data are destroyed when no longer needed for business or legal reasons, as follows:
Materials are cross-cut shredded, incinerated, or pulped so that cardholder data cannot be reconstructed.
Materials are stored in secure storage containers prior to destruction.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Cardholder data cannot be recovered from media that has been destroyed or which is pending destruction.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: These requirements for media destruction when that media is no longer needed for business or legal reasons are separate and distinct from PCI DSS Requirement 3.2.1, which is for securely deleting cardholder data when no longer needed per the entity’s cardholder data retention policies.
[Purpose]: If steps are not taken to destroy information contained on hard-copy media before disposal, malicious individuals may retrieve information from the disposed media, leading to a data compromise. For example, malicious individuals may use a technique known as “dumpster diving,” where they search through trashcans and recycle bins looking for hard-copy materials with information they can use to launch an attack. Securing storage containers used for materials that are going to be destroyed prevents sensitive information from being captured while the materials are being collected.
[Good Practice]: Consider “to-be-shredded” containers with a lock that prevents access to its contents or that physically prevent access to the inside of the container.
[Further Information]: See NIST Special Publication 800-88, Revision 1: Guidelines for Media Sanitization.
","uuid":"1d4b0613-d40e-4151-b9dc-0caf7e34d443","family":"Restrict Physical Access to Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"9.4.6 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"9.4.6.a Examine the periodic media destruction policy to verify that procedures are defined to destroy hard-copy media with cardholder data when no longer needed for business or legal reasons in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement. 9.4.6.b Observe processes and interview personnel to verify that hard-copy materials are cross-cut shredded, incinerated, or pulped such that cardholder data cannot be reconstructed. 9.4.6.c Observe storage containers used for materials that contain information to be destroyed to verify that the containers are secure.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"9.4.6"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Electronic media with cardholder data is destroyed when no longer needed for business or legal reasons via one of the following:
The electronic media is destroyed.
The cardholder data is rendered unrecoverable so that it cannot be reconstructed.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Cardholder data cannot be recovered from media that has been erased or destroyed.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: These requirements for media destruction when that media is no longer needed for business or legal reasons are separate and distinct from PCI DSS Requirement 3.2.1, which is for securely deleting cardholder data when no longer needed per the entity’s cardholder data retention policies.
[Purpose]: If steps are not taken to destroy information contained on electronic media when no longer needed, malicious individuals may retrieve information from the disposed media, leading to a data compromise. For example, malicious individuals may use a technique known as “dumpster diving,” where they search through trashcans and recycle bins looking for information they can use to launch an attack.
[Good Practice]: The deletion function in most operating systems allows deleted data to be recovered, so instead, a dedicated secure deletion function or application should be used to make data unrecoverable.
[Examples]: Methods for securely destroying electronic media include secure wiping in accordance with industry-accepted standards for secure deletion, degaussing, or physical destruction (such as grinding or shredding hard disks).
[Further Information]: See NIST Special Publication 800-88, Revision 1: Guidelines for Media Sanitization
","uuid":"667d4b58-5be9-426f-9c71-f8bc0cba6ea6","family":"Restrict Physical Access to Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"9.4.7 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"9.4.7.a Examine the periodic media destruction policy to verify that procedures are defined to destroy electronic media when no longer needed for business or legal reasons in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement. 9.4.7.b Observe the media destruction process and interview responsible personnel to verify that electronic media with cardholder data is destroyed via one of the methods specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"9.4.7"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: POI devices that capture payment card data via direct physical interaction with the payment card form factor are protected from tampering and unauthorized substitution, including the following:
Maintaining a list of POI devices.
Periodically inspecting POI devices to look for tampering or unauthorized substitution.
Training personnel to be aware of suspicious behavior and to report tampering or unauthorized substitution of devices
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: The entity has defined procedures to protect and manage point of interaction devices. Expectations, controls, and oversight for the management and protection of POI devices are defined and adhered to by affected personnel.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: These requirements apply to deployed POI devices used in card-present transactions (that is, a payment card form factor such as a card that is swiped, tapped, or dipped). This requirement is not intended to apply to manual PAN key-entry components such as computer keyboards. This requirement is recommended, but not required, for manual PAN key-entry components such as computer keyboards. This requirement does not apply to commercial offthe-shelf (COTS) devices (for example, smartphones or tablets), which are mobile merchant-owned devices designed for mass-market distribution.
[Purpose]: Criminals attempt to steal payment card data by stealing and/or manipulating card-reading devices and terminals. Criminals will try to steal devices so they can learn how to break into them, and they often try to replace legitimate devices with fraudulent devices that send them payment card data every time a card is entered. They will also try to add “skimming” components to the outside of devices, which are designed to capture payment card data before it enters the device—for example, by attaching an additional card reader on top of the legitimate card reader so that the payment card data is captured twice: once by the criminal’s component and then by the device’s legitimate component. In this way, transactions may still be completed without interruption while the criminal is “skimming” the payment card data during the process.
[Further Information]: Additional best practices on skimming prevention are available on the PCI SSC website.
","uuid":"ffb33057-0848-4256-86c4-54ae2cfc66f6","family":"Restrict Physical Access to Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"9.5.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"9.5.1 Examine documented policies and procedures to verify that processes are defined that include all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"9.5.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: An up-to-date list of POI devices is maintained, including:
Make and model of the device.
Location of device.
Device serial number or other methods of unique identification.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: The identity and location of POI devices is recorded and known at all times.
[Purpose]: Keeping an up-to-date list of POI devices helps an organization track where devices are supposed to be and quickly identify if a device is missing or lost.
[Good Practice]: The method for maintaining a list of devices may be automated (for example, a devicemanagement system) or manual (for example, documented in electronic or paper records). For on-the-road devices, the location may include the name of the personnel to whom the device is assigned.
[Examples]: Methods to maintain device locations include identifying the address of the site or facility where the device is located.
","uuid":"71722a90-3c56-4afc-8619-a4a1537786f8","family":"Restrict Physical Access to Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"9.5.1.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"9.5.1.1.a Examine the list of POI devices to verify it includes all elements specified in this requirement. 9.5.1.1.b Observe POI devices and device locations and compare to devices in the list to verify that the list is accurate and up to date. 9.5.1.1.c Interview personnel to verify the list of POI devices is updated when devices are added, relocated, decommissioned, etc.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"9.5.1.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: POI device surfaces are periodically inspected to detect tampering and unauthorized substitution.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Point of Interaction Devices cannot be tampered with, substituted without authorization, or have skimming attachments installed without timely detection.
[Purpose]: Regular inspections of devices will help organizations detect tampering more quickly via external evidence—for example, the addition of a card skimmer—or replacement of a device, thereby minimizing the potential impact of using fraudulent devices.
[Good Practice]: Methods for periodic inspection include checking the serial number or other device characteristics and comparing the information to the list of POI devices to verify the device has not been swapped with a fraudulent device.
[Examples]: The type of inspection will depend on the device. For instance, photographs of devices known to be secure can be used to compare a device’s current appearance with its original appearance to see whether it has changed. Another option may be to use a secure marker pen, such as a UV light marker, to mark device surfaces and device openings so any tampering or replacement will be apparent. Criminals will often replace the outer casing of a device to hide their tampering, and these methods may help to detect such activities. Device vendors may also provide security guidance and “how to” guides to help determine whether the device has been subject to tampering. Signs that a device might have been tampered with or substituted include:
Unexpected attachments or cables plugged into the device.
Missing or changed security labels.
Broken or differently colored casing.
Changes to the serial number or other external markings.
Defined Approach Requirements: The frequency of periodic POI device inspections and the type of inspections performed is defined in the entity’s targeted risk analysis, which is performed according to all elements specified in Requirement 12.3.1.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: POI devices are inspected at a frequency that addresses the entity’s risk.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement is a best practice until 31 March 2025, after which it will be required and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment.
[Purpose]: Entities are best placed to determine the frequency of POI device inspections based on the environment in which the device operates.
[Good Practice]: The frequency of inspections will depend on factors such as the location of a device and whether the device is attended or unattended. For example, devices left in public areas without supervision by the organization’s personnel might have more frequent inspections than devices kept in secure areas or supervised when accessible to the public. In addition, many POI vendors include guidance in their user documentation about how often POI devices should be checked, and for what – entities should consult their vendors’ documentation and incorporate those recommendations into their periodic inspections.
","uuid":"4d37db8e-9459-4863-9fa9-b0306f16a531","family":"Restrict Physical Access to Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"9.5.1.2.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"9.5.1.2.1.a Examine the entity’s targeted risk analysis for the frequency of periodic POI device inspections and type of inspections performed to verify the risk analysis was performed in accordance with all elements specified in Requirement 12.3.1. 9.5.1.2.1.b Examine documented results of periodic device inspections and interview personnel to verify that the frequency and type of POI device inspections performed match what is defined in the entity’s targeted risk analysis conducted for this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"9.5.1.2.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Training is provided for personnel in POI environments to be aware of attempted tampering or replacement of POI devices, and includes:
Verifying the identity of any third-party persons claiming to be repair or maintenance personnel, before granting them access to modify or troubleshoot devices.
Procedures to ensure devices are not installed, replaced, or returned without verification.
Being aware of suspicious behavior around devices.
Reporting suspicious behavior and indications of device tampering or substitution to appropriate personnel.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Personnel are knowledgeable about the types of attacks against POI devices, the entity’s technical and procedural countermeasures, and can access assistance and guidance when required.
[Purpose]: Criminals will often pose as authorized maintenance personnel to gain access to POI devices.
[Good Practice]: Personnel training should include being alert to and questioning anyone who shows up to do POI maintenance to ensure they are authorized and have a valid work order, including any agents, maintenance or repair personnel, technicians, service providers, or other third parties. All third parties requesting access to devices should always be verified before being provided access—for example, by checking with management or phoning the POI maintenance company, such as the vendor or acquirer, for verification. Many criminals will try to fool personnel by dressing for the part (for example, carrying toolboxes and dressed in work apparel), and could also be knowledgeable about locations of devices, so personnel should be trained to always follow procedures. Another trick that criminals use is to send a “new” POI device with instructions for swapping it with a legitimate device and “returning” the legitimate device. The criminals may even provide return postage to their specified address. Therefore, personnel should always verify with their manager or supplier that the device is legitimate and came from a trusted source before installing it or using it for business.
[Examples]: Suspicious behavior that personnel should be aware of includes attempts by unknown persons to unplug or open devices. Ensuring personnel are aware of mechanisms for reporting suspicious behavior and who to report such behavior to—for example, a manager or security officer—will help reduce the likelihood and potential impact of a device being tampered with or substituted.
","uuid":"75bf2f9b-88c6-4960-9200-b464557feed8","family":"Restrict Physical Access to Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"9.5.1.3 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"9.5.1.3.a Review training materials for personnel in POI environments to verify they include all elements specified in this requirement. 9.5.1.3.b Interview personnel in POI environments to verify they have received training and know the procedures for all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"9.5.1.3"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: All security policies and operational procedures that are identified in Requirement 10 are:
Documented.
Kept up to date.
In use.
Known to all affected parties.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Expectations, controls, and oversight for meeting activities within Requirement 10 are defined and adhered to by affected personnel. All supporting activities are repeatable, consistently applied, and conform to management’s intent.
[Purpose]: Requirement 10.1.1 is about effectively managing and maintaining the various policies and procedures specified throughout Requirement 10. While it is important to define the specific policies or procedures called out in Requirement 10, it is equally important to ensure they are properly documented, maintained, and disseminated.
[Good Practice]: It is important to update policies and procedures as needed to address changes in processes, technologies, and business objectives. For this reason, consider updating these documents as soon as possible after a change occurs and not only on a periodic cycle.
[Definitions]: Security policies define the entity’s security objectives and principles. Operational procedures describe how to perform activities, and define the controls, methods, and processes that are followed to achieve the desired result in a consistent manner and in accordance with policy objectives.
","uuid":"1a25b82b-7362-4566-a0b5-534c35994fa7","family":"Log and Monitor All Access to System Components and Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"10.1.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"10.1.1 Examine documentation and interview personnel to verify that security policies and operational procedures identified in Requirement 10 are managed in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"10.1.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Roles and responsibilities for performing activities in Requirement 10 are documented, assigned, and understood.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Day-to-day responsibilities for performing all the activities in Requirement 10 are allocated. Personnel are accountable for successful, continuous operation of these requirements.
[Purpose]: If roles and responsibilities are not formally assigned, personnel may not be aware of their day-to-day responsibilities and critical activities may not occur.
[Good Practice]: Roles and responsibilities may be documented within policies and procedures or maintained within separate documents. As part of communicating roles and responsibilities, entities can consider having personnel acknowledge their acceptance and understanding of their assigned roles and responsibilities.
[Examples]: A method to document roles and responsibilities is a responsibility assignment matrix that includes who is responsible, accountable, consulted, and informed (also called a RACI matrix).
","uuid":"fd72ff91-8871-44b3-a214-1b5677ee7b37","family":"Log and Monitor All Access to System Components and Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"10.1.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"10.1.2.a Examine documentation to verify that descriptions of roles and responsibilities for performing activities in Requirement 10 are documented and assigned. 10.1.2.b Interview personnel with responsibility for performing activities in Requirement 10 to verify that roles and responsibilities are assigned as defined and are understood.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"10.1.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Audit logs are enabled and active for all system components and cardholder data.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Records of all activities affecting system components and cardholder data are captured.
[Purpose]: Audit logs must exist for all system components. Audit logs send alerts the system administrator, provides data to other monitoring mechanisms, such as intrusion-detection systems (IDS) and security information and event monitoring systems (SIEM) tools, and provide a history trail for post-incident investigation. Logging and analyzing security-relevant events enable an organization to identify and trace potentially malicious activities.
[Good Practice]: When an entity considers which information to record in their logs, it is important to remember that information stored in audit logs is sensitive and should be protected per requirements in this standard. Care should be taken to only store essential information in the audit logs to minimize risk.
","uuid":"03925217-080c-4ffd-9e52-fc8cb421fa9b","family":"Log and Monitor All Access to System Components and Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"10.2.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"10.2.1 Interview the system administrator and examine system configurations to verify that audit logs are enabled and active for all system components.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"10.2.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Audit logs capture all individual user access to cardholder data.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Records of all individual user access to cardholder data are captured.
[Purpose]: It is critical to have a process or system that links user access to system components accessed. Malicious individuals could obtain knowledge of a user account with access to systems in the CDE, or they could create a new, unauthorized account to access cardholder data.
[Good Practice]: A record of all individual access to cardholder data can identify which accounts may have been compromised or misused.
","uuid":"3ce1e2e8-a58a-4ecb-9c0e-534356b2c968","family":"Log and Monitor All Access to System Components and Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"10.2.1.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"10.2.1.1 Examine audit log configurations and log data to verify that all individual user access to cardholder data is logged.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"10.2.1.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Audit logs capture all actions taken by any individual with administrative access, including any interactive use of application or system accounts.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Records of all actions performed by individuals with elevated privileges are captured.
[Purpose]: Accounts with increased access privileges, such as the “administrator” or “root” account, have the potential to significantly impact the security or operational functionality of a system. Without a log of the activities performed, an organization is cannot trace any issues resulting from an administrative mistake or misuse of privilege back to the specific action and account.
[Definitions]: Accounts with administrative access are those assigned with specific privileges or abilities for that account to manage systems, networks, and/or applications. The functions or activities considered to be administrative are beyond those performed by regular users as part of routine business functions.
","uuid":"e52da419-3e49-4f3f-9305-2bfb11d0a286","family":"Log and Monitor All Access to System Components and Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"10.2.1.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"10.2.1.2 Examine audit log configurations and log data to verify that all actions taken by any individual with administrative access, including any interactive use of application or system accounts, are logged.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"10.2.1.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Audit logs capture all access to audit logs.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Records of all access to audit logs are captured.
[Purpose]: Malicious users often attempt to alter audit logs to hide their actions. A record of access allows an organization to trace any inconsistencies or potential tampering of the logs to an individual account. Having logs identify changes, additions, and deletions to the audit logs can help retrace steps made by unauthorized personnel.
","uuid":"3e924750-8077-4dd9-be5e-4a8862a0bdb1","family":"Log and Monitor All Access to System Components and Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"10.2.1.3 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"10.2.1.3 Examine audit log configurations and log data to verify that access to all audit logs is captured.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"10.2.1.3"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Audit logs capture all invalid logical access attempts.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Records of all invalid access attempts are captured.
[Purpose]: Malicious individuals will often perform multiple access attempts on targeted systems. Multiple invalid login attempts may be an indication of an unauthorized user’s attempts to “brute force” or guess a password.
","uuid":"f266dc5d-1d00-4cf9-99b0-f83314a4ebf7","family":"Log and Monitor All Access to System Components and Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"10.2.1.4 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"10.2.1.4 Examine audit log configurations and log data to verify that invalid logical access attempts are captured.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"10.2.1.4"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Audit logs capture all changes to identification and authentication credentials including, but not limited to:
Creation of new accounts.
Elevation of privileges.
All changes, additions, or deletions to accounts with administrative access.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Records of all changes to identification and authentication credentials are captured.
[Purpose]: Logging changes to authentication credentials (including elevation of privileges, additions, and deletions of accounts with administrative access) provides residual evidence of activities. Malicious users may attempt to manipulate authentication credentials to bypass them or impersonate a valid account.
","uuid":"b380786f-aee6-4ab3-9fef-e616708a845b","family":"Log and Monitor All Access to System Components and Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"10.2.1.5 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"10.2.1.5 Examine audit log configurations and log data to verify that changes to identification and authentication credentials are captured in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"10.2.1.5"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Audit logs capture the following:
All initialization of new audit logs, and
All starting, stopping, or pausing of the existing audit logs.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Records of all changes to audit log activity status are captured.
[Purpose]: Turning off or pausing audit logs before performing illicit activities is common practice for malicious users who want to avoid detection. Initialization of audit logs could indicate that that a user disabled the log function to hide their actions.
","uuid":"7d98a560-daa2-4887-916f-4ab4edff86e5","family":"Log and Monitor All Access to System Components and Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"10.2.1.6 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"10.2.1.6 Examine audit log configurations and log data to verify that all elements specified in this requirement are captured.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"10.2.1.6"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Audit logs capture all creation and deletion of system-level objects.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Records of alterations that indicate a system has been modified from its intended functionality are captured.
[Purpose]: Malicious software, such as malware, often creates or replaces system-level objects on the target system to control a particular function or operation on that system. By logging when system-level objects are created or deleted, it will be easier to determine whether such modifications were authorized.
","uuid":"4417d277-16fc-4b0a-94cf-a51a10dd130b","family":"Log and Monitor All Access to System Components and Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"10.2.1.7 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"10.2.1.7 Examine audit log configurations and log data to verify that creation and deletion of system level objects is captured.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"10.2.1.7"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Audit logs record the following details for each auditable event:
User identification.
Type of event.
Date and time.
Success and failure indication.
Origination of event.
Identity or name of affected data, system component, resource, or service (for example, name and protocol).
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Sufficient data to be able to identify successful and failed attempts and who, what, when, where, and how for each event listed in requirement 10.2.1 are captured.
[Purpose]: By recording these details for the auditable events at 10.2.1.1 through 10.2.1.7, a potential compromise can be quickly identified, with sufficient detail to facilitate following up on suspicious activities.
","uuid":"ba8d2fe1-78a1-4ce6-b7a9-d7adcfe481c8","family":"Log and Monitor All Access to System Components and Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"10.2.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"10.2.2 Interview personnel and examine audit log configurations and log data to verify that all elements specified in this requirement are included in log entries for each auditable event (from 10.2.1.1 through 10.2.1.7).","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"10.2.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Read access to audit logs files is limited to those with a job-related need.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Stored activity records cannot be accessed by unauthorized personnel.
[Purpose]: Audit log files contain sensitive information, and read access to the log files must be limited only to those with a valid business need. This access includes audit log files on the originating systems as well as anywhere else they are stored.
[Good Practice]: Adequate protection of the audit logs includes strong access control that limits access to logs based on “need to know” only and the use of physical or network segregation to make the logs harder to find and modify.
","uuid":"ccd9f250-300e-4ac7-9bfb-71d15e5e2258","family":"Log and Monitor All Access to System Components and Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"10.3.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"10.3.1 Interview system administrators and examine system configurations and privileges to verify that only individuals with a job-related need have read access to audit log files.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"10.3.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Audit log files are protected to prevent modifications by individuals.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Stored activity records cannot be modified by personnel.
[Purpose]: Often a malicious individual who has entered the network will try to edit the audit logs to hide their activity. Without adequate protection of audit logs, their completeness, accuracy, and integrity cannot be guaranteed, and the audit logs can be rendered useless as an investigation tool after a compromise. Therefore, audit logs should be protected on the originating systems as well as anywhere else they are stored.
[Good Practice]: Entities should attempt to prevent logs from being exposed in public-accessible locations.
","uuid":"5b45f773-5923-4851-9ac5-cfe6c726d0a7","family":"Log and Monitor All Access to System Components and Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"10.3.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"10.3.2 Examine system configurations and privileges and interview system administrators to verify that current audit log files are protected from modifications by individuals via access control mechanisms, physical segregation, and/or network segregation.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"10.3.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Audit log files, including those for externalfacing technologies, are promptly backed up to a secure, central, internal log server(s) or other media that is difficult to modify.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Stored activity records are secured and preserved in a central location to prevent unauthorized modification.
[Purpose]: Promptly backing up the logs to a centralized log server or media that is difficult to alter keeps the logs protected, even if the system generating the logs becomes compromised. Writing logs from external-facing technologies such as wireless, network security controls, DNS, and mail servers, reduces the risk of those logs being lost or altered.
[Good Practice]: Each entity determines the best way to back up log files, whether via one or more centralized log servers or other secure media. Logs may be written directly, offloaded, or copied from external systems to the secure internal system or media.
","uuid":"f07b27e4-8a61-4d89-82c0-0dc33aab6c83","family":"Log and Monitor All Access to System Components and Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"10.3.3 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"10.3.3 Examine backup configurations or log files to verify that current audit log files, including those for external-facing technologies, are promptly backed up to a secure, central, internal log server(s) or other media that is difficult to modify.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"10.3.3"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: File integrity monitoring or change-detection mechanisms is used on audit logs to ensure that existing log data cannot be changed without generating alerts.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Stored activity records cannot be modified without an alert being generated.
[Purpose]: File integrity monitoring or change-detection systems check for changes to critical files and notify when such changes are identified. For file integrity monitoring purposes, an entity usually monitors files that do not regularly change, but when changed, indicate a possible compromise.
[Good Practice]: Software used to monitor changes to audit logs should be configured to provide alerts when existing log data or files are changed or deleted. However, new log data being added to an audit log should not generate an alert.
","uuid":"b001ff76-097d-40b4-9957-d7882f2538c4","family":"Log and Monitor All Access to System Components and Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"10.3.4 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"10.3.4 Examine system settings, monitored files, and results from monitoring activities to verify the use of file integrity monitoring or change-detection software on audit logs.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"10.3.4"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: The following audit logs are reviewed at least once daily:
All security events.
Logs of all system components that store, process, or transmit CHD and/or SAD.
Logs of all critical system components.
Logs of all servers and system components that perform security functions (for example, network security controls, intrusion-detection systems/intrusion-prevention systems (IDS/IPS), authentication servers).
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Potentially suspicious or anomalous activities are quickly identified to minimize impact.
[Purpose]: Many breaches occur months before being detected. Regular log reviews mean incidents can be quickly identified and proactively addressed.
[Good Practice]: Checking logs daily (7 days a week, 365 days a year, including holidays) minimizes the amount of time and exposure of a potential breach. Log harvesting, parsing, and alerting tools, centralized log management systems, event log analyzers, and security information and event management (SIEM) solutions are examples of automated tools that can be used to meet this requirement. Daily review of security events—for example, notifications or alerts that identify suspicious or anomalous activities—as well as logs from critical system components, and logs from systems that perform security functions, such as firewalls, IDS/IPS, file integrity monitoring (FIM) systems, etc., is necessary to identify potential issues. The determination of “security event” will vary for each organization and may include consideration for the type of technology, location, and function of the device. Organizations may also wish to maintain a baseline of “normal” traffic to help identify anomalous behavior. An entity that uses third-party service providers to perform log review services is responsible to provide context about the entity’s environment to the service providers, so it understands the entity’s environment, has a baseline of “normal” traffic for the entity, and can detect potential security issues and provide accurate exceptions and anomaly notifications.
","uuid":"219490b7-95f5-4af6-ac64-d23bf0c016ca","family":"Log and Monitor All Access to System Components and Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"10.4.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"10.4.1.a Examine security policies and procedures to verify that processes are defined for reviewing all elements specified in this requirement at least once daily. 10.4.1.b Observe processes and interview personnel to verify that all elements specified in this requirement are reviewed at least once daily","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"10.4.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Automated mechanisms are used to perform audit log reviews.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Potentially suspicious or anomalous activities are identified via a repeatable and consistent mechanism.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement is a best practice until 31 March 2025, after which it will be required and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment.
[Purpose]: Manual log reviews are difficult to perform, even for one or two systems, due to the amount of log data that is generated. However, using log harvesting, parsing, and alerting tools, centralized log management systems, event log analyzers, and security information and event management (SIEM) solutions can help facilitate the process by identifying log events that need to be reviewed.
[Good Practice]: The entity should keep logging tools aligned with any changes in their environment by periodically reviewing tool settings and updating settings to reflect any changes.
","uuid":"933148c2-eaca-44c6-a4f6-9c5a2004121c","family":"Log and Monitor All Access to System Components and Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"10.4.1.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"10.4.1.1 Examine log review mechanisms and interview personnel to verify that automated mechanisms are used to perform log reviews.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"10.4.1.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Logs of all other system components (those not specified in Requirement 10.4.1) are reviewed periodically.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Potentially suspicious or anomalous activities for other system components (not included in 10.4.1) are reviewed in accordance with the entity’s identified risk.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement is applicable to all other in-scope system components not included in Requirement 10.4.1.
[Purpose]: Periodic review of logs for all other system components (not specified in Requirement 10.4.1) helps to identify indications of potential issues or attempts to access critical systems via less-critical systems.
","uuid":"95242dc3-ee86-44b2-a604-8dc9b1f88ab1","family":"Log and Monitor All Access to System Components and Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"10.4.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"10.4.2.a Examine security policies and procedures to verify that processes are defined for reviewing logs of all other system components periodically. 10.4.2.b Examine documented results of log reviews and interview personnel to verify that log reviews are performed periodically.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"10.4.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: The frequency of periodic log reviews for all other system components (not defined in Requirement 10.4.1) is defined in the entity’s targeted risk analysis, which is performed according to all elements specified in Requirement 12.3.1
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Log reviews for lower-risk system components are performed at a frequency that addresses the entity’s risk.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement is a best practice until 31 March 2025, after which it will be required and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment.
[Purpose]: Entities can determine the optimum period to review these logs based on criteria such as the complexity of each entity’s environment, the number of types of systems that are required to be evaluated, and the functions of such systems.
","uuid":"19f9f646-c02b-4349-8717-7dafa57ab068","family":"Log and Monitor All Access to System Components and Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"10.4.2.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"10.4.2.1.a Examine the entity’s targeted risk analysis for the frequency of periodic log reviews for all other system components (not defined in Requirement 10.4.1) to verify the risk analysis was performed in accordance with all elements specified at Requirement 12.3.1. 10.4.2.1.b Examine documented results of periodic log reviews of all other system components (not defined in Requirement 10.4.1) and interview personnel to verify log reviews are performed at the frequency specified in the entity’s targeted risk analysis performed for this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"10.4.2.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Exceptions and anomalies identified during the review process are addressed.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Suspicious or anomalous activities are addressed.
[Purpose]: If exceptions and anomalies identified during the log-review process are not investigated, the entity may be unaware of unauthorized and potentially malicious activities occurring within their network.
[Good Practice]: Entities should consider how to address the following when developing their processes for defining and managing exceptions and anomalies:
How log review activities are recorded,
How to rank and prioritize exceptions and anomalies,
What procedures should be in place to report and escalate exceptions and anomalies, and
Who is responsible for investigating and for any remediation tasks.
Defined Approach Requirements: Retain audit log history for at least 12 months, with at least the most recent three months immediately available for analysis.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Historical records of activity are available immediately to support incident response and are retained for at least 12 months.
[Good Practice]: Retaining historical audit logs for at least 12 months is necessary because compromises often go unnoticed for significant lengths of time. Having centrally stored log history allows investigators to better determine the length of time a potential breach was occurring, and the possible system(s) impacted. By having three months of logs immediately available, an entity can quickly identify and minimize impact of a data breach.
[Examples]: Methods that allow logs to be immediately available include storing logs online, archiving logs, or restoring logs quickly from backups.
","uuid":"2f95a785-6626-40dc-b3e7-d7c06113461b","family":"Log and Monitor All Access to System Components and Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"10.5.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"10.5.1.a Examine documentation to verify that the following is defined: () Audit log retention policies. () Procedures for retaining audit log history for at least 12 months, with at least the most recent three months immediately available online. 10.5.1.b Examine configurations of audit log history, interview personnel and examine audit logs to verify that audit logs history is retained for at least 12 months. 10.5.1.c Interview personnel and observe processes to verify that at least the most recent three months’ audit log history is immediately available for analysis.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"10.5.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: System clocks and time are synchronized using time-synchronization technology.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Common time is established across all systems.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: Keeping time-synchronization technology current includes managing vulnerabilities and patching the technology according to PCI DSS Requirements 6.3.1 and 6.3.3.
[Purpose]: Time synchronization technology is used to synchronize clocks on multiple systems. When clocks are not properly synchronized, it can be difficult, if not impossible, to compare log files from different systems and establish an exact sequence of events, which is crucial for forensic analysis following a breach. For post-incident forensics teams, the accuracy and consistency of time across all systems and the time of each activity are critical in determining how the systems were compromised.
[Examples]: Network Time Protocol (NTP) is one example of time-synchronization technology.
","uuid":"f8b9b2f6-133a-4ccc-b2e3-b3a438fb16b4","family":"Log and Monitor All Access to System Components and Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"10.6.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"10.6.1 Examine system configuration settings to verify that time-synchronization technology is implemented and kept current.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"10.6.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Systems are configured to the correct and consistent time as follows:
One or more designated time servers are in use.
Only the designated central time server(s) receives time from external sources.
Time received from external sources is based on International Atomic Time or Coordinated Universal Time (UTC).
The designated time server(s) accept time updates only from specific industry-accepted external sources.
Where there is more than one designated time server, the time servers peer with one another to keep accurate time.
Internal systems receive time information only from designated central time server(s).
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: The time on all systems is accurate and consistent.
[Purpose]: Using reputable time servers is a critical component of the time synchronization process. Accepting time updates from specific, industryaccepted external sources helps prevent a malicious individual from changing time settings on systems.
[Good Practice]: Another option to prevent unauthorized use of internal time servers is to encrypt updates with a symmetric key and create access control lists that specify the IP addresses of client machines that will be provided with the time updates.
","uuid":"f4c5e528-bf20-4639-ad1a-ca43cbf8b3b0","family":"Log and Monitor All Access to System Components and Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"10.6.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"10.6.2 Examine system configuration settings for acquiring, distributing, and storing the correct time to verify the settings are configured in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"10.6.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Time synchronization settings and data are protected as follows:
Access to time data is restricted to only personnel with a business need.
Any changes to time settings on critical systems are logged, monitored, and reviewed.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: System time settings cannot be modified by unauthorized personnel.
[Purpose]: Attackers will try to change time configurations to hide their activity. Therefore, restricting the ability to change or modify time synchronization configurations or the system time to administrators will lessen the probability of an attacker successfully changing time configurations.
","uuid":"074a8981-2e1c-4fe2-81fa-b56a18dd7122","family":"Log and Monitor All Access to System Components and Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"10.6.3 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"10.6.3.a Examine system configurations and timesynchronization settings to verify that access to time data is restricted to only personnel with a business need. 10.6.3.b Examine system configurations and time synchronization settings and logs and observe processes to verify that any changes to time settings on critical systems are logged, monitored, and reviewed.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"10.6.3"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Additional requirement for service providers only: Failures of critical security control systems are detected, alerted, and addressed promptly, including but not limited to failure of the following critical security control systems:
Network security controls.
IDS/IPS.
FIM.
Anti-malware solutions.
Physical access controls.
Logical access controls.
Audit logging mechanisms.
Segmentation controls (if used).
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Failures in critical security control systems are promptly identified and addressed.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement applies only when the entity being assessed is a service provider. This requirement will be superseded by Requirement 10.7.2 as of 31 March 2025.
[Purpose]: Without formal processes to detect and alert when critical security controls fail, failures may go undetected for extended periods and provide attackers ample time to compromise system components and steal account data from the CDE.
[Good Practice]: The specific types of failures may vary, depending on the function of the device system component and technology in use. Typical failures include a system ceasing to perform its security function or not functioning in its intended manner, such as a firewall erasing all its rules or going offline.
","uuid":"9cce8e2b-a425-4165-8519-35fbb7619d27","family":"Log and Monitor All Access to System Components and Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"10.7.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"10.7.1.a Additional testing procedure for service provider assessments only: Examine documentation to verify that processes are defined for the prompt detection and addressing of failures of critical security control systems, including but not limited to failure of all elements specified in this requirement. 10.7.1.b Additional testing procedure for service provider assessments only: Observe detection and alerting processes and interview personnel to verify that failures of critical security control systems are detected and reported, and that failure of a critical security control results in the generation of an alert.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"10.7.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Failures of critical security control systems are detected, alerted, and addressed promptly, including but not limited to failure of the following critical security control systems:
Network security controls.
IDS/IPS.
Change-detection mechanisms.
Anti-malware solutions.
Physical access controls.
Logical access controls.
Audit logging mechanisms.
Segmentation controls (if used).
Audit log review mechanisms.
Automated security testing tools (if used).
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Failures in critical security control systems are promptly identified and addressed.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement applies to all entities, including service providers, and will supersede Requirement 10.7.1 as of 31 March 2025. It includes two additional critical security control systems not in Requirement 10.7.1. This requirement is a best practice until 31 March 2025, after which it will be required and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment.
[Purpose]: Without formal processes to detect and alert when critical security controls fail, failures may go undetected for extended periods and provide attackers ample time to compromise system components and steal account data from the CDE.
[Good Practice]: The specific types of failures may vary, depending on the function of the device system component and technology in use. However, typical failures include a system no longer performing its security function or not functioning in its intended manner—for example, a firewall erasing its rules or going offline.
","uuid":"84e99ace-0f97-487e-8c7a-bd0dd2a6e381","family":"Log and Monitor All Access to System Components and Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"10.7.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"10.7.2.a Examine documentation to verify that processes are defined for the prompt detection and addressing of failures of critical security control systems, including but not limited to failure of all elements specified in this requirement. 10.7.2.b Observe detection and alerting processes and interview personnel to verify that failures of critical security control systems are detected and reported, and that failure of a critical security control results in the generation of an alert.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"10.7.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Failures of any critical security controls systems are responded to promptly, including but not limited to:
Restoring security functions.
Identifying and documenting the duration (date and time from start to end) of the security failure.
Identifying and documenting the cause(s) of failure and documenting required remediation.
Identifying and addressing any security issues that arose during the failure.
Determining whether further actions are required as a result of the security failure.
Implementing controls to prevent the cause of failure from reoccurring.
Resuming monitoring of security controls.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Failures of critical security control systems are analyzed, contained, and resolved, and security controls restored to minimize impact. Resulting security issues are addressed, and measures taken to prevent reoccurrence.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement applies only when the entity being assessed is a service provider until 31 March 2025, after which this requirement will apply to all entities. This is a current v3.2.1 requirement that applies to service providers only. However, this requirement is a best practice for all other entities until 31 March 2025, after which it will be required and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment.
[Purpose]: If alerts from failures of critical security control systems are not responded to quickly and effectively, attackers may use this time to insert malicious software, gain control of a system, or steal data from the entity’s environment.
[Good Practice]: Documented evidence (for example, records within a problem management system) should provide support that processes and procedures are in place to respond to security failures. In addition, personnel should be aware of their responsibilities in the event of a failure. Actions and responses to the failure should be captured in the documented evidence.
","uuid":"1b3d5f02-e3e3-4664-bd9c-8c653396ef71","family":"Log and Monitor All Access to System Components and Cardholder Data","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"10.7.3 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"10.7.3.a Examine documentation and interview personnel to verify that processes are defined and implemented to respond to a failure of any critical security control system and include at least all elements specified in this requirement. 10.7.3.b Examine records to verify that failures of critical security control systems are documented to include: () Identification of cause(s) of the failure. () Duration (date and time start and end) of the security failure. () Details of the remediation required to address the root cause.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"10.7.3"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: All security policies and operational procedures that are identified in Requirement 11 are:
Documented.
Kept up to date.
In use.
Known to all affected parties.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Expectations, controls, and oversight for meeting activities within Requirement 11 are defined and adhered to by affected personnel. All supporting activities are repeatable, consistently applied, and conform to management’s intent.
[Purpose]: Requirement 11.1.1 is about effectively managing and maintaining the various policies and procedures specified throughout Requirement 11. While it is important to define the specific policies or procedures called out in Requirement 11, it is equally important to ensure they are properly documented, maintained, and disseminated.
[Good Practice]: It is important to update policies and procedures as needed to address changes in processes, technologies, and business objectives. For this reason, consider updating these documents as soon as possible after a change occurs and not only on a periodic cycle.
[Definitions]: Security policies define the entity’s security objectives and principles. Operational procedures describe how to perform activities, and define the controls, methods, and processes that are followed to achieve the desired result in a consistent manner and in accordance with policy objectives.
","uuid":"0e99ae4b-f9bd-4bd8-a63d-3531c3c6474d","family":"Test Security of Systems and Networks Regularly","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"11.1.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"11.1.1 Examine documentation and interview personnel to verify that security policies and operational procedures are managed in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"11.1.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Roles and responsibilities for performing activities in Requirement 11 are documented, assigned, and understood.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Day-to-day responsibilities for performing all the activities in Requirement 11 are allocated. Personnel are accountable for successful, continuous operation of these requirements.
[Purpose]: If roles and responsibilities are not formally assigned, personnel may not be aware of their day-to-day responsibilities and critical activities may not occur.
[Good Practice]: Roles and responsibilities may be documented within policies and procedures or maintained within separate documents. As part of communicating roles and responsibilities, entities can consider having personnel acknowledge their acceptance and understanding of their assigned roles and responsibilities.
[Examples]: A method to document roles and responsibilities is a responsibility assignment matrix that includes who is responsible, accountable, consulted, and informed (also called a RACI matrix).
","uuid":"fe783e27-8e93-42ff-81b8-b23710c8e201","family":"Test Security of Systems and Networks Regularly","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"11.1.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"11.1.2.a Examine documentation to verify that descriptions of roles and responsibilities for performing activities in Requirement 11 are documented and assigned. 11.1.2.b Interview personnel with responsibility for performing activities in Requirement 11 to verify that roles and responsibilities are assigned as documented and are understood.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"11.1.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Authorized and unauthorized wireless access points are managed as follows:
The presence of wireless (Wi-Fi) access points is tested for,
All authorized and unauthorized wireless access points are detected and identified,
Testing, detection, and identification occurs at least once every three months.
If automated monitoring is used, personnel are notified via generated alerts.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Unauthorized wireless access points are identified and addressed periodically.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: The requirement applies even when a policy exists that prohibits the use of wireless technology since attackers do not read and follow company policy. Methods used to meet this requirement must be sufficient to detect and identify both authorized and unauthorized devices, including unauthorized devices attached to devices that themselves are authorized.
[Purpose]: Implementation and/or exploitation of wireless technology within a network are common paths for malicious users to gain unauthorized access to the network and cardholder data. Unauthorized wireless devices could be hidden within or attached to a computer or other system component. These devices could also be attached directly to a network port, to a network device such as a switch or router, or inserted as a wireless interface card inside a system component. If a wireless device or network is installed without a company’s knowledge, it can allow an attacker to enter the network easily and “invisibly.” Detecting and removing such unauthorized access points reduces the duration and likelihood of such devices being leveraged for an attack.
[Good Practice]: The size and complexity of an environment will dictate the appropriate tools and processes to be used to provide sufficient assurance that a rogue wireless access point has not been installed in the environment. For example, performing a detailed physical inspection of a single stand-alone retail kiosk in a shopping mall, where all communication components are contained within tamper-resistant and tamper-evident casings, may be sufficient to provide assurance that a rogue wireless access point has not been attached or installed. However, in an environment with multiple nodes (such as in a large retail store, call center, server room or data center), detailed physical inspection can be difficult. In this case, multiple methods may be combined, such as performing physical system inspections in conjunction with the results of a wireless analyzer.
[Definitions]: This is also referred to as rogue access point detection.
[Examples]: Methods that may be used include but are not limited to wireless network scans, physical/logical inspections of system components and infrastructure, network access control (NAC), or wireless IDS/IPS. NAC and wireless IDS/IPS are examples of automated monitoring tools.
","uuid":"137ad277-5108-4e77-b8a6-46b58a4c5263","family":"Test Security of Systems and Networks Regularly","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"11.2.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"11.2.1.a Examine policies and procedures to verify processes are defined for managing both authorized and unauthorized wireless access points with all elements specified in this requirement. 11.2.1.b Examine the methodology(ies) in use and the resulting documentation, and interview personnel to verify processes are defined to detect and identify both authorized and unauthorized wireless access points in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement. 11.2.1.c Examine wireless assessment results and interview personnel to verify that wireless assessments were conducted in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement. 11.2.1.d If automated monitoring is used, examine configuration settings to verify the configuration will generate alerts to notify personnel.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"11.2.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: An inventory of authorized wireless access points is maintained, including a documented business justification.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Unauthorized wireless access points are not mistaken for authorized wireless access points.
[Purpose]: An inventory of authorized wireless access points can help administrators quickly respond when unauthorized wireless access points are detected. This helps to proactively minimize the exposure of CDE to malicious individuals.
[Good Practice]: If using a wireless scanner, it is equally important to have a defined list of known access points which, while not attached to the company’s network, will usually be detected during a scan. These non-company devices are often found in multi-tenant buildings or businesses located near one another. However, it is important to verify that these devices are not connected to the entity’s network port or through another networkconnected device and given an SSID resembling a nearby business. Scan results should note such devices and how it was determined that these devices could be “ignored.” In addition, detection of any unauthorized wireless access points that are determined to be a threat to the CDE should be managed following the entity’s incident response plan per Requirement 12.10.1.
","uuid":"c8bda3c5-7b73-4ae7-ac77-20382f4c2978","family":"Test Security of Systems and Networks Regularly","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"11.2.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"11.2.2 Examine documentation to verify that an inventory of authorized wireless access points is maintained, and a business justification is documented for all authorized wireless access points.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"11.2.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Internal vulnerability scans are performed as follows:
At least once every three months.
High-risk and critical vulnerabilities (per the entity’s vulnerability risk rankings defined at Requirement 6.3.1) are resolved.
Rescans are performed that confirm all highrisk and critical vulnerabilities (as noted above) have been resolved.
Scan tool is kept up to date with latest vulnerability information.
Scans are performed by qualified personnel and organizational independence of the tester exists.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: The security posture of all system components is verified periodically using automated tools designed to detect vulnerabilities operating inside the network. Detected vulnerabilities are assessed and rectified based on a formal risk assessment framework.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: It is not required to use a QSA or ASV to conduct internal vulnerability scans. Internal vulnerability scans can be performed by qualified, internal staff that are reasonably independent of the system component(s) being scanned (for example, a network administrator should not be responsible for scanning the network), or an entity may choose to have internal vulnerability scans performed by a firm specializing in vulnerability scanning.
[Purpose]: Identifying and addressing vulnerabilities promptly reduces the likelihood of a vulnerability being exploited and the potential compromise of a system component or cardholder data. Vulnerability scans conducted at least every three months provide this detection and identification.
[Good Practice]: Vulnerabilities posing the greatest risk to the environment (for example, ranked high or critical per Requirement 6.3.1) should be resolved with the highest priority. Multiple scan reports can be combined for the quarterly scan process to show that all systems were scanned and all applicable vulnerabilities were resolved as part of the three-month vulnerability scan cycle. However, additional, documentation may be required to verify nonremediated vulnerabilities are in the process of being resolved. While scans are required at least once every three months, more frequent scans are recommended depending on the network complexity, frequency of change, and types of devices, software, and operating systems used.
[Definitions]: A vulnerability scan is a combination of automated tools, techniques, and/or methods run against external and internal devices and servers, designed to expose potential vulnerabilities in applications, operating systems, and network devices that could be found and exploited by malicious individuals.
","uuid":"b6b196ba-6387-43ca-bb46-887848d86fca","family":"Test Security of Systems and Networks Regularly","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"11.3.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"11.3.1.a Examine internal scan report results from the last 12 months to verify that internal scans occurred at least once every three months in the most recent 12-month period. 11.3.1.b Examine internal scan report results from each scan and rescan run in the last 12 months to verify that all high-risk and critical vulnerabilities (identified in PCI DSS Requirement 6.3.1) are resolved. 11.3.1.c Examine scan tool configurations and interview personnel to verify that the scan tool is kept up to date with the latest vulnerability information. 11.3.1.d Interview responsible personnel to verify that the scan was performed by a qualified internal resource(s) or qualified external third party and that organizational independence of the tester exists.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"11.3.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: All other applicable vulnerabilities (those not ranked as high-risk or critical per the entity’s vulnerability risk rankings defined at Requirement 6.3.1) are managed as follows:
Addressed based on the risk defined in the entity’s targeted risk analysis, which is performed according to all elements specified in Requirement 12.3.1.
Rescans are conducted as needed.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Lower ranked vulnerabilities (lower than high or critical) are addressed at a frequency in accordance with the entity’s risk.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: The timeframe for addressing lower-risk vulnerabilities is subject to the results of a risk analysis per Requirement 12.3.1 that includes (minimally) identification of assets being protected, threats, and likelihood and/or impact of a threat being realized. This requirement is a best practice until 31 March 2025, after which it will be required and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment.
[Purpose]: All vulnerabilities, regardless of criticality, provide a potential avenue of attack and must therefore be addressed periodically, with the vulnerabilities that expose the most risk addressed more quickly to limit the potential window of attack.
","uuid":"2d003cfe-f978-4e01-9a42-b22cb47eaae5","family":"Test Security of Systems and Networks Regularly","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"11.3.1.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"11.3.1.1.a Examine the entity’s targeted risk analysis that defines the risk for addressing all other applicable vulnerabilities (those not ranked as high-risk or critical per the entity’s vulnerability risk rankings at Requirement 6.3.1) to verify the risk analysis was performed in accordance with all elements specified at Requirement 12.3.1. 11.3.1.1.b Interview responsible personnel and examine internal scan report results or other documentation to verify that all other applicable vulnerabilities (those not ranked as high-risk or critical per the entity’s vulnerability risk rankings at Requirement 6.3.1) are addressed based on the risk defined in the entity’s targeted risk analysis, and that the scan process includes rescans as needed to confirm the vulnerabilities have been addressed.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"11.3.1.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Internal vulnerability scans are performed via authenticated scanning as follows:
Systems that are unable to accept credentials for authenticated scanning are documented.
Sufficient privileges are used for those systems that accept credentials for scanning.
If accounts used for authenticated scanning can be used for interactive login, they are managed in accordance with Requirement 8.2.2
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Automated tools used to detect vulnerabilities can detect vulnerabilities local to each system, which are not visible remotely.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: The authenticated scanning tools can be either host-based or network-based. “Sufficient” privileges are those needed to access system resources such that a thorough scan can be conducted that detects known vulnerabilities. This requirement does not apply to system components that cannot accept credentials for scanning. Examples of systems that may not accept credentials for scanning include some network and security appliances, mainframes, and containers. This requirement is a best practice until 31 March 2025, after which it will be required and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment.
[Purpose]: Authenticated scanning provides greater insight into an entity’s vulnerability landscape since it can detect vulnerabilities that unauthenticated scans cannot detect. Attackers may leverage vulnerabilities that an entity is unaware of because certain vulnerabilities will only be detected with authenticated scanning. Authenticated scanning can yield significant additional information about an organization’s vulnerabilities.
[Good Practice]: The credentials used for these scans should be considered highly privileged. They should be protected and controlled as such, following PCI DSS Requirements 7 and 8 (except for those requirements for multi-factor authentication and application and system accounts).
","uuid":"f1684a4d-3666-4914-92b8-36b1a60eb9a9","family":"Test Security of Systems and Networks Regularly","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"11.3.1.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"11.3.1.2.a Examine scan tool configurations to verify that authenticated scanning is used for internal scans, with sufficient privileges, for those systems that accept credentials for scanning. 11.3.1.2.b Examine scan report results and interview personnel to verify that authenticated scans are performed. 11.3.1.2.c If accounts used for authenticated scanning can be used for interactive login, examine the accounts and interview personnel to verify the accounts are managed following all elements specified in Requirement 8.2.2. 11.3.1.2.d Examine documentation to verify that systems that are unable to accept credentials for authenticated scanning are defined.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"11.3.1.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Internal vulnerability scans are performed after any significant change as follows:
High-risk and critical vulnerabilities (per the entity’s vulnerability risk rankings defined at Requirement 6.3.1) are resolved.
Rescans are conducted as needed.
Scans are performed by qualified personnel and organizational independence of the tester exists (not required to be a QSA or ASV).
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: The security posture of all system components is verified following significant changes to the network or systems, by using automated tools designed to detect vulnerabilities operating inside the network. Detected vulnerabilities are assessed and rectified based on a formal risk assessment framework.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: Authenticated internal vulnerability scanning per Requirement 11.3.1.2 is not required for scans performed after significant changes.
[Purpose]: Scanning an environment after any significant changes ensures that changes were completed appropriately such that the security of the environment was not compromised because of the change.
[Good Practice]: Entities should perform scans after significant changes as part of the change process per Requirement 6.5.2 and before considering the change complete. All system components affected by the change will need to be scanned.
","uuid":"bdddce74-dc87-442f-a06b-58ed695cb2d4","family":"Test Security of Systems and Networks Regularly","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"11.3.1.3 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"11.3.1.3.a Examine change control documentation and internal scan reports to verify that system components were scanned after any significant changes. 11.3.1.3.b Interview personnel and examine internal scan and rescan reports to verify that internal scans were performed after significant changes and that high-risk and critical vulnerabilities as defined in Requirement 6.3.1 were resolved. 11.3.1.3.c Interview personnel to verify that internal scans are performed by a qualified internal resource(s) or qualified external third party and that organizational independence of the tester exists.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"11.3.1.3"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: External vulnerability scans are performed as follows:
At least once every three months.
By a PCI SSC Approved Scanning Vendor (ASV).
Vulnerabilities are resolved and ASV Program Guide requirements for a passing scan are met.
Rescans are performed as needed to confirm that vulnerabilities are resolved per the ASV Program Guide requirements for a passing scan.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: This requirement is not eligible for the customized approach.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: For initial PCI DSS compliance, it is not required that four passing scans be completed within 12 months if the assessor verifies: 1) the most recent scan result was a passing scan, 2) the entity has documented policies and procedures requiring scanning at least once every three months, and 3) vulnerabilities noted in the scan results have been corrected as shown in a re-scan(s). However, for subsequent years after the initial PCI DSS assessment, passing scans at least every three months must have occurred. ASV scanning tools can scan a vast array of network types and topologies. Any specifics about the target environment (for example, load balancers, third-party providers, ISPs, specific configurations, protocols in use, scan interference) should be worked out between the ASV and scan customer. Refer to the ASV Program Guide published on the PCI SSC website for scan customer responsibilities, scan preparation, etc.
[Purpose]: Attackers routinely look for unpatched or vulnerable externally facing servers, which can be leveraged to launch a directed attack. Organizations must ensure these externally facing devices are regularly scanned for weaknesses and that vulnerabilities are patched or remediated to protect the entity. Because external networks are at greater risk of compromise, external vulnerability scanning must be performed at least once every three months by a PCI SSC Approved Scanning Vendor (ASV).
[Good Practice]: While scans are required at least once every three months, more frequent scans are recommended depending on the network complexity, frequency of change, and types of devices, software, and operating systems used. Multiple scan reports can be combined to show that all systems were scanned and that all applicable vulnerabilities were resolved as part of the three-month vulnerability scan cycle. However, additional documentation may be required to verify non-remediated vulnerabilities are in the process of being resolved.
","uuid":"d2801cb3-5a7e-4e02-9493-5e15626e962e","family":"Test Security of Systems and Networks Regularly","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"11.3.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"11.3.2.a Examine ASV scan reports from the last 12 months to verify that external vulnerability scans occurred at least once every three months in the most recent 12-month period. 11.3.2.b Examine the ASV scan report from each scan and rescan run in the last 12 months to verify that vulnerabilities are resolved and the ASV Program Guide requirements for a passing scan are met. 11.3.2.c Examine the ASV scan reports to verify that the scans were completed by a PCI SSC Approved Scanning Vendor (ASV).","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"11.3.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: External vulnerability scans are performed after any significant change as follows:
Vulnerabilities that are scored 4.0 or higher by the CVSS are resolved.
Rescans are conducted as needed.
Scans are performed by qualified personnel and organizational independence of the tester exists (not required to be a QSA or ASV).
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: The security posture of all system components is verified following significant changes to the network or systems, by using tools designed to detect vulnerabilities operating from outside the network. Detected vulnerabilities are assessed and rectified based on a formal risk assessment framework.
[Purpose]: Scanning an environment after any significant changes ensures that changes were completed appropriately such that the security of the environment was not compromised because of the change.
[Good Practice]: Entities should include the need to perform scans after significant changes as part of the change process and before the change is considered complete. All system components affected by the change will need to be scanned.
","uuid":"0bfcdb6c-ac31-4c3e-a8bc-cf378103c89b","family":"Test Security of Systems and Networks Regularly","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"11.3.2.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"11.3.2.1.a Examine change control documentation and external scan reports to verify that system components were scanned after any significant changes. 11.3.2.1.b Interview personnel and examine external scan and rescan reports to verify that external scans were performed after significant changes and that vulnerabilities scored 4.0 or higher by the CVSS were resolved. 11.3.2.1.c Interview personnel to verify that external scans are performed by a qualified internal resource(s) or qualified external third party and that organizational independence of the tester exists.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"11.3.2.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: A penetration testing methodology is defined, documented, and implemented by the entity, and includes:
Industry-accepted penetration testing approaches.
Coverage for the entire CDE perimeter and critical systems.
Testing from both inside and outside the network.
Testing to validate any segmentation and scopereduction controls.
Application-layer penetration testing to identify, at a minimum, the vulnerabilities listed in Requirement 6.2.4.
Network-layer penetration tests that encompass all components that support network functions as well as operating systems.
Review and consideration of threats and vulnerabilities experienced in the last 12 months.
Documented approach to assessing and addressing the risk posed by exploitable vulnerabilities and security weaknesses found during penetration testing.
Retention of penetration testing results and remediation activities results for at least 12 months.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: A formal methodology is defined for thorough technical testing that attempts to exploit vulnerabilities and security weaknesses via simulated attack methods by a competent manual attacker.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: Testing from inside the network (or “internal penetration testing”) means testing from both inside the CDE and into the CDE from trusted and untrusted internal networks. Testing from outside the network (or “external penetration testing”) means testing the exposed external perimeter of trusted networks, and critical systems connected to or accessible to public network infrastructures
[Purpose]: Attackers spend a lot of time finding external and internal vulnerabilities to leverage to obtain access to cardholder data and then to exfiltrate that data. As such, entities need to test their networks thoroughly, just as an attacker would do. This testing allows the entity to identify and remediate weakness that might be leveraged to compromise the entity’s network and data, and then to take appropriate actions to protect the network and system components from such attacks.
[Good Practice]: Penetration testing techniques will differ based on an organization’s needs and structure and should be suitable for the tested environment—for example, fuzzing, injection, and forgery tests might be appropriate. The type, depth, and complexity of the testing will depend on the specific environment and the needs of the organization.
[Definitions]: Penetration tests simulate a real-world attack situation intending to identify how far an attacker could penetrate an environment, given differing amounts of information provided to the tester. This allows an entity to better understand its potential exposure and develop a strategy to defend against attacks. A penetration test differs from a vulnerability scan, as a penetration test is an active process that usually includes exploiting identified vulnerabilities. Scanning for vulnerabilities alone is not a penetration test, nor is a penetration test adequate if the focus is solely on trying to exploit vulnerabilities found in a vulnerability scan. Conducting a vulnerability scan may be one of the first steps, but it is not the only step a penetration tester will perform to plan the testing strategy. Even if a vulnerability scan does not detect known vulnerabilities, the penetration tester will often gain enough knowledge about the system to identify possible security gaps. Penetration testing is a highly manual process. While some automated tools may be used, the tester uses their knowledge of systems to gain access into an environment. Often the tester will chain several types of exploits together with the goal of breaking through layers of defenses. For example, if the tester finds a way to gain access to an application server, the tester will then use the compromised server as a point to stage a new attack based on the resources to which the server has access. In this way, a tester can simulate the techniques used by an attacker to identify areas of potential weakness in the environment. The testing of security monitoring and detection methods—for example, to confirm the effectiveness of logging and file integrity monitoring mechanisms, should also be considered.
[Further Information]: Refer to the Information Supplement: Penetration Testing Guidance for additional guidance. Industry-accepted penetration testing approaches include: The Open Source Security Testing Methodology and Manual (OSSTMM) Open Web Application Security Project (OWASP) penetration testing programs.
","uuid":"9933726d-2fdb-4b52-a5ce-7ba0d85c3edf","family":"Test Security of Systems and Networks Regularly","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"11.4.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"11.4.1 Examine documentation and interview personnel to verify that the penetration-testing methodology defined, documented, and implemented by the entity includes all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"11.4.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Internal penetration testing is performed:
Per the entity’s defined methodology,
At least once every 12 months
After any significant infrastructure or application upgrade or change
By a qualified internal resource or qualified external third-party
Organizational independence of the tester exists (not required to be a QSA or ASV).
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Internal system defenses are verified by technical testing according to the entity’s defined methodology as frequently as needed to address evolving and new attacks and threats and ensure that significant changes do not introduce unknown vulnerabilities.
[Purpose]: Internal penetration testing serves two purposes. Firstly, just like an external penetration test, it discovers vulnerabilities and misconfigurations that could be used by an attacker that had managed to get some degree of access to the internal network, whether that is because the attacker is an authorized user conducting unauthorized activities, or an external attacker that had managed to penetrate the entity’s perimeter. Secondly, internal penetration testing also helps entities to discover where their change control process failed by detecting previously unknown systems. Additionally, it verifies the status of many of the controls operating within the CDE. A penetration test is not truly a “test” because the outcome of a penetration test is not something that can be classified as a “pass” or a “fail.” The best outcome of a test is a catalog of vulnerabilities and misconfigurations that an entity did not know about and the penetration tester found them before an attacker could. A penetration test that found nothing is typically indicative of shortcomings of the penetration tester, rather than being a positive reflection of the security posture of the entity.
[Good Practice]: Some considerations when choosing a qualified resource to perform penetration testing include:
Specific penetration testing certifications, which may be an indication of the tester’s skill level and competence.
Prior experience conducting penetration testing—for example, the number of years of experience, and the type and scope of prior engagements can help confirm whether the tester’s experience is appropriate for the needs of the engagement.
[Further Information]: Refer to the Information Supplement: Penetration Testing Guidance on the PCI SSC website for additional guidance.
","uuid":"78daaa0f-0833-4f9c-9711-1f9a08409c4c","family":"Test Security of Systems and Networks Regularly","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"11.4.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"11.4.2.a Examine the scope of work and results from the most recent internal penetration test to verify that penetration testing is performed in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement. 11.4.2.b Interview personnel to verify that the internal penetration test was performed by a qualified internal resource or qualified external third-party and that organizational independence of the tester exists (not required to be a QSA or ASV).","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"11.4.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: External penetration testing is performed:
Per the entity’s defined methodology
At least once every 12 months
After any significant infrastructure or application upgrade or change
By a qualified internal resource or qualified external third party
Organizational independence of the tester exists (not required to be a QSA or ASV).
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: External system defenses are verified by technical testing according to the entity’s defined methodology as frequently as needed to address evolving and new attacks and threats, and to ensure that significant changes do not introduce unknown vulnerabilities.
[Purpose]: Internal penetration testing serves two purposes. Firstly, just like an external penetration test, it discovers vulnerabilities and misconfigurations that could be used by an attacker that had managed to get some degree of access to the internal network, whether that is because the attacker is an authorized user conducting unauthorized activities, or an external attacker that had managed to penetrate the entity’s perimeter. Secondly, internal penetration testing also helps entities to discover where their change control process failed by detecting previously unknown systems. Additionally, it verifies the status of many of the controls operating within the CDE. A penetration test is not truly a “test” because the outcome of a penetration test is not something that can be classified as a “pass” or a “fail.” The best outcome of a test is a catalog of vulnerabilities and misconfigurations that an entity did not know about and the penetration tester found them before an attacker could. A penetration test that found nothing is typically indicative of shortcomings of the penetration tester, rather than being a positive reflection of the security posture of the entity.
[Good Practice]: Some considerations when choosing a qualified resource to perform penetration testing include:
Specific penetration testing certifications, which may be an indication of the tester’s skill level and competence.
Prior experience conducting penetration testing—for example, the number of years of experience, and the type and scope of prior engagements can help confirm whether the tester’s experience is appropriate for the needs of the engagement.
[Further Information]: Refer to the Information Supplement: Penetration Testing Guidance on the PCI SSC website for additional guidance. Customized Approach Objective: External system defenses are verified by technical testing according to the entity’s defined methodology as frequently as needed to address evolving and new attacks and threats, and to ensure that significant changes do not introduce unknown vulnerabilities.
","uuid":"583dbe0f-592d-435a-918e-8ba7af59ebb7","family":"Test Security of Systems and Networks Regularly","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"11.4.3 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"11.4.3.a Examine the scope of work and results from the most recent external penetration test to verify that penetration testing is performed according to all elements specified in this requirement. 11.4.3.b Interview personnel to verify that the external penetration test was performed by a qualified internal resource or qualified external third-party and that organizational independence of the tester exists (not required to be a QSA or ASV).","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"11.4.3"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Exploitable vulnerabilities and security weaknesses found during penetration testing are corrected as follows:
In accordance with the entity’s assessment of the risk posed by the security issue as defined in Requirement 6.3.1.
Penetration testing is repeated to verify the corrections.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Vulnerabilities and security weaknesses found while verifying system defenses are mitigated.
[Purpose]: The results of a penetration test are usually a prioritized list of vulnerabilities discovered by the exercise. Often a tester will have chained a number of vulnerabilities together to compromise a system component. Remediating the vulnerabilities found by a penetration test significantly reduces the probability that the same vulnerabilities will be exploited by a malicious attacker. Using the entity’s own vulnerability risk assessment process (see requirement 6.3.1) ensures that the vulnerabilities that pose the highest risk to the entity will be remediated more quickly.
[Good Practice]: As part of the entity’s assessment of risk, entities should consider how likely the vulnerability is to be exploited and whether there are other controls present in the environment to reduce the risk. Any weaknesses that point to PCI DSS requirements not being met should be addressed.
","uuid":"0582fdab-b6c3-44b5-8453-71a8f2ca8903","family":"Test Security of Systems and Networks Regularly","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"11.4.4 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"11.4.4 Examine penetration testing results to verify that noted exploitable vulnerabilities and security weaknesses were corrected in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"11.4.4"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: If segmentation is used to isolate the CDE from other networks, penetration tests are performed on segmentation controls as follows:
At least once every 12 months and after any changes to segmentation controls/methods
Covering all segmentation controls/methods in use. • According to the entity’s defined penetration testing methodology.
Confirming that the segmentation controls/methods are operational and effective, and isolate the CDE from all out-of-scope systems.
Confirming effectiveness of any use of isolation to separate systems with differing security levels (see Requirement 2.2.3).
Performed by a qualified internal resource or qualified external third party.
Organizational independence of the tester exists (not required to be a QSA or ASV).
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: If segmentation is used, it is verified periodically by technical testing to be continually effective, including after any changes, in isolating the CDE from all outof-scope systems.
[Purpose]: When an entity uses segmentation controls to isolate the CDE from internal untrusted networks, the security of the CDE is dependent on that segmentation functioning. Many attacks have involved the attacker moving laterally from what an entity deemed an isolated network into the CDE. Using penetration testing tools and techniques to validate that an untrusted network is indeed isolated from the CDE can alert the entity to a failure or misconfiguration of the segmentation controls, which can then be rectified.
[Good Practice]: Techniques such as host discovery and port scanning can be used to verify out-of-scope segments have no access to the CDE.
","uuid":"36a8e36b-2703-4c6d-8a95-ea49b897bb34","family":"Test Security of Systems and Networks Regularly","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"11.4.5 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"11.4.5.a Examine segmentation controls and review penetration-testing methodology to verify that penetration-testing procedures are defined to test all segmentation methods in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement. 11.4.5.b Examine the results from the most recent penetration test to verify the penetration test covers and addresses all elements specified in this requirement. 11.4.5.c Interview personnel to verify that the test was performed by a qualified internal resource or qualified external third party and that organizational independence of the tester exists (not required to be a QSA or ASV).","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"11.4.5"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Additional requirement for service providers only: If segmentation is used to isolate the CDE from other networks, penetration tests are performed on segmentation controls as follows:
At least once every six months and after any changes to segmentation controls/methods.
Covering all segmentation controls/methods in use.
According to the entity’s defined penetration testing methodology.
Confirming that the segmentation controls/methods are operational and effective, and isolate the CDE from all out-of-scope systems.
Confirming effectiveness of any use of isolation to separate systems with differing security levels (see Requirement 2.2.3).
Performed by a qualified internal resource or qualified external third party.
Organizational independence of the tester exists (not required to be a QSA or ASV).
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: If segmentation is used, it is verified by technical testing to be continually effective, including after any changes, in isolating the CDE from out-of-scope systems.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement applies only when the entity being assessed is a service provider.
[Purpose]: Service providers typically have access to greater volumes of cardholder data or can provide an entry point that can be exploited to then compromise multiple other entities. Service providers also typically have larger and more complex networks that are subject to more frequent change. The probability of segmentation controls failing in complex and dynamic networks is greater in service provider environments. Validating segmentation controls more frequently is likely to discover such failings before they can be exploited by an attacker attempting to pivot laterally from an out-of-scope untrusted network to the CDE.
[Good Practice]: Although the requirement specifies that this scope validation is carried out at least once every six months and after significant change, this exercise should be performed as frequently as possible to ensure it remains effective at isolating the CDE from other networks.
","uuid":"39098f2e-cea3-4f29-8198-f68d7ee117a0","family":"Test Security of Systems and Networks Regularly","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"11.4.6 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"11.4.6.a Additional testing procedure for service provider assessments only: Examine the results from the most recent penetration test to verify that the penetration covers and addressed all elements specified in this requirement. 11.4.6.b Additional testing procedure for service provider assessments only: Interview personnel to verify that the test was performed by a qualified internal resource or qualified external third party and that organizational independence of the tester exists (not required to be a QSA or ASV).","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"11.4.6"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Additional requirement for multi-tenant service providers only: Multi-tenant service providers support their customers for external penetration testing per Requirement 11.4.3 and 11.4.4.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Multi-tenant service providers support their customers’ need for technical testing either by providing access or evidence that comparable technical testing has been undertaken.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement applies only when the entity being assessed is a multi-tenant service provider. To meet this requirement, a multi-tenant service provider may either:
Provide evidence to its customers to show that penetration testing has been performed according to Requirements 11.4.3 and 11.4.4 on the customers’ subscribed infrastructure, or
Provide prompt access to each of its customers, so customers can perform their own penetration testing.
Evidence provided to customers can include redacted penetration testing results but needs to include sufficient information to prove that all elements of Requirements 11.4.3 and 11.4.4 have been met on the customer’s behalf. Refer also to Appendix A1: Additional PCI DSS Requirements for Multi-Tenant Service Providers. This requirement is a best practice until 31 March 2025, after which it will be required and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment.
[Purpose]: Entities need to conduct penetration tests in accordance with PCI DSS to simulate attacker behavior and discover vulnerabilities in their environment. In shared and cloud environments, the multi-tenant service provider may be concerned about the activities of a penetration tester affecting other customers’ systems. Multi-tenant service providers cannot forbid penetration testing because this would leave their customers’ systems open to exploitation. Therefore, multi-tenant service providers must support customer requests to conduct penetration testing or for penetration testing results.
","uuid":"2260b109-4fc4-4fd1-a52b-a629a4c114fb","family":"Test Security of Systems and Networks Regularly","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"11.4.7 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"11.4.7 Additional testing procedure for multitenant service providers only: Examine evidence to verify that multi-tenant service providers support their customers for external penetration testing per Requirement 11.4.3 and 11.4.4.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"11.4.7"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Intrusion-detection and/or intrusionprevention techniques are used to detect and/or prevent intrusions into the network as follows:
All traffic is monitored at the perimeter of the CDE.
All traffic is monitored at critical points in the CDE.
Personnel are alerted to suspected compromises.
All intrusion-detection and prevention engines, baselines, and signatures are kept up to date.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Mechanisms to detect real-time suspicious or anomalous network traffic that may be indicative of threat actor activity are implemented. Alerts generated by these mechanisms are responded to by personnel, or by automated means that ensure that system components cannot be compromised as a result of the detected activity.
[Purpose]: Intrusion-detection and/or intrusion-prevention techniques (such as IDS/IPS) compare the traffic coming into the network with known “signatures” and/or behaviors of thousands of compromise types (hacker tools, Trojans, and other malware), and then send alerts and/or stop the attempt as it happens. Without a proactive approach to detect unauthorized activity, attacks on (or misuse of) computer resources could go unnoticed for long periods of time. The impact of an intrusion into the CDE is, in many ways, a factor of the time that an attacker has in the environment before being detected.
[Good Practice]: Security alerts generated by these techniques should be continually monitored, so that the attempted or actual intrusions can be stopped, and potential damage limited.
[Definitions]: Critical locations could include, but are not limited to, network security controls between network segments (for example, between a DMZ and an internal network or between an in-scope and outof-scope network) and points protecting connections between a less trusted and a more trusted system component.
","uuid":"12910438-a762-4222-b804-da52d06b38df","family":"Test Security of Systems and Networks Regularly","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"11.5.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"11.5.1.a Examine system configurations and network diagrams to verify that intrusion-detection and/or intrusion-prevention techniques are in place to monitor all traffic: () At the perimeter of the CDE. () At critical points in the CDE. 11.5.1.b Examine system configurations and interview responsible personnel to verify intrusiondetection and/or intrusion-prevention techniques alert personnel of suspected compromises. 11.5.1.c Examine system configurations and vendor documentation to verify intrusion-detection and/or intrusion-prevention techniques are configured to keep all engines, baselines, and signatures up to date.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"11.5.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Additional requirement for service providers only: Intrusion-detection and/or intrusion-prevention techniques detect, alert on/prevent, and address covert malware communication channels.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Mechanisms are in place to detect and alert/prevent covert communications with command-and-control systems. Alerts generated by these mechanisms are responded to by personnel, or by automated means that ensure that such communications are blocked.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement applies only when the entity being assessed is a service provider. This requirement is a best practice until 31 March 2025, after which it will be required and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment.
[Purpose]: Detecting covert malware communication attempts (for example, DNS tunneling) can help block the spread of malware laterally inside a network and the exfiltration of data. When deciding where to place this control, entities should consider critical locations in the network, and likely routes for covert channels. When malware establishes a foothold in an infected environment, it often tries to establish a communication channel to a command-andcontrol (C&C) server. Through the C&C server, the attacker communicates with and controls malware on compromised systems to deliver malicious payloads or instructions, or to initiate data exfiltration. In many cases, the malware will communicate with the C&C server indirectly via botnets, bypassing monitoring, blocking controls, and rendering these methods ineffective to detect the covert channels.
[Good Practice]: Methods that can help detect and address malware communications channels include realtime endpoint scanning, egress traffic filtering, an ”allow” listing, data loss prevention tools, and network security monitoring tools such as IDS/IPS. Additionally, DNS queries and responses are a key data source used by network defenders in support of incident response as well as intrusion discovery. When these transactions are collected for processing and analytics, they can enable a number of valuable security analytic scenarios. It is important that organizations maintain up-todate knowledge of malware modes of operation, as mitigating these can help detect and limit the impact of malware in the environment.
","uuid":"fd9aa837-af8f-4cfc-81bd-519bc52e52a0","family":"Test Security of Systems and Networks Regularly","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"11.5.1.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"11.5.1.1.a Additional testing procedure for service provider assessments only: Examine documentation and configuration settings to verify that methods to detect and alert on/prevent covert malware communication channels are in place and operating. 11.5.1.1.b Additional testing procedure for service provider assessments only: Examine the entity’s incident-response plan (Requirement 12.10.1) to verify it requires and defines a response in the event that covert malware communication channels are detected. 11.5.1.1.c Additional testing procedure for service provider assessments only: Interview responsible personnel and observe processes to verify that personnel maintain knowledge of covert malware communication and control techniques and are knowledgeable about how to respond when malware is suspected.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"11.5.1.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: A change-detection mechanism (for example, file integrity monitoring tools) is deployed as follows:
To alert personnel to unauthorized modification (including changes, additions, and deletions) of critical files.
To perform critical file comparisons at least once weekly.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Critical files cannot be modified by unauthorized personnel without an alert being generated.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: For change-detection purposes, critical files are usually those that do not regularly change, but the modification of which could indicate a system compromise or risk of compromise. Changedetection mechanisms such as file integrity monitoring products usually come pre-configured with critical files for the related operating system. Other critical files, such as those for custom applications, must be evaluated and defined by the entity (that is, the merchant or service provider).
[Purpose]: Changes to critical system, configuration, or content files can be an indicator an attacker has accessed an organization’s system. Such changes can allow an attacker to take additional malicious actions, access cardholder data, and/or conduct activities without detection or record. A change detection mechanism will detect and evaluate such changes to critical files and generate alerts that can be responded to following defined processes so that personnel can take appropriate actions. If not implemented properly and the output of the change-detection solution monitored, a malicious individual could add, remove, or alter configuration file contents, operating system programs, or application executables. Unauthorized changes, if undetected, could render existing security controls ineffective and/or result in cardholder data being stolen with no perceptible impact to normal processing.
[Good Practice]: Examples of the types of files that should be monitored include, but are not limited to:
System executables.
Application executables.
Configuration and parameter files.
Centrally stored, historical, or archived audit logs.
Additional critical files determined by entity (for example, through risk assessment or other means).
[Examples]: Change-detection solutions such as file integrity monitoring (FIM) tools check for changes, additions, and deletions to critical files, and notify when such changes are detected.
","uuid":"b2183422-9dc6-4804-85c3-b6e8ec50abec","family":"Test Security of Systems and Networks Regularly","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"11.5.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"11.5.2.a Examine system settings, monitored files, and results from monitoring activities to verify the use of a change-detection mechanism. 11.5.2.b Examine settings for the change-detection mechanism to verify it is configured in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"11.5.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: A change- and tamper-detection mechanism is deployed as follows:
To alert personnel to unauthorized modification (including indicators of compromise, changes, additions, and deletions) to the HTTP headers and the contents of payment pages as received by the consumer browser.
The mechanism is configured to evaluate the received HTTP header and payment page.
The mechanism functions are performed as follows:
– At least once every seven days
OR
– Periodically (at the frequency defined in the entity’s targeted risk analysis, which is performed according to all elements specified in Requirement 12.3.1).
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: E-commerce skimming code or techniques cannot be added to payment pages as received by the consumer browser without a timely alert being generated. Anti-skimming measures cannot be removed from payment pages without a prompt alert being generated.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: The intention of this requirement is not that an entity installs software in the systems or browsers of its consumers, but rather that the entity uses techniques such as those described under Examples in the Guidance column to prevent and detect unexpected script activities. This requirement is a best practice until 31 March 2025, after which it will be required and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment.
[Purpose]: Many web pages now rely on assembling objects, including active content (primarily JavaScript), from multiple internet locations. Additionally, the content of many web pages is defined using content management and tag management systems that may not be possible to monitor using traditional change detection mechanisms. Therefore, the only place to detect changes or indicators of malicious activity is in the consumer browser as the page is constructed and all JavaScript interpreted. By comparing the current version of the HTTP header and the active content of payment pages as received by the consumer browser with prior or known versions, it is possible to detect unauthorized changes that may indicate a skimming attack. Additionally, by looking for known indicators of compromise and script elements or behavior typical of skimmers, suspicious alerts can be raised.
[Examples]: Mechanisms that detect and report on changes to the headers and content of the payment page include but are not limited to:
Violations of the Content Security Policy (CSP) can be reported to the entity using the reportto or report-uri CSP directives.
Changes to the CSP itself can indicate tampering.
External monitoring by systems that request and analyze the received web pages (also known as synthetic user monitoring) can detect changes to JavaScript in payment pages and alert personnel.
Embedding tamper-resistant, tamper-detection script in the payment page can alert and block when malicious script behavior is detected.
Reverse proxies and Content Delivery Networks can detect changes in scripts and alert personnel.
Often, these mechanisms are subscription or cloud-based, but can also be based on custom and bespoke solutions.
","uuid":"db663123-25c0-4071-b925-f58022fbd2a4","family":"Test Security of Systems and Networks Regularly","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"11.6.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"11.6.1.a Examine system settings, monitored payment pages, and results from monitoring activities to verify the use of a change- and tamperdetection mechanism. 11.6.1.b Examine configuration settings to verify the mechanism is configured in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement. 11.6.1.c If the mechanism functions are performed at an entity-defined frequency, examine the entity’s targeted risk analysis for determining the frequency to verify the risk analysis was performed in accordance with all elements specified at Requirement 12.3.1. 11.6.1.d Examine configuration settings and interview personnel to verify the mechanism functions are performed either: () At least once every seven days OR () At the frequency defined in the entity’s targeted risk analysis performed for this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"11.6.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: An overall information security policy is:
Established.
Published.
Maintained.
Disseminated to all relevant personnel, as well as to relevant vendors and business partners.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: The strategic objectives and principles of information security are defined, adopted, and known to all personnel.
[Purpose]: An organization’s overall information security policy ties to and governs all other policies and procedures that define protection of cardholder data. The information security policy communicates management’s intent and objectives regarding the protection of its most valuable assets, including cardholder data. Without an information security policy, individuals will make their own value decisions on the controls that are required within the organization which may result in the organization neither meeting its legal, regulatory, and contractual obligations, nor being able to adequately protect its assets in a consistent manner. To ensure the policy is implemented, it is important that all relevant personnel within the organization, as well as relevant third parties, vendors, and business partners are aware of the organization’s information security policy and their responsibilities for protecting information assets.
[Good Practice]: The security policy for the organization identifies the purpose, scope, accountability, and information that clearly defines the organization’s position regarding information security. The overall information security policy differs from individual security policies that address specific technology or security disciplines. This policy sets forth the directives for the entire organization whereas individual security policies align and support the overall security policy and communicate specific objectives for technology or security disciplines. It is important that all relevant personnel within the organization, as well as relevant third parties, vendors, and business partners are aware of the organization’s information security policy and their responsibilities for protecting information assets.
[Definitions]: “Relevant” for this requirement means that the information security policy is disseminated to those with roles applicable to some or all the topics in the policy, either within the company or because of services/functions performed by a vendor or third party.
","uuid":"d4ae9a5b-5826-40ac-92a8-dabc9ce3de65","family":"Support Information Security with Organizational Policies and Programs","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"12.1.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"12.1.1 Examine the information security policy and interview personnel to verify that the overall information security policy is managed in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"12.1.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: The information security policy is:
Reviewed at least once every 12 months.
Updated as needed to reflect changes to business objectives or risks to the environment.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: The information security policy continues to reflect the organization’s strategic objectives and principles.
[Purpose]: Security threats and associated protection methods evolve rapidly. Without updating the information security policy to reflect relevant changes, new measures to defend against these threats may not be addressed.
","uuid":"a50f1e1b-83cf-4225-8bee-228d7826b6d9","family":"Support Information Security with Organizational Policies and Programs","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"12.1.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"12.1.2 Examine the information security policy and interview responsible personnel to verify the policy is managed in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"12.1.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: The security policy clearly defines information security roles and responsibilities for all personnel, and all personnel are aware of and acknowledge their information security responsibilities.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Personnel understand their role in protecting the entity’s cardholder data.
[Purpose]: Without clearly defined security roles and responsibilities assigned, there could be misuse of the organization’s information assets or inconsistent interaction with information security personnel, leading to insecure implementation of technologies or use of outdated or insecure technologies.
","uuid":"876679b2-40b2-4943-a4a2-e197b151a6e1","family":"Support Information Security with Organizational Policies and Programs","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"12.1.3 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"12.1.3.a Examine the information security policy to verify that they clearly define information security roles and responsibilities for all personnel. 12.1.3.b Interview personnel in various roles to verify they understand their information security responsibilities. 12.1.3.c Examine documented evidence to verify personnel acknowledge their information security responsibilities.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"12.1.3"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Responsibility for information security is formally assigned to a Chief Information Security Officer or other information security knowledgeable member of executive management.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: A designated member of executive management is responsible for information security.
[Purpose]: To ensure someone with sufficient authority and responsibility is actively managing and championing the organization’s information security program, accountability and responsibility for information security needs to be assigned at the executive level within an organization. Common executive management titles for this role include Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) and Chief Security Officer (CSO – to meet this requirement, the CSO role must be responsible for information security). These positions are often at the most senior level of management and are part of the chief executive level or C-level, typically reporting to the Chief Executive Officer or the Board of Directors.
[Good Practice]: Entities should also consider transition and/or succession plans for these key personnel to avoid potential gaps in critical security activities.
","uuid":"9b1fcb8d-f1ab-40bf-ba34-6f16f1e1fe56","family":"Support Information Security with Organizational Policies and Programs","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"12.1.4 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"12.1.4 Examine the information security policy to verify that information security is formally assigned to a Chief Information Security Officer or other information security-knowledgeable member of executive management.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"12.1.4"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Acceptable use policies for end-user technologies are documented and implemented, including:
Explicit approval by authorized parties.
Acceptable uses of the technology.
List of products approved by the company for employee use, including hardware and software.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: The use of end-user technologies is defined and managed to ensure authorized usage.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: Examples of end-user technologies for which acceptable use policies are expected include, but are not limited to, remote access and wireless technologies, laptops, tablets, mobile phones, and removable electronic media, email usage, and Internet usage.
[Purpose]: End-user technologies are a significant investment and may pose significant risk to an organization if not managed properly. Acceptable use policies outline the expected behavior from personnel when using the organization’s information technology and reflect the organization’s risk tolerance These policies instruct personnel on what they can and cannot do with company equipment and instruct personnel on correct and incorrect uses of company Internet and email resources. Such policies can legally protect an organization and allow it to act when the policies are violated.
[Good Practice]: It is important that usage policies are supported by technical controls to manage the enforcement of the policies. Structuring polices as simple “do” and “do not” requirements that are linked to a purpose can help remove ambiguity and provide personnel with the context for the requirement.
","uuid":"c750d86b-df09-45c2-a993-cd756c9d4f95","family":"Support Information Security with Organizational Policies and Programs","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"12.2.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"12.2.1 Examine the acceptable use policies for end-user technologies and interview responsible personnel to verify processes are documented and implemented in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"12.2.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Each PCI DSS requirement that provides flexibility for how frequently it is performed (for example, requirements to be performed periodically) is supported by a targeted risk analysis that is documented and includes:
Identification of the assets being protected.
Identification of the threat(s) that the requirement is protecting against.
Identification of factors that contribute to the likelihood and/or impact of a threat being realized.
Resulting analysis that determines, and includes justification for, how frequently the requirement must be performed to minimize the likelihood of the threat being realized.
Review of each targeted risk analysis at least once every 12 months to determine whether the results are still valid or if an updated risk analysis is needed.
Performance of updated risk analyses when needed, as determined by the annual review.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Up to date knowledge and assessment of risks to the CDE are maintained.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement is a best practice until 31 March 2025, after which it will be required and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment.
[Purpose]: Some PCI DSS requirements allow an entity to define how frequently an activity is performed based on the risk to environment. Performing this risk analysis according to a methodology ensures validity and consistency with policies and procedures. This targeted risk analysis (as opposed to a traditional enterprise-wide risk assessment) focuses on those PCI DSS requirements that allow an entity flexibility about how frequently an entity performs a given control. For this risk analysis, the entity carefully evaluates each PCI DSS requirement that provides this flexibility and determines the frequency that supports adequate security for the entity, and the level of risk the entity is willing to accept. The risk analysis identifies the specific assets, such as the system components and data—for example, log files, or credentials—that the requirement is intended to protect, as well as the threat(s) or outcomes that the requirement is protecting the assets from—for example, malware, an undetected intruder, or misuse of credentials. Examples of factors that could contribute to likelihood or impact include any that could increase the vulnerability of an asset to a threat—for example, exposure to untrusted networks, complexity of environment, or high staff turnover—as well as the criticality of the system components, or volume and sensitivity of the data, being protected. Reviewing the results of these targeted risk analyses at least once every 12 months and upon changes that could impact the risk to the environment allows the organization to ensure the risk analysis results remain current with organizational changes and evolving threats, trends, and technologies, and that the selected frequencies still adequately address the entity’s risk.
[Good Practice]: An enterprise-wide risk assessment, which is a point-in-time activity that enables entities to identify threats and associated vulnerabilities, is recommended, but is not required, for entities to determine and understand broader and emerging threats with the potential to negatively impact its business. This enterprise-wide risk assessment could be established as part of an overarching risk management program that is used as an input to the annual review of an organization's overall information security policy (see Requirement 12.1.1). Examples of risk-assessment methodologies for enterprise-wide risk assessments include, but are not limited to, ISO 27005 and NIST SP 800-30.
","uuid":"56b2b4dd-f9ab-43ef-84b0-bb66a1aa8451","family":"Support Information Security with Organizational Policies and Programs","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"12.3.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"12.3.1 Examine documented policies and procedures to verify a process is defined for performing targeted risk analyses for each PCI DSS requirement that provides flexibility for how frequently the requirement is performed, and that the process includes all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"12.3.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: A targeted risk analysis is performed for each PCI DSS requirement that the entity meets with the customized approach, to include:
Documented evidence detailing each element specified in Appendix D: Customized Approach (including, at a minimum, a controls matrix and risk analysis).
Approval of documented evidence by senior management.
Performance of the targeted analysis of risk at least once every 12 months
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: in a way that does not strictly follow the defined requirement. These controls are expected to at least meet or exceed the security provided by the defined requirement and require extensive documentation by the entity using the customized approach.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement only applies to entities using a Customized Approach.
[Purpose]: A risk analysis following a repeatable and robust methodology enables an entity to meet the customized approach objective
[Definitions]: The customized approach to meeting a PCI DSS requirement allows entities to define the controls used to meet a given requirement’s stated Customized Approach Objective in a way that does not strictly follow the defined requirement. These controls are expected to at least meet or exceed the security provided by the defined requirement and require extensive documentation by the entity using the customized approach.
[Further Information]: See Appendix D: Customized Approach for instructions on how to document the required evidence for the customized approach. See Appendix E Sample Templates to Support Customized Approach for templates that entities may use to document their customized controls. Note that while use of the templates is optional, the information specified within each template must be documented and provided to each entity’s assessor.
","uuid":"16bb01ea-becc-4b51-bb57-d5010b1d9fee","family":"Support Information Security with Organizational Policies and Programs","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"12.3.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"12.3.2 Examine the documented targeted riskanalysis for each PCI DSS requirement that the entity meets with the customized approach to verify that documentation for each requirement exists and is in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"12.3.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Cryptographic cipher suites and protocols in use are documented and reviewed at least once every 12 months, including at least the following:
An up-to-date inventory of all cryptographic cipher suites and protocols in use, including purpose and where used.
Active monitoring of industry trends regarding continued viability of all cryptographic cipher suites and protocols in use.
A documented strategy to respond to anticipated changes in cryptographic vulnerabilities.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: The entity is able to respond quickly to any vulnerabilities in cryptographic protocols or algorithms, where those vulnerabilities affect protection of cardholder data.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: The requirement applies to all cryptographic suites and protocols used to meet PCI DSS requirements. This requirement is a best practice until 31 March 2025, after which it will be required and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment.
[Purpose]: Protocols and encryption strengths may quickly change or be deprecated due to identification of vulnerabilities or design flaws. In order to support current and future data security needs, entities need to know where cryptography is used and understand how they would be able to respond rapidly to changes impacting the strength of their cryptographic implementations.
[Good Practice]: Cryptographic agility is important to ensure an alternative to the original encryption method or cryptographic primitive is available, with plans to upgrade to the alternative without significant change to system infrastructure. For example, if the entity is aware of when protocols or algorithms will be deprecated by standards bodies, it can make proactive plans to upgrade before the deprecation is impactful to operations.
[Definitions]: “Cryptographic agility” refers to the ability to monitor and manage the encryption and related verification technologies deployed across an organization.
[Further Information]: Refer to NIST SP 800-131a, Transitioning the Use of Cryptographic Algorithms and Key Lengths.
","uuid":"4a9e5328-d044-4e8e-b79a-2233fed7ac56","family":"Support Information Security with Organizational Policies and Programs","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"12.3.3 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"12.3.3 Examine documentation for cryptographic suites and protocols in use and interview personnel to verify the documentation and review is in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"12.3.3"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Hardware and software technologies in use are reviewed at least once every 12 months, including at least the following:
Analysis that the technologies continue to receive security fixes from vendors promptly.
Analysis that the technologies continue to support (and do not preclude) the entity’s PCI DSS compliance.
Documentation of any industry announcements or trends related to a technology, such as when a vendor has announced “end of life” plans for a technology.
Documentation of a plan, approved by senior management, to remediate outdated technologies, including those for which vendors have announced “end of life” plans.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: The entity’s hardware and software technologies are up to date and supported by the vendor. Plans to remove or replace all unsupported system components are reviewed periodically.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement is a best practice until 31 March 2025, after which it will be required and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment.
[Purpose]: Hardware and software technologies are constantly evolving, and organizations need to be aware of changes to the technologies they use, as well as the evolving threats to those technologies to ensure that they can prepare for, and manage, vulnerabilities in hardware and software that will not be remediated by the vendor or developer.
[Good Practice]: Organizations should review firmware versions to ensure they remain current and supported by the vendors. Organizations also need to be aware of changes made by technology vendors to their products or processes to understand how such changes may impact the organization’s use of the technology. Regular reviews of technologies that impact or influence PCI DSS controls can assist with purchasing, usage, and deployment strategies, and ensure controls that rely on those technologies remain effective. These reviews include, but are not limited to, reviewing technologies that are no longer supported by the vendor and/or no longer meet the security needs of the organization.
","uuid":"2482a3e1-7c11-47c3-a6fc-7532c4cc3406","family":"Support Information Security with Organizational Policies and Programs","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"12.3.4 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"12.3.4 Examine documentation for the review of hardware and software technologies in use and interview personnel to verify that the review is in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"12.3.4"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Additional requirement for service providers only: Responsibility is established by executive management for the protection of cardholder data and a PCI DSS compliance program to include:
Overall accountability for maintaining PCI DSS compliance.
Defining a charter for a PCI DSS compliance program and communication to executive management.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Executives are responsible and accountable for security of cardholder data.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement applies only when the entity being assessed is a service provider. Executive management may include C-level positions, board of directors, or equivalent. The specific titles will depend on the particular organizational structure. Responsibility for the PCI DSS compliance program may be assigned to individual roles and/or to business units within the organization.
[Purpose]: Executive management assignment of PCI DSS compliance responsibilities ensures executivelevel visibility into the PCI DSS compliance program and allows for the opportunity to ask appropriate questions to determine the effectiveness of the program and influence strategic priorities.
","uuid":"96c42b18-6ec3-4ba0-9c61-af8f79dd11fd","family":"Support Information Security with Organizational Policies and Programs","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"12.4.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"12.4.1 Additional testing procedure for service provider assessments only: Examine documentation to verify that executive management has established responsibility for the protection of cardholder data and a PCI DSS compliance program in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"12.4.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Additional requirement for service providers only: Reviews are performed at least once every three months to confirm that personnel are performing their tasks in accordance with all security policies and operational procedures. Reviews are performed by personnel other than those responsible for performing the given task and include, but are not limited to, the following tasks:
Daily log reviews. • Configuration reviews for network security controls.
Applying configuration standards to new systems.
Responding to security alerts.
Change-management processes.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: The operational effectiveness of critical PCI DSS controls is verified periodically by manual inspection of records.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement applies only when the entity being assessed is a service provider.
[Purpose]: Regularly confirming that security policies and procedures are being followed provides assurance that the expected controls are active and working as intended. This requirement is distinct from other requirements that specify a task to be performed. The objective of these reviews is not to reperform other PCI DSS requirements, but to confirm that security activities are being performed on an ongoing basis.
[Good Practice]: These reviews can also be used to verify that appropriate evidence is being maintained—for example, audit logs, vulnerability scan reports, reviews of network security control rulesets—to assist in the entity’s preparation for its next PCI DSS assessment.
[Examples]: Looking at Requirement 1.2.7 as one example, Requirement 12.4.2 is met by confirming, at least once every three months, that reviews of configurations of network security controls have occurred at the required frequency. On the other hand, Requirement 1.2.7 is met by reviewing those configurations as specified in the requirement.
","uuid":"f5aa6ef1-5b7d-46f0-9f00-7dc1d9aad27a","family":"Support Information Security with Organizational Policies and Programs","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"12.4.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"12.4.2.a Additional testing procedure for service provider assessments only: Examine policies and procedures to verify that processes are defined for conducting reviews to confirm that personnel are performing their tasks in accordance with all security policies and all operational procedures, including but not limited to the tasks specified in this requirement. 12.4.2.b Additional testing procedure for service provider assessments only: Interview responsible personnel and examine records of reviews to verify that reviews are performed: () At least once every three months. () By personnel other than those responsible for performing the given task.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"12.4.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Additional requirement for service providers only: Reviews conducted in accordance with Requirement 12.4.2 are documented to include:
Results of the reviews.
Documented remediation actions taken for any tasks that were found to not be performed at Requirement 12.4.2.
Review and sign-off of results by personnel assigned responsibility for the PCI DSS compliance program.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Findings from operational effectiveness reviews are evaluated by management; appropriate remediation activities are implemented.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement applies only when the entity being assessed is a service provider.
[Purpose]: The intent of these independent checks is to confirm whether security activities are being performed on an ongoing basis. These reviews can also be used to verify that appropriate evidence is being maintained—for example, audit logs, vulnerability scan reports, reviews of network security control rulesets—to assist in the entity’s preparation for its next PCI DSS assessment.
","uuid":"f81db367-4f3f-4645-adb8-d83990b6fdf8","family":"Support Information Security with Organizational Policies and Programs","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"12.4.2.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"12.4.2.1 Additional testing procedure for service provider assessments only: Examine documentation from the reviews conducted in accordance with PCI DSS Requirement 12.4.2 to verify the documentation includes all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"12.4.2.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: An inventory of system components that are in scope for PCI DSS, including a description of function/use, is maintained and kept current.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: All system components in scope for PCI DSS are identified and known.
[Purpose]: Maintaining a current list of all system components will enable an organization to define the scope of its environment and implement PCI DSS requirements accurately and efficiently. Without an inventory, some system components could be overlooked and be inadvertently excluded from the organization’s configuration standards.
[Good Practice]: If an entity keeps an inventory of all assets, those system components in scope for PCI DSS should be clearly identifiable among the other assets. Inventories should include containers or images that may be instantiated. Assigning an owner to the inventory helps to ensure the inventory stays current.
[Examples]: Methods to maintain an inventory include as a database, as a series of files, or in an inventorymanagement tool.
","uuid":"05577904-2812-4278-9ee2-a8e7e34db9c5","family":"Support Information Security with Organizational Policies and Programs","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"12.5.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"12.5.1.a Examine the inventory to verify it includes all in-scope system components and a description of function/use for each. 12.5.1.b Interview personnel to verify the inventory is kept current.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"12.5.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: PCI DSS scope is documented and confirmed by the entity at least once every 12 months and upon significant change to the in-scope environment. At a minimum, the scoping validation includes:
Identifying all data flows for the various payment stages (for example, authorization, capture settlement, chargebacks, and refunds) and acceptance channels (for example, card-present, card-not-present, and e-commerce).
Updating all data-flow diagrams per Requirement 1.2.4.
Identifying all locations where account data is stored, processed, and transmitted, including but not limited to: 1) any locations outside of the currently defined CDE, 2) applications that process CHD, 3) transmissions between systems and networks, and 4) file backups.
Identifying all system components in the CDE, connected to the CDE, or that could impact security of the CDE.
Identifying all segmentation controls in use and the environment(s) from which the CDE is segmented, including justification for environments being out of scope.
Identifying all connections from third-party entities with access to the CDE.
Confirming that all identified data flows, account data, system components, segmentation controls, and connections from third parties with access to the CDE are included in scope.
[Purpose]: Frequent validation of PCI DSS scope helps to ensure PCI DSS scope remains up to date and aligned with changing business objectives, and therefore that security controls are protecting all appropriate system components.
[Good Practice]: Accurate scoping involves critically evaluating the CDE and all connected system components to determine the necessary coverage for PCI DSS requirements. Scoping activities, including careful analysis and ongoing monitoring, help to ensure that in-scope systems are appropriately secured. When documenting account data locations, the entity can consider creating a table or spreadsheet that includes the following information:
Data stores (databases, files, cloud, etc.), including the purpose of data storage and the retention period,
Which CHD elements are stored (PAN, expiry date, cardholder name, and/or any elements of SAD prior to completion of authorization),
How data is secured (type of encryption and strength, hashing algorithm and strength, truncation, tokenization),
How access to data stores is logged, including a description of logging mechanism(s) in use (enterprise solution, application level, operating system level, etc.).
In addition to internal systems and networks, all connections from third-party entities—for example, business partners, entities providing remote support services, and other service providers—need to be identified to determine inclusion for PCI DSS scope. Once the in-scope connections have been identified, the applicable PCI DSS controls can be implemented to reduce the risk of a third-party connection being used to compromise an entity’s CDE. A data discovery tool or methodology can be used to facilitate identifying all sources and locations of PAN, and to look for PAN that resides on systems and networks outside the currently defined CDE or in unexpected places within the defined CDE— for example, in an error log or memory dump file. This approach can help ensure that previously unknown locations of PAN are detected and that the PAN is either eliminated or properly secured.
[Further Information]: For additional guidance, refer to Information Supplement: Guidance for PCI DSS Scoping and Network Segmentation.
","uuid":"f3411ff0-45dd-4a40-9228-d997c40f6378","family":"Support Information Security with Organizational Policies and Programs","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"12.5.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"12.5.2.a Examine documented results of scope reviews and interview personnel to verify that the reviews are performed: () At least once every 12 months. () After significant changes to the in-scope environment. 12.5.2.b Examine documented results of scope reviews performed by the entity to verify that PCI DSS scoping confirmation activity includes all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"12.5.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Additional requirement for service providers only: PCI DSS scope is documented and confirmed by the entity at least once every six months and upon significant change to the in-scope environment. At a minimum, the scoping validation includes all the elements specified in Requirement 12.5.2.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: The accuracy of PCI DSS scope is verified to be continuously accurate by comprehensive analysis and appropriate technical measures.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement applies only when the entity being assessed is a service provider. This requirement is a best practice until 31 March 2025, after which it will be required and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment.
[Purpose]: Service providers typically have access to greater volumes of cardholder data than do merchants, or can provide an entry point that can be exploited to then compromise multiple other entities. Service providers also typically have larger and more complex networks that are subject to more frequent change. The probability of overlooked changes to scope in complex and dynamic networks is greater in service providers’ environments. Validating PCI DSS scope more frequently is likely to discover such overlooked changes before they can be exploited by an attacker.
","uuid":"3d15092a-ebbc-4d01-a240-9891f1b27140","family":"Support Information Security with Organizational Policies and Programs","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"12.5.2.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"12.5.2.1.a Additional testing procedure for service provider assessments only: Examine documented results of scope reviews and interview personnel to verify that reviews per Requirement 12.5.2 are performed: () At least once every six months, and () After significant changes 12.5.2.1.b Additional testing procedure for service provider assessments only: Examine documented results of scope reviews to verify that scoping validation includes all elements specified in Requirement 12.5.2.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"12.5.2.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Additional requirement for service providers only: Significant changes to organizational structure result in a documented (internal) review of the impact to PCI DSS scope and applicability of controls, with results communicated to executive management.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: PCI DSS scope is confirmed after significant organizational change.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement applies only when the entity being assessed is a service provider. This requirement is a best practice until 31 March 2025, after which it will be required and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment.
[Purpose]: An organization’s structure and management define the requirements and protocol for effective and secure operations. Changes to this structure could have negative effects to existing controls and frameworks by reallocating or removing resources that once supported PCI DSS controls or inheriting new responsibilities that may not have established controls in place. Therefore, it is important to revisit PCI DSS scope and controls when there are changes to an organization’s structure and management to ensure controls are in place and active.
[Examples]: Changes to organizational structure include, but are not limited to, company mergers or acquisitions, and significant changes or reassignments of personnel with responsibility for security controls.
","uuid":"36979105-4a03-4f0d-8acc-e85c0d21ccb3","family":"Support Information Security with Organizational Policies and Programs","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"12.5.3 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"12.5.3.a Additional testing procedure for service provider assessments only: Examine policies and procedures to verify that processes are defined such that a significant change to organizational structure results in documented review of the impact to PCI DSS scope and applicability of controls. 12.5.3.b Additional testing procedure for service provider assessments only: Examine documentation (for example, meeting minutes) and interview responsible personnel to verify that significant changes to organizational structure resulted in documented reviews that included all elements specified in this requirement, with results communicated to executive management.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"12.5.3"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: A formal security awareness program is implemented to make all personnel aware of the entity’s information security policy and procedures, and their role in protecting the cardholder data.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Personnel are knowledgeable about the threat landscape, their responsibility for the operation of relevant security controls, and are able to access assistance and guidance when required.
[Purpose]: If personnel are not educated about their company’s information security policies and procedures and their own security responsibilities, security safeguards and processes that have been implemented may become ineffective through unintentional errors or intentional actions.
","uuid":"5d289b7c-5258-4679-8a5a-f01ed8f3d135","family":"Support Information Security with Organizational Policies and Programs","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"12.6.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"12.6.1 Examine the security awareness program to verify it provides awareness to all personnel about the entity’s information security policy and procedures, and personnel’s role in protecting the cardholder data.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"12.6.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: The security awareness program is:
Reviewed at least once every 12 months, and
Updated as needed to address any new threats and vulnerabilities that may impact the security of the entity’s CDE, or the information provided to personnel about their role in protecting cardholder data.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: The content of security awareness material is reviewed and updated periodically.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement is a best practice until 31 March 2025, after which it will be required and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment.
[Purpose]: The threat environment and an entity’s defenses are not static. As such, the security awareness program materials must be updated as frequently as needed to ensure that the education received by personnel is up to date and represents the current threat environment.
","uuid":"ef51e56f-8b69-475e-aacd-c3176ef6b445","family":"Support Information Security with Organizational Policies and Programs","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"12.6.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"12.6.2 Examine security awareness program content, evidence of reviews, and interview personnel to verify that the security awareness program is in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"12.6.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Personnel receive security awareness training as follows:
Upon hire and at least once every 12 months.
Multiple methods of communication are used.
Personnel acknowledge at least once every 12 months that they have read and understood the information security policy and procedures.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Personnel remain knowledgeable about the threat landscape, their responsibility for the operation of relevant security controls, and are able to access assistance and guidance when required.
[Purpose]: Training of personnel ensures they receive the information about the importance of information security and that they understand their role in protecting the organization. Requiring an acknowledgment by personnel helps ensure that they have read and understood the security policies and procedures, and that they have made and will continue to make a commitment to comply with these policies.
[Good Practice]: Entities may incorporate new-hire training as part of the Human Resources onboarding process. Training should outline the security-related “dos” and “don’ts.” Periodic refresher training reinforces key security processes and procedures that may be forgotten or bypassed. Entities should consider requiring security awareness training anytime personnel transfer into roles where they can impact the security of account data from roles where they did not have this impact. Methods and training content can vary, depending on personnel roles.
[Examples]: Different methods that can be used to provide security awareness and education include posters, letters, web-based training, in-person training, team meetings, and incentives. Personnel acknowledgments may be recorded in writing or electronically.
","uuid":"5c6cd8ef-cbc8-4603-af10-51735ee0aa89","family":"Support Information Security with Organizational Policies and Programs","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"12.6.3 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"12.6.3.a Examine security awareness program records to verify that personnel attend security awareness training upon hire and at least once every 12 months. 12.6.3.b Examine security awareness program materials to verify the program includes multiple methods of communicating awareness and educating personnel. 12.6.3.c Interview personnel to verify they have completed awareness training and are aware of their role in protecting cardholder data. 12.6.3.d Examine security awareness program materials and personnel acknowledgments to verify that personnel acknowledge at least once every 12 months that they have read and understand the information security policy and procedures.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"12.6.3"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Security awareness training includes awareness of threats and vulnerabilities that could impact the security of the CDE, including but not limited to:
Phishing and related attacks.
Social engineering
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Personnel are knowledgeable about their own human vulnerabilities and how threat actors will attempt to exploit such vulnerabilities. Personnel are able to access assistance and guidance when required.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: See Requirement 5.4.1 for guidance on the difference between technical and automated controls to detect and protect users from phishing attacks, and this requirement for providing users security awareness training about phishing and social engineering. These are two separate and distinct requirements, and one is not met by implementing controls required by the other one. This requirement is a best practice until 31 March 2025, after which it will be required and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment.
[Purpose]: Educating personnel on how to detect, react to, and report potential phishing and related attacks and social engineering attempts is essential to minimizing the probability of successful attacks.
[Good Practice]: An effective security awareness program should include examples of phishing emails and periodic testing to determine the prevalence of personnel reporting such attacks. Training material an entity can consider for this topic include:
How to identify phishing and other social engineering attacks.
How to react to suspected phishing and social engineering.
Where and how to report suspected phishing and social engineering activity.
An emphasis on reporting allows the organization to reward positive behavior, to optimize technical defenses (see Requirement 5.4.1), and to take immediate action to remove similar phishing emails that evaded technical defenses from recipient inboxes.
","uuid":"e5474321-d02e-49e0-9fe5-f490c59f231f","family":"Support Information Security with Organizational Policies and Programs","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"12.6.3.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"12.6.3.1 Examine security awareness training content to verify it includes all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"12.6.3.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Security awareness training includes awareness about the acceptable use of end-user technologies in accordance with Requirement 12.2.1.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Personnel are knowledgeable about their responsibility for the security and operation of enduser technologies and are able to access assistance and guidance when required.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement is a best practice until 31 March 2025, after which it will be required and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment.
[Purpose]: By including the key points of the acceptable use policy in regular training and the related context, personnel will understand their responsibilities and how these impact the security of an organization’s systems.
","uuid":"94ad6570-bfd6-4a50-9f69-79be5f78dcf1","family":"Support Information Security with Organizational Policies and Programs","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"12.6.3.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"12.6.3.2 Examine security awareness training content to verify it includes awareness about acceptable use of end-user technologies in accordance with Requirement 12.2.1.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"12.6.3.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Potential personnel who will have access to the CDE are screened, within the constraints of local laws, prior to hire to minimize the risk of attacks from internal sources.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: The risk related to allowing new members of staff access to the CDE is understood and managed.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: For those potential personnel to be hired for positions such as store cashiers, who only have access to one card number at a time when facilitating a transaction, this requirement is a recommendation only.
[Purpose]: Performing thorough screening prior to hiring potential personnel who are expected to be given access to the CDE provides entities with the information necessary to make informed risk decisions regarding personnel they hire that will have access to the CDE. Other benefits of screening potential personnel include helping to ensure workplace safety and confirming information provided by prospective employees on their resumes.
[Good Practice]: Entities should consider screening for existing personnel anytime they transfer into roles where they have access to the CDE from roles where they did not have this access. To be effective, the level of screening should be appropriate for the position. For example, positions requiring greater responsibility or that have administrative access to critical data or systems may warrant more detailed or more frequent screening than positions with less responsibility and access.
[Examples]: Screening options can include, as appropriate for the entity’s region, previous employment history, review of public information/social media resources, criminal record, credit history, and reference checks.
","uuid":"99bd1354-c5f7-4cc9-9acb-1febc43a381a","family":"Support Information Security with Organizational Policies and Programs","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"12.7.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"12.7.1 Interview responsible Human Resource department management to verify that screening is conducted, within the constraints of local laws, prior to hiring potential personnel who will have access to the CDE.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"12.7.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: A list of all third-party service providers (TPSPs) with which account data is shared or that could affect the security of account data is maintained, including a description for each of the services provided.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Records are maintained of TPSPs and the services provided.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: The use of a PCI DSS compliant TPSP does not make an entity PCI DSS compliant, nor does it remove the entity’s responsibility for its own PCI DSS compliance.
[Purpose]: Maintaining a list of all TPSPs identifies where potential risk extends outside the organization and defines the organization’s extended attack surface.
[Examples]: Different types of TPSPs include those that:
Store, process, or transmit account data on the entity’s behalf (such as payment gateways, payment processors, payment service providers (PSPs), and off-site storage providers).
Manage system components included in the entity’s PCI DSS assessment (such as providers of network security control services, anti-malware services, and security incident and event management (SIEM); contact and call centers; web-hosting companies; and IaaS, PaaS, SaaS, and FaaS cloud providers).
Could impact the security of the entity’s CDE (such as vendors providing support via remote access, and bespoke software developers).
Defined Approach Requirements: Written agreements with TPSPs are maintained as follows:
Written agreements are maintained with all TPSPs with which account data is shared or that could affect the security of the CDE.
Written agreements include acknowledgments from TPSPs that they are responsible for the security of account data the TPSPs possess or otherwise store, process, or transmit on behalf of the entity, or to the extent that they could impact the security of the entity’s CDE.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Records are maintained of each TPSP’s acknowledgment of its responsibility to protect account data.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: The exact wording of an acknowledgment will depend on the agreement between the two parties, the details of the service being provided, and the responsibilities assigned to each party. The acknowledgment does not have to include the exact wording provided in this requirement. Evidence that a TPSP is meeting PCI DSS requirements (for example, a PCI DSS Attestation of Compliance (AOC) or a declaration on a company’s website) is not the same as a written agreement specified in this requirement.
[Purpose]: The written acknowledgment from a TPSP demonstrates its commitment to maintaining proper security of account data that it obtains from its customers and that the TPSP is fully aware of the assets that could be affected during the provisioning of the TPSP’s service. The extent to which a specific TPSP is responsible for the security of account data will depend on the service provided and the agreement between the provider and assessed entity (the customer). In conjunction with Requirement 12.9.1, this requirement is intended to promote a consistent level of understanding between parties about their applicable PCI DSS responsibilities. For example, the agreement may include the applicable PCI DSS requirements to be maintained as part of the provided service.
[Good Practice]: The entity may also want to consider including in their written agreement with a TPSP that the TPSP will support the entity’s request for information per Requirement 12.9.2. Entities will also want to understand whether any TPSPs have “nested” relationships with other TPSPs, meaning the primary TPSP contracts with another TPSP(s) for the purposes of providing a service. It is important to understand whether the primary TPSP is relying on the secondary TPSP(s) to achieve overall compliance of a service, and what types of written agreements the primary TPSP has in place with the secondary TPSPs. Entities can consider including coverage in their written agreement for any “nested” TPSPs a primary TPSP may use.
[Further Information]: Refer to the “Information Supplement: Third-Party Security Assurance for further guidance.
","uuid":"dcaf0f1a-7244-4b96-9100-db412cfe4e2a","family":"Support Information Security with Organizational Policies and Programs","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"12.8.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"12.8.2.a Examine policies and procedures to verify that processes are defined to maintain written agreements with all TPSPs in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement. 12.8.2.b Examine written agreements with TPSPs to verify they are maintained in accordance with all elements as specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"12.8.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: An established process is implemented for engaging TPSPs, including proper due diligence prior to engagement.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: The capability, intent, and resources of a prospective TPSP to adequately protect account data are assessed before the TPSP is engaged.
[Purpose]: A thorough process for engaging TPSPs, including details for selection and vetting prior to engagement, helps ensure that a TPSP is thoroughly vetted internally by an entity prior to establishing a formal relationship and that the risk to cardholder data associated with the engagement of the TPSP is understood.
[Good Practice]: Specific due-diligence processes and goals will vary for each organization. Elements that should be considered include the provider’s reporting practices, breach-notification and incident response procedures, details of how PCI DSS responsibilities are assigned between each party, how the TPSP validates their PCI DSS compliance and what evidence they provide.
","uuid":"36eb4338-4da5-4227-be2b-1e7d2502f9e7","family":"Support Information Security with Organizational Policies and Programs","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"12.8.3 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"12.8.3.a Examine policies and procedures to verify that processes are defined for engaging TPSPs, including proper due diligence prior to engagement. 12.8.3.b Examine evidence and interview responsible personnel to verify the process for engaging TPSPs includes proper due diligence prior to engagement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"12.8.3"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: A program is implemented to monitor TPSPs’ PCI DSS compliance status at least once every 12 months
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: The PCI DSS compliance status of TPSPs is verified periodically.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: Where an entity has an agreement with a TPSP for meeting PCI DSS requirements on behalf of the entity (for example, via a firewall service), the entity must work with the TPSP to make sure the applicable PCI DSS requirements are met. If the TPSP does not meet those applicable PCI DSS requirements, then those requirements are also “not in place” for the entity.
[Purpose]: Knowing the PCI DSS compliance status of all engaged TPSPs provides assurance and awareness about whether they comply with the requirements applicable to the services they offer to the organization.
[Good Practice]: If the TPSP offers a variety of services, the compliance status the entity monitors should be specific to those services delivered to the entity and those services in scope for the entity’s PCI DSS assessment. If a TPSP has a PCI DSS Attestation of Compliance (AOC), the expectation is that the TPSP should provide that to customers upon request to demonstrate their PCI DSS compliance status. If the TPSP did not undergo a PCI DSS assessment, it may be able to provide other sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it has met the applicable requirements without undergoing a formal compliance validation. For example, the TPSP can provide specific evidence to the entity’s assessor so the assessor can confirm applicable requirements are met. Alternatively, the TPSP can elect to undergo multiple on-demand assessments by each of its customers’ assessors, with each assessment targeted to confirm that applicable requirements are met.
[Further Information]: For more information about third-party service providers, refer to:
PCI DSS section: Use of Third-Party Service Providers.
Information Supplement: Third-Party Security Assurance.
Defined Approach Requirements: Information is maintained about which PCI DSS requirements are managed by each TPSP, which are managed by the entity, and any that are shared between the TPSP and the entity.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Records detailing the PCI DSS requirements and related system components for which each TPSP is solely or jointly responsible, are maintained and reviewed periodically.
[Purpose]: It is important that the entity understands which PCI DSS requirements and sub-requirements its TPSPs have agreed to meet, which requirements are shared between the TPSP and the entity, and for those that are shared, specifics about how the requirements are shared and which entity is responsible for meeting each sub-requirement. Without this shared understanding, it is inevitable that the entity and the TPSP will assume a given PCI DSS sub-requirement is the responsibility of the other party, and therefore that subrequirement may not be addressed at all. The specific information an entity maintains will depend on the particular agreement with their providers, the type of service, etc. TPSPs may define their PCI DSS responsibilities to be the same for all their customers; otherwise, this responsibility should be agreed upon by both the entity and TPSP.
[Good Practice]: Entities can document these responsibilities via a matrix that identifies all applicable PCI DSS requirements and indicates for each requirement whether the entity or TPSP is responsible for meeting that requirement or whether it is a shared responsibility. This type of document is often referred to as a responsibility matrix. It is also important for entities to understand whether any TPSPs have “nested” relationships with other TPSPs, meaning the primary TPSP contracts with another TPSP(s) for the purposes of providing a service. It is important to understand whether the primary TPSP is relying on the secondary TPSP(s) to achieve overall compliance of a service, and how the primary TPSP is monitoring performance of the service and the PCI DSS compliance status of the secondary TPSP(s). Note that it is the responsibility of the primary TPSP to manage and monitor any secondary TPSPs.
[Further Information]: Refer to Information Supplement: Third-Party Security Assurance for a sample responsibility matrix template.
","uuid":"29ac1e3d-0c30-4f3d-9faa-7711380087a1","family":"Support Information Security with Organizational Policies and Programs","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"12.8.5 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"12.8.5.a Examine policies and procedures to verify that processes are defined to maintain information about which PCI DSS requirements are managed by each TPSP, which are managed by the entity, and any that are shared between both the TPSP and the entity. 12.8.5.b Examine documentation and interview personnel to verify the entity maintains information about which PCI DSS requirements are managed by each TPSP, which are managed by the entity, and any that are shared between both entities.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"12.8.5"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Additional requirement for service providers only: TPSPs acknowledge in writing to customers that they are responsible for the security of account data the TPSP possesses or otherwise stores, processes, or transmits on behalf of the customer, or to the extent that they could impact the security of the customer’s CDE.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: TPSPs formally acknowledge their security responsibilities to their customers.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement applies only when the entity being assessed is a service provider. The exact wording of an acknowledgment will depend on the agreement between the two parties, the details of the service being provided, and the responsibilities assigned to each party. The acknowledgment does not have to include the exact wording provided in this requirement.
[Purpose]: In conjunction with Requirement 12.8.2, this requirement is intended to promote a consistent level of understanding between TPSPs and their customers about their applicable PCI DSS responsibilities. The acknowledgment of the TPSPs evidences their commitment to maintaining proper security of account data that it obtains from its clients. The method by which the TPSP provides written acknowledgment should be agreed between the provider and its customers.
","uuid":"247f2d2e-da09-4470-8d96-5a46bacf2db2","family":"Support Information Security with Organizational Policies and Programs","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"12.9.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"12.9.1 Additional testing procedure for service provider assessments only: Examine TPSP policies, procedures, and templates used for written agreements to verify processes are defined for the TPSP to provide written acknowledgments to customers in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"12.9.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Additional requirement for service providers only: TPSPs support their customers’ requests for information to meet Requirements 12.8.4 and 12.8.5 by providing the following upon customer request:
PCI DSS compliance status information for any service the TPSP performs on behalf of customers (Requirement 12.8.4).
Information about which PCI DSS requirements are the responsibility of the TPSP and which are the responsibility of the customer, including any shared responsibilities (Requirement 12.8.5).
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: TPSPs provide information as needed to support their customers’ PCI DSS compliance efforts.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement applies only when the entity being assessed is a service provider.
[Purpose]: If a TPSP does not provide the necessary information to enable its customers to meet their security and compliance requirements, the customers will not be able to protect cardholder data nor meet their own contractual obligations.
[Good Practice]: If a TPSP has a PCI DSS Attestation of Compliance (AOC), the expectation is that the TPSP should provide that to customers upon request to demonstrate their PCI DSS compliance status. If the TPSP did not undergo a PCI DSS assessment, they may be able to provide other sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it has met the applicable requirements without undergoing a formal compliance validation. For example, the TPSP can provide specific evidence to the entity’s assessor so the assessor can confirm applicable requirements are met. Alternatively, the TPSP can elect to undergo multiple on-demand assessments by each of its customers’ assessors, with each assessment targeted to confirm that applicable requirements are met. TPSPs should provide sufficient evidence to their customers to verify that the scope of the TPSP’s PCI DSS assessment covered the services applicable to the customer and that the relevant PCI DSS requirements were examined and determined to be in place. TPSPs may define their PCI DSS responsibilities to be the same for all their customers; otherwise, this responsibility should be agreed upon by both the customer and TPSP. It is important that the customer understands which PCI DSS requirements and sub-requirements its TPSPs have agreed to meet, which requirements are shared between the TPSP and the customer, and for those that are shared, specifics about how the requirements are shared and which entity is responsible for meeting each sub-requirement. An example of a way to document these responsibilities is via a matrix that identifies all applicable PCI DSS requirements and indicates whether the customer or TPSP is responsible for meeting that requirement or whether it is a shared responsibility.
[Further Information]: For further guidance, refer to:
PCI DSS section: Use of Third-Party Service Providers.
Information Supplement: Third-Party Security Assurance (includes a sample responsibility matrix template).
Defined Approach Requirements: An incident response plan exists and is ready to be activated in the event of a suspected or confirmed security incident. The plan includes, but is not limited to:
Roles, responsibilities, and communication and contact strategies in the event of a suspected or confirmed security incident, including notification of payment brands and acquirers, at a minimum.
Incident response procedures with specific containment and mitigation activities for different types of incidents.
Business recovery and continuity procedures.
Data backup processes.
Analysis of legal requirements for reporting compromises.
Coverage and responses of all critical system components.
Reference or inclusion of incident response procedures from the payment brands
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: A comprehensive incident response plan that meets card brand expectations is maintained.
[Purpose]: Without a comprehensive incident response plan that is properly disseminated, read, and understood by the parties responsible, confusion and lack of a unified response could create further downtime for the business, unnecessary public media exposure, as well as risk of financial and/or reputational loss and legal liabilities.
[Good Practice]: The incident response plan should be thorough and contain all the key elements for stakeholders (for example, legal, communications) to allow the entity to respond effectively in the event of a breach that could impact account data. It is important to keep the plan up to date with current contact information of all individuals designated as having a role in incident response. Other relevant parties for notifications may include customers, financial institutions (acquirers and issuers), and business partners. Entities should consider how to address all compromises of data within the CDE in their incident response plans, including to account data, wireless encryption keys, encryption keys used for transmission and storage or account data or cardholder data, etc.
[Examples]: Legal requirements for reporting compromises include those in most US states, the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and the Personal Data Protection Act (Singapore).
[Further Information]: For more information, refer to the NIST SP 80061 Rev. 2, Computer Security Incident Handling Guide.
","uuid":"3e4850bf-0dcb-47fb-941d-38c6c7246a48","family":"Support Information Security with Organizational Policies and Programs","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"12.10.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"12.10.1.a Examine the incident response plan to verify that the plan exists and includes at least the elements specified in this requirement. 12.10.1.b Interview personnel and examine documentation from previously reported incidents or alerts to verify that the documented incident response plan and procedures were followed.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"12.10.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: At least once every 12 months, the security incident response plan is:
Reviewed and the content is updated as needed.
Tested, including all elements listed in Requirement 12.10.1.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: The incident response plan is kept current and tested periodically.
[Purpose]: Proper testing of the security incident response plan can identify broken business processes and ensure key steps are not missed, which could result in increased exposure during an incident. Periodic testing of the plan ensures that the processes remain viable, as well as ensuring that all relevant personnel in the organization are familiar with the plan.
[Good Practice]: The test of the incident response plan can include simulated incidents and the corresponding responses in the form of a “table-top exercise”, that include participation by relevant personnel. A review of the incident and the quality of the response can provide entities with the assurance that all required elements are included in the plan.
","uuid":"0372963a-d3de-493e-8690-429264f32948","family":"Support Information Security with Organizational Policies and Programs","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"12.10.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"12.10.2 Interview personnel and review documentation to verify that, at least once every 12 months, the security incident response plan is: () Reviewed and updated as needed. () Tested, including all elements listed in Requirement 12.10.1.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"12.10.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Specific personnel are designated to be available on a 24/7 basis to respond to suspected or confirmed security incidents.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Incidents are responded to immediately where appropriate.
[Purpose]: An incident could occur at any time, therefore if a person who is trained in incident response and familiar with the entity’s plan is available when an incident is detected, the entity’s ability to correctly respond to the incident is increased.
[Good Practice]: Often, specific personnel are designated to be part of a security incident response team, with the team having overall responsibility for responding to incidents (perhaps on a rotating schedule basis) and managing those incidents in accordance with the plan. The incident response team can consist of core members who are permanently assigned or “on-demand” personnel who may be called up as necessary, depending on their expertise and the specifics of the incident. Having available resources to respond quickly to incidents minimizes disruption to the organization. Examples of types of activity the team or individuals should respond to include any evidence of unauthorized activity, detection of unauthorized wireless access points, critical IDS alerts, and reports of unauthorized critical system or content file changes.
","uuid":"de75330f-0a38-4a43-a119-7961783ab392","family":"Support Information Security with Organizational Policies and Programs","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"12.10.3 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"12.10.3 Examine documentation and interview responsible personnel occupying designated roles to verify that specific personnel are designated to be available on a 24/7 basis to respond to security incidents.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"12.10.3"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Personnel responsible for responding to suspected and confirmed security incidents are appropriately and periodically trained on their incident response responsibilities.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Personnel are knowledgeable about their role and responsibilities in incident response and are able to access assistance and guidance when required.
[Purpose]: Without a trained and readily available incident response team, extended damage to the network could occur, and critical data and systems may become “polluted” by inappropriate handling of the targeted systems. This can hinder the success of a post-incident investigation.
[Good Practice]: It is important that all personnel involved in incident response are trained and knowledgeable about managing evidence for forensics and investigations.
","uuid":"26bedabf-c56e-49a1-abbd-413e92013e94","family":"Support Information Security with Organizational Policies and Programs","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"12.10.4 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"12.10.4 Examine training documentation and interview incident response personnel to verify that personnel are appropriately and periodically trained on their incident response responsibilities.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"12.10.4"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: The frequency of periodic training for incident response personnel is defined in the entity’s targeted risk analysis, which is performed according to all elements specified in Requirement 12.3.1.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Incident response personnel are trained at a frequency that addresses the entity’s risk.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement is a best practice until 31 March 2025, after which it will be required and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment.
[Purpose]: Each entity’s environment and incident response plan are different and the approach will depend on a number of factors, including the size and complexity of the entity, the degree of change in the environment, the size of the incident response team, and the turnover in personnel. Performing a risk analysis will allow the entity to determine the optimum frequency for training personnel with incident response responsibilities.
","uuid":"d15db331-dcf5-4c67-a161-2242174597ab","family":"Support Information Security with Organizational Policies and Programs","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"12.10.4.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"12.10.4.1.a Examine the entity’s targeted risk analysis for the frequency of training for incident response personnel to verify the risk analysis was performed in accordance with all elements specified in Requirement 12.3.1. 12.10.4.1.b Examine documented results of periodic training of incident response personnel and interview personnel to verify training is performed at the frequency defined in the entity’s targeted risk analysis performed for this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"12.10.4.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: The security incident response plan includes monitoring and responding to alerts from security monitoring systems, including but not limited to:
Intrusion-detection and intrusion-prevention systems.
Network security controls.
Change-detection mechanisms for critical files.
The change-and tamper-detection mechanism for payment pages. This bullet is a best practice until its effective date; refer to Applicability Notes below for details.
Detection of unauthorized wireless access points.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Alerts generated by monitoring and detection technologies are responded to in a structured, repeatable manner.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: The bullet above (for monitoring and responding to alerts from a change- and tamper-detection mechanism for payment pages) is a best practice until 31 March 2025, after which it will be required as part of Requirement 12.10.5 and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment.
[Purpose]: Responding to alerts generated by security monitoring systems that are explicitly designed to focus on potential risk to data is critical to prevent a breach and therefore, this must be included in the incident-response processes.
","uuid":"6c7157f7-78f3-4cae-8f2e-6025ec403e79","family":"Support Information Security with Organizational Policies and Programs","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"12.10.5 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"12.10.5 Examine documentation and observe incident response processes to verify that monitoring and responding to alerts from security monitoring systems are covered in the security incident response plan, including but not limited to the systems specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"12.10.5"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: The security incident response plan is modified and evolved according to lessons learned and to incorporate industry developments.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: The effectiveness and accuracy of the incident response plan is reviewed and updated after each invocation.
[Purpose]: Incorporating lessons learned into the incident response plan after an incident occurs and in-step with industry developments, helps keep the plan current and able to react to emerging threats and security trends.
[Good Practice]: The lessons-learned exercise should include all levels of personnel. Although it is often included as part of the review of the entire incident, it should focus on how the entity’s response to the incident could be improved. It is important to not just consider elements of the response that did not have the planned outcomes but also to understand what worked well and whether lessons from those elements that worked well can be applied areas of the plan that didn’t. Another way to optimize an entity’s incident response plan is to understand the attacks made against other organizations and use that information to fine-tune the entity’s detection, containment, mitigation, or recovery procedures.
","uuid":"4bc3e7ea-8d05-49ec-b66d-bf292324ef18","family":"Support Information Security with Organizational Policies and Programs","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"12.10.6 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"12.10.6.a Examine policies and procedures to verify that processes are defined to modify and evolve the security incident response plan according to lessons learned and to incorporate industry developments. 12.10.6.b Examine the security incident response plan and interview responsible personnel to verify that the incident response plan is modified and evolved according to lessons learned and to incorporate industry developments.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"12.10.6"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Incident response procedures are in place, to be initiated upon the detection of stored PAN anywhere it is not expected, and include:
Determining what to do if PAN is discovered outside the CDE, including its retrieval, secure deletion, and/or migration into the currently defined CDE, as applicable.
Identifying whether sensitive authentication data is stored with PAN.
Determining where the account data came from and how it ended up where it was not expected.
Remediating data leaks or process gaps that resulted in the account data being where it was not expected.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Processes are in place to quickly respond, analyze, and address situations in the event that cleartext PAN is detected where it is not expected.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement is a best practice until 31 March 2025, after which it will be required and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment.
[Purpose]: Having documented incident response procedures that are followed in the event that stored PAN is found anywhere it is not expected to be, helps to identify the necessary remediation actions and prevent future leaks.
[Good Practice]: If PAN was found outside the CDE, analysis should be performed to 1) determine whether it was saved independently of other data or with sensitive authentication data, 2) identify the source of the data, and 3) identify the control gaps that resulted in the data being outside the CDE. Entities should consider whether there are contributory factors, such as business processes, user behavior, improper system configurations, etc. that caused the PAN to be stored in an unexpected location. If such contributory factors are present, they should be addressed per this Requirement to prevent recurrence.
","uuid":"a30d92c6-41ed-48d0-89b7-dcda9ce79f47","family":"Support Information Security with Organizational Policies and Programs","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"12.10.7 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"12.10.7.a Examine documented incident response procedures to verify that procedures for responding to the detection of stored PAN anywhere it is not expected to exist, ready to be initiated, and include all elements specified in this requirement. 12.10.7.b Interview personnel and examine records of response actions to verify that incident response procedures are performed upon detection of stored PAN anywhere it is not expected.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"12.10.7"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Logical separation is implemented as follows:
The provider cannot access its customers’ environments without authorization.
Customers cannot access the provider’s environment without authorization.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Customers cannot access the provider’s environment. The provider cannot access its customers’ environments without authorization. [APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement is a best practice until 31 March 2025, after which it will be required and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment.
[Purpose]: Without controls between the provider’s environment and the customer’s environment, a malicious actor within the provider’s environment could compromise the customer’s environment, and similarly, a malicious actor in a customer environment could compromise the provider and potentially other of the provider’s customers. Multi-tenant environments should be isolated from each other and from the provider’s infrastructure such that they can be separately managed entities with no connectivity between them.
[Good Practice]: Providers should ensure strong separation between the environments that are designed for customer access, for example, configuration and billing portals, and the provider’s private environment that should only be accessed by authorized provider personnel. Service provider access to customer environments is performed in accordance with requirement 8.2.3.
[Further Information]: Refer to the Information Supplement: PCI SSC Cloud Computing Guidelines for further guidance on cloud environments.
","uuid":"c06daa8f-c23c-4940-a1a7-d29279d58358","family":"Additional PCI Requirements for Multi-Tenant Service Providers","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"A1.1.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"A1.1.1 Examine documentation and system and network configurations and interview personnel to verify that logical separation is implemented in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"A1.1.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Controls are implemented such that each customer only has permission to access its own cardholder data and CDE.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Customers cannot access other customers’ environments.
[Purpose]: It is important that a multi-tenant service provider define controls so that each customer can only access their own environment and CDE to prevent unauthorized access from one customer’s environment to another.
[Examples]: In a cloud-based infrastructure, such as an infrastructure as a service (IaaS) offering, the customers’ CDE may include virtual network devices and virtual servers that are configured and managed by the customers, including operating systems, files, memory, etc.
","uuid":"cd447792-d346-4e1a-9dde-59f6342bd7e3","family":"Additional PCI Requirements for Multi-Tenant Service Providers","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"A1.1.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"A1.1.2.a Examine documentation to verify controls are defined such that each customer only has permission to access its own cardholder data and CDE. A1.1.2.b Examine system configurations to verify that customers have privileges established to only access their own account data and CDE.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"A1.1.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Controls are implemented such that each customer can only access resources allocated to them.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Customers cannot impact resources allocated to other customers.
[Purpose]: To prevent any inadvertent or intentional impact to other customers’ environments or account data, it is important that each customer can access only resources allocated to that customer.
","uuid":"b5a55643-f25d-42ca-bae7-48920130f15b","family":"Additional PCI Requirements for Multi-Tenant Service Providers","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"A1.1.3 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"A1.1.3 Examine customer privileges to verify each customer can only access resources allocated to them.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"A1.1.3"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: The effectiveness of logical separation controls used to separate customer environments is confirmed at least once every six months via penetration testing.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Segmentation of customer environments from other environments is periodically validated to be effective.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: The testing of adequate separation between customers in a multi-tenant service provider environment is in addition to the penetration tests specified in Requirement 11.4.6. This requirement is a best practice until 31 March 2025, after which it will be required and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment.
[Purpose]: Multi-tenant services providers are responsible for managing the segmentation between their customers. Without technical assurance that segmentation controls are effective, it is possible that changes to the service provider’s technology would inadvertently create a vulnerability that could be exploited across all the service provider’s customers.
[Good Practice]: Effectiveness of separation techniques can be confirmed by using service-provider-created temporary (mock-up) environments that represent customer environments and attempting to 1) access one temporary environment from another environment, and 2) access a temporary environment from the Internet.
","uuid":"8ee6d1c7-14e6-4323-aa1d-0f099fe0a4ea","family":"Additional PCI Requirements for Multi-Tenant Service Providers","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"A1.1.4 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"A1.1.4 Examine the results from the most recent penetration test to verify that testing confirmed the effectiveness of logical separation controls used to separate customer environments.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"A1.1.4"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Audit log capability is enabled for each customer’s environment that is consistent with PCI DSS Requirement 10, including:
Logs are enabled for common third-party applications.
Logs are active by default.
Logs are available for review only by the owning customer.
Log locations are clearly communicated to the owning customer.
Log data and availability is consistent with PCI DSS Requirement 10.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Log capability is available to all customers without affecting the confidentiality of other customers.
[Purpose]: Log information is useful for detecting and troubleshooting security incidents and is invaluable for forensic investigations. Customers therefore need to have access to these logs. However, log information can also be used by an attacker for reconnaissance, and so a customer’s log information must only be accessible by the customer that the log relates to.
","uuid":"37e864fa-8f1b-40bc-aa96-0803cbe67107","family":"Additional PCI Requirements for Multi-Tenant Service Providers","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"A1.2.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"A1.2.1 Examine documentation and system configuration settings to verify the provider has enabled audit log capability for each customer environment in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"A1.2.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Processes or mechanisms are implemented to support and/or facilitate prompt forensic investigations in the event of a suspected or confirmed security incident for any customer.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Forensic investigation is readily available to all customers in the event of a suspected or confirmed security incident.
[Purpose]: In the event of a suspected or confirmed breach of confidentiality of cardholder data, a customer’s forensic investigator aims to find the cause of the breach, exclude the attacker from the environment, and ensure all unauthorized access is removed. Prompt and efficient responses to forensic investigators’ requests can significantly reduce the time taken for the investigator to secure the customer’s environment.
","uuid":"6400442b-b2b3-48f8-a50b-ba554ce1d655","family":"Additional PCI Requirements for Multi-Tenant Service Providers","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"A1.2.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"A1.2.2 Examine documented procedures to verify that the provider has processes or mechanisms to support and/or facilitate a prompt forensic investigation of related servers in the event of a suspected or confirmed security incident for any customer.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"A1.2.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Processes or mechanisms are implemented for reporting and addressing suspected or confirmed security incidents and vulnerabilities, including:
Customers can securely report security incidents and vulnerabilities to the provider.
The provider addresses and remediates suspected or confirmed security incidents and vulnerabilities according to Requirement 6.3.1.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: Suspected or confirmed security incidents or vulnerabilities are discovered and addressed. Customers are informed where appropriate.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement is a best practice until 31 March 2025, after which it will be required and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment. Requirements in this Appendix are not eligible for the Customized Approach.
[Purpose]: Security vulnerabilities in the provided services can impact the security of all the service provider’s customers and therefore must be managed in accordance with the service provider’s established processes, with priority given to resolving vulnerabilities that have the highest probability of compromise. Customers are likely to notice vulnerabilities and security misconfigurations while using the service. Implementing secure methods for customers to report security incidents and vulnerabilities encourages customers to report potential issues and enable the provider to quickly learn about and address potential issues within their environment.
","uuid":"22eb1f8e-c7f8-40f9-bd89-e0852c0d7646","family":"Additional PCI Requirements for Multi-Tenant Service Providers","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"A1.2.3 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"A1.2.3 Examine documented procedures and interview personnel to verify that the provider has a mechanism for reporting and addressing suspected or confirmed security incidents and vulnerabilities, in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"A1.2.3"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Where POS POI terminals at the merchant or payment acceptance location use SSL and/or early TLS, the entity confirms the devices are not susceptible to any known exploits for those protocols.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: This requirement is not eligible for the customized approach.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement is intended to apply to the entity with the POS POI terminal, such as a merchant. This requirement is not intended for service providers who serve as the termination or connection point to those POS POI terminals. Requirements A2.1.2 and A2.1.3 apply to POS POI service providers. The allowance for POS POI terminals that are not currently susceptible to exploits is based on currently known risks. If new exploits are introduced to which POS POI terminals are susceptible, the POS POI terminals will need to be updated immediately.
[Purpose]: POS POI terminals used in card-present environments can continue using SSL/early TLS when it can be shown that the POS POI terminal is not susceptible to the currently known exploits.
[Good Practice]: However, SSL is outdated technology and could be susceptible to additional security vulnerabilities in the future; it is therefore strongly recommended that POS POI terminals be upgraded to a secure protocol as soon as possible. If SSL/early TLS is not needed in the environment, use of, and fallback to these versions should be disabled.
[Further Information]: Refer to the current PCI SSC Information Supplements on SSL/Early TLS for further guidance.
Defined Approach Requirements: Additional requirement for service providers only: All service providers with existing connection points to POS POI terminals that use SSL and/or early TLS as defined in A2.1 have a formal Risk Mitigation and Migration Plan in place that includes:
Description of usage, including what data is being transmitted, types and number of systems that use and/or support SSL/early TLS, and type of environment.
Risk-assessment results and risk-reduction controls in place.
Description of processes to monitor for new vulnerabilities associated with SSL/early TLS.
Description of change control processes that are implemented to ensure SSL/early TLS is not implemented into new environments.
Overview of migration project plan to replace SSL/early TLS at a future date.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: This requirement is not eligible for the customized approach.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement applies only when the entity being assessed is a service provider.
[Purpose]: POS POI termination points, including but not limited to service providers such as acquirers or acquirer processors, can continue using SSL/early TLS when it can be shown that the service provider has controls in place that mitigate the risk of supporting those connections for the service provider environment.
[Good Practice]: Service providers should communicate to all customers using SSL/early TLS about the risks associated with its use and the need to migrate to a secure protocol.
[Definitions]: The Risk Mitigation and Migration Plan is a document prepared by the entity that details its plans for migrating to a secure protocol and describes controls the entity has in place to reduce the risk associated with SSL/early TLS until the migration is complete.
[Further Information]: Refer to the current PCI SSC Information Supplements on SSL/early TLS for further guidance on Risk Mitigation and Migration Plans.
","uuid":"68901629-9a18-486c-9f78-3050eae7157c","family":"Additional PCI Requirements for Entites Using SSL/Early TLS for Card-Present POS POI Terminal Connections","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"A2.1.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"A2.1.2 Additional testing procedure for service provider assessments only: Review the documented Risk Mitigation and Migration Plan to verify it includes all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"A2.1.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Additional requirement for service providers only: All service providers provide a secure service offering.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: This requirement is not eligible for the customized approach.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: This requirement applies only when the entity being assessed is a service provider.
[Purpose]: Customers must be able to choose to upgrade their POIs to eliminate the vulnerability in using SSL and early TLS. In many cases, customers will need to take a phased or gradual approach to migrate their POS POI estate from the insecure protocol to a secure protocol and so will require the service provider to support a secure offering.
[Further Information]: Refer to the current PCI SSC Information Supplements on SSL/Early TLS for further guidance.
","uuid":"44fd187b-3415-4717-bd31-4e384ac10413","family":"Additional PCI Requirements for Entites Using SSL/Early TLS for Card-Present POS POI Terminal Connections","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"A2.1.3 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"A2.1.3 Additional testing procedure for service provider assessments only: Examine system configurations and supporting documentation to verify the service provider offers a secure protocol option for its service.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"A2.1.3"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Responsibility is established by executive management for the protection of account data and a PCI DSS compliance program that includes:
Overall accountability for maintaining PCI DSS compliance.
Defining a charter for a PCI DSS compliance program.
Providing updates to executive management and board of directors on PCI DSS compliance initiatives and issues, including remediation activities, at least once every 12 months.
PCI DSS Reference: Requirement 12
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: This requirement is not eligible for the customized approach.
[Purpose]: Executive management assignment of PCI DSS compliance responsibilities ensures executivelevel visibility into the PCI DSS compliance program and allows for the opportunity to ask appropriate questions to determine the effectiveness of the program and influence strategic priorities.
[Good Practice]: Executive management may include C-level positions, board of directors, or equivalent. The specific titles will depend on the particular organizational structure. Responsibility for the PCI DSS compliance program may be assigned to individual roles and/or to business units within the organization.
","uuid":"3239293a-df74-448d-a9df-b9f61fd4ab4d","family":"Designated Entities Supplemental Validation","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"A3.1.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"A3.1.1.a Examine documentation to verify executive management has assigned overall accountability for maintaining the entity’s PCI DSS compliance. A3.1.1.b Examine the company’s PCI DSS charter to verify it outlines the conditions under which the PCI DSS compliance program is organized. A3.1.1.c Examine executive management and board of directors meeting minutes and/or presentations to ensure PCI DSS compliance initiatives and remediation activities are communicated at least once every 12 months.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"A3.1.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: A formal PCI DSS compliance program is in place that includes:
Definition of activities for maintaining and monitoring overall PCI DSS compliance, including business-as-usual activities.
Annual PCI DSS assessment processes.
Processes for the continuous validation of PCI DSS requirements (for example, daily, weekly, every three months, as applicable per the requirement).
A process for performing business-impact analysis to determine potential PCI DSS impacts for strategic business decisions.
PCI DSS Reference: Requirements 1-12
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: This requirement is not eligible for the customized approach.
[Purpose]: A formal compliance program allows an organization to monitor the health of its security controls, be proactive if a control fails, and effectively communicate activities and compliance status throughout the organization.
[Good Practice]: The PCI DSS compliance program can be a dedicated program or part of overarching compliance and/or governance program, and should include a well-defined methodology that demonstrates consistent and effective evaluation. Strategic business decisions that should be analyzed for potential PCI DSS impacts may include mergers and acquisitions, new technology purchases, or new payment-acceptance channels.
[Definitions]: Maintaining and monitoring an organization’s overall PCI DSS compliance includes identifying activities to be performed daily, weekly, monthly, every three months, or annually, and ensuring these activities are being performed accordingly (for example, using a security self-assessment or PDCA methodology).
[Examples]: Methodologies that support the management of compliance programs include Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA), ISO 27001, COBIT, DMAIC, and Six Sigma.
","uuid":"ccc03926-81ca-4be9-8069-dbb3e57069b1","family":"Designated Entities Supplemental Validation","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"A3.1.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"A3.1.2.a Examine information security policies and procedures to verify that processes are defined for a formal PCI DSS compliance program that includes all elements specified in this requirement. A3.1.2.b Interview personnel and observe compliance activities to verify that a formal PCI DSS compliance program is implemented in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"A3.1.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: PCI DSS compliance roles and responsibilities are specifically defined and formally assigned to one or more personnel, including:
Managing PCI DSS business-as-usual activities.
Managing annual PCI DSS assessments.
Managing continuous validation of PCI DSS requirements (for example, daily, weekly, every three months, as applicable per the requirement).
Managing business-impact analysis to determine potential PCI DSS impacts for strategic business decisions.
PCI DSS Reference: Requirement 12
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: This requirement is not eligible for the customized approach.
[Purpose]: The formal definition of specific PCI DSS compliance roles and responsibilities helps to ensure accountability and monitoring of ongoing PCI DSS compliance efforts.
[Good Practice]: Ownership should be assigned to individuals with the authority to make risk-based decisions, and upon whom accountability rests for the specific function. Duties should be formally defined, and owners should be able to demonstrate an understanding of their responsibilities and accountability. Compliance roles may be assigned to a single owner or multiple owners for different requirement elements.
","uuid":"6543b15a-e432-4825-b460-2ddc94f1f336","family":"Designated Entities Supplemental Validation","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"A3.1.3 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"A3.1.3.a Examine information security policies and procedures and interview personnel to verify that PCI DSS compliance roles and responsibilities are specifically defined and formally assigned to one or more personnel in accordance with all elements of this requirement. A3.1.3.b Interview responsible personnel and verify they are familiar with and performing their designated PCI DSS compliance responsibilities.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"A3.1.3"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Up-to-date PCI DSS and/or information security training is provided at least once every 12 months to personnel with PCI DSS compliance responsibilities (as identified in A3.1.3). PCI DSS Reference: Requirement 12
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: This requirement is not eligible for the customized approach.
[Purpose]: Personnel responsible for PCI DSS compliance have specific training needs exceeding that which is typically provided by general security awareness training to enable them to perform their role.
[Good Practice]: Individuals with PCI DSS compliance responsibilities should receive specialized training that, in addition to a general awareness of information security, focuses on specific security topics, skills, processes, or methodologies that must be followed for those individuals to perform their compliance responsibilities effectively. Training may be offered by third parties such as the PCI SSC (for example, PCI Awareness, PCIP, and ISA), payment brands, and acquirers, or training may be internal. Training content should be applicable for the individual’s job function, be current, and include the latest security threats and/or version of PCI DSS.
[Further Information]: For additional guidance, refer to Information Supplement: Best Practices for Implementing a Security Awareness Program.
","uuid":"2c3b4de2-f863-4aeb-9800-5077630d96c6","family":"Designated Entities Supplemental Validation","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"A3.1.4 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"A3.1.4.a Examine information security policies and procedures to verify that PCI DSS and/or information security training is required at least once every 12 months for each role with PCI DSS compliance responsibilities. A3.1.4.b Interview personnel and examine certificates of attendance or other records to verify that personnel with PCI DSS compliance responsibility receive up-to-date PCI DSS and/or similar information security training at least once every 12 months.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"A3.1.4"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: PCI DSS scope is documented and confirmed for accuracy at least once every three months and upon significant changes to the inscope environment. At a minimum, the scoping validation includes:
Identifying all data flows for the various payment stages (for example, authorization, capture, settlement, chargebacks, and refunds) and acceptance channels (for example, card-present, card-not-present, and e-commerce).
Updating all data-flow diagrams per Requirement 1.2.4.
Identifying all locations where account data is stored, processed, and transmitted, including but not limited to 1) any locations outside of the currently defined CDE, 2) applications that process CHD, 3) transmissions between systems and networks, and 4) file backups.
For any account data found outside of the currently defined CDE, either 1) securely delete it, 2) migrate it into the currently defined CDE, or 3) expand the currently defined CDE to include it.
Identifying all system components in the CDE, connected to the CDE, or that could impact security of the CDE.
Identifying all segmentation controls in use and the environment(s) from which the CDE is segmented, including justification for environments being out of scope.
Identifying all connections to third-party entities with access to the CDE.
Confirming that all identified data flows, account data, system components, segmentation controls, and connections from third parties with access to the CDE are included in scope.
PCI DSS Reference: Scope of PCI DSS Requirements, Requirement 12.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: This requirement is not eligible for the customized approach
[Purpose]: Frequent validation of PCI DSS scope helps to ensure PCI DSS scope remains up to date and aligned with changing business objectives, and therefore that security controls are protecting all appropriate system components.
[Good Practice]: Accurate scoping involves critically evaluating the CDE and all connected system components to determine the necessary coverage for PCI DSS requirements. Scoping activities, including careful analysis and ongoing monitoring, help to ensure that in-scope systems are appropriately secured. When documenting account data locations, the entity can consider creating a table or spreadsheet that includes the following information:
Data stores (databases, files, cloud, etc.), including purpose of data storage and the retention period,
Which CHD elements are stored (PAN, expiry date, cardholder name, and/or any elements of SAD prior to completion of authorization),
How data is secured (type of encryption and strength, hashing algorithm and strength, truncation, tokenization),
How access to data stores is logged, including a description of logging mechanism(s) in use (enterprise solution, application level, operating system level, etc.).
In addition to internal systems and networks, all connections from third-party entities—for example, business partners, entities providing remote support services, and other service providers—need to be identified to determine inclusion for PCI DSS scope. Once the in-scope connections have been identified, the applicable PCI DSS controls can be implemented to reduce the risk of a third-party connection being used to compromise an entity’s CDE. A data discovery tool or methodology can be used to facilitate identifying all sources and locations of PAN, and to look for PAN that resides on systems and networks outside the currently defined CDE or in unexpected places within the defined CDE—for example, in an error log or memory dump file. This approach can help ensure that previously unknown locations of PAN are detected and that the PAN is either eliminated or properly secured.
[Further Information]: Refer to Information Supplement: Guidance for PCI DSS Scoping and Network Segmentation for additional guidance.
","uuid":"e985ef04-eaeb-4a47-9051-d0fb3d9e20e0","family":"Designated Entities Supplemental Validation","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"A3.2.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"A3.2.1.a Examine documented results of scope reviews and interview personnel to verify that the reviews are performed: () At least once every three months. () After significant changes to the in-scope environment.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"A3.2.1"},{"description":"entity can consider creating a table or spreadsheet that includes the following information: () Data stores (databases, files, cloud, etc.), including purpose of data storage and the retention period, () Which CHD elements are stored (PAN, expiry date, cardholder name, and/or any elements of SAD prior to completion of authorization), () How data is secured (type of encryption and strength, hashing algorithm and strength, truncation, tokenization), () How access to data stores is logged, including a description of logging mechanism(s) in use (enterprise solution, application level, operating system level, etc.). In addition to internal systems and networks, all connections from third-party entities—for example, business partners, entities providing remote support services, and other service providers—need to be identified to determine inclusion for PCI DSS scope. Once the in-scope connections have been identified, the applicable PCI DSS controls can be implemented to reduce the risk of a third-party connection being used to compromise an entity’s CDE. A data discovery tool or methodology can be used to facilitate identifying all sources and locations of PAN, and to look for PAN that resides on systems and networks outside the currently defined CDE or in unexpected places within the defined CDE— for example, in an error log or memory dump file. This approach can help ensure that previously unknown locations of PAN are detected and that the PAN is either eliminated or properly secured. [Further Information]: Refer to Information Supplement: Guidance for PCI DSS Scoping and Network Segmentation for additional guidance.Defined Approach Requirements: PCI DSS scope impact for all changes to systems or networks is determined, including additions of new systems and new network connections. Processes include:
Performing a formal PCI DSS impact assessment.
Identifying applicable PCI DSS requirements to the system or network.
Updating PCI DSS scope as appropriate.
Documented sign-off of the results of the impact assessment by responsible personnel (as defined in A3.1.3).
PCI DSS Reference: Scope of PCI DSS Requirements; Requirements 1-12
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: This requirement is not eligible for the customized approach.
[Purpose]: Changes to systems or networks can have a significant impact on PCI DSS scope. For example, changes to network security control rulesets can bring whole network segments into scope, or new systems may be added to the CDE that have to be appropriately protected. A formal impact assessment performed in advance of a change gives the entity assurance that the change will not adversely affect the security of the CDE.
[Good Practice]: Processes to determine the potential impact that changes to systems and networks may have on an entity’s PCI DSS scope may be performed as part of a dedicated PCI DSS compliance program or may fall under an entity’s overarching compliance and/or governance program.
","uuid":"7a1a69d1-627f-4038-9d23-99a34a40dd38","family":"Designated Entities Supplemental Validation","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"A3.2.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"A3.2.2 Examine change documentation and interview personnel to verify that for each change to systems or networks the PCI DSS scope impact is determined, and includes all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"A3.2.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Upon completion of a change, all relevant PCI DSS requirements are confirmed to be implemented on all new or changed systems and networks, and documentation is updated as applicable. PCI DSS Reference: Scope of PCI DSS Requirements; Requirement 1-12
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: This requirement is not eligible for the customized approach.
[Purpose]: It is important to have processes to analyze all changes made to systems or networks, to ensure that all appropriate PCI DSS controls are applied to any systems or networks added to the in-scope environment due to a change. Building this validation into change management processes helps ensure that device inventories and configuration standards are kept up to date, and security controls are applied where needed.
[Good Practice]: A change management process should include supporting evidence that PCI DSS requirements are implemented or preserved through an iterative process.
[Examples]: PCI DSS requirements that should be verified include, but are not limited to:
Network diagrams are updated to reflect changes.
Systems are configured per configuration standards, with all default passwords changed and unnecessary services disabled.
Systems are protected with required controls— for example, file integrity monitoring, anti-malware, patches, and audit logging.
Sensitive authentication data is not stored, and that all account data storage is documented and incorporated into data-retention policy and procedures.
New systems are included in the quarterly vulnerability scanning process.
Defined Approach Requirements: Changes to organizational structure result in a formal (internal) review of the impact to PCI DSS scope and applicability of controls. PCI DSS Reference: Requirement 12
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: This requirement is not eligible for the customized approach.
[Purpose]: An organization’s structure and management define the requirements and protocol for effective and secure operations. Changes to this structure could have negative effects to existing controls and frameworks by reallocating or removing resources that once supported PCI DSS controls or inheriting new responsibilities that may not have established controls in place. Therefore, it is important to revisit PCI DSS scope and controls when there are changes to an organization’s structure and management to ensure controls are in place and active.
[Examples]: Changes to organizational structure include, but are not limited to, company mergers or acquisitions, and significant changes or reassignments of personnel with responsibility for security control.
","uuid":"e71b03b5-7199-47e8-b613-6ca70276d478","family":"Designated Entities Supplemental Validation","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"A3.2.3 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"A3.2.3 Examine policies and procedures to verify that a change to organizational structure results in formal a review of the impact on PCI DSS scope and applicability of controls.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"A3.2.3"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: If segmentation is used, PCI DSS scope is confirmed as follows:
Per the entity’s methodology defined at Requirement 11.4.1.
Penetration testing is performed on segmentation controls at least once every six months and after any changes to segmentation controls/methods.
The penetration testing covers all segmentation controls/methods in use.
The penetration testing verifies that segmentation controls/methods are operational and effective, and isolate the CDE from all outof-scope systems.
PCI DSS Reference: Requirement 11
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: This requirement is not eligible for the customized approach.
[Purpose]: PCI DSS normally requires segmentation controls to be verified by penetration testing every twelve months. Validating segmentation controls more frequently is likely to discover failings in segmentation before they can be exploited by an attacker attempting to pivot laterally from an out-of-scope untrusted network to the CDE.
[Good Practice]: Although the requirement specifies that this scope validation is carried out at least once every six months and after a significant change, this exercise should be performed as frequently as possible to ensure it remains effective at isolating the CDE from other networks.
[Further Information]: Refer to Information Supplement: Penetration Testing Guidance for additional guidance.
","uuid":"1164ba3e-fd73-4ba1-a64f-5daea5554042","family":"Designated Entities Supplemental Validation","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"A3.2.4 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"A3.2.4 Examine the results from the most recent penetration test to verify that the test was conducted in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"A3.2.4"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: A data-discovery methodology is implemented that: () Confirms PCI DSS scope.
Locates all sources and locations of cleartext PAN at least once every three months and upon significant changes to the CDE or processes.
Addresses the potential for cleartext PAN to reside on systems and networks outside the currently defined CDE. PCI DSS Reference: Scope of PCI DSS Requirements
PCI DSS Reference: Scope of PCI DSS Requirements
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: This requirement is not eligible for the customized approach.
[Purpose]: PCI DSS requires that, as part of the scoping exercise, assessed entities must identify and document the existence of all cleartext PAN in their environments. Implementing a datadiscovery methodology that identifies all sources and locations of cleartext PAN and looks for cleartext PAN on systems and networks outside the currently defined CDE or in unexpected places within the defined CDE—for example, in an error log or memory dump file— helps to ensure that previously unknown locations of cleartext PAN are detected and properly secured.
[Examples]: A data-discovery process can be performed via a variety of methods, including, but not limited to 1) commercially available data-discovery software, 2) an in-house developed data-discovery program, or 3) a manual search. A combination of methodologies may also be used as needed. Regardless of the method used, the goal of the effort is to find all sources and locations of cleartext PAN (not just in the defined CDE).
","uuid":"3804d29a-a688-458d-adf6-bdd114caab77","family":"Designated Entities Supplemental Validation","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"A3.2.5 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"A3.2.5.a Examine the documented data-discovery methodology to verify it includes all elements specified in this requirement. A3.2.5.b Examine results from recent data discovery efforts, and interview responsible personnel to verify that data discovery is performed at least once every three months and upon significant changes to the CDE or processes.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"A3.2.5"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Data discovery methods are confirmed as follows:
Effectiveness of methods is tested.
Methods are able to discover cleartext PAN on all types of system components and file formats in use.
The effectiveness of data-discovery methods is confirmed at least once every 12 months.
PCI DSS Reference: Scope of PCI DSS Requirements
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: This requirement is not eligible for the customized approach.
[Purpose]: A process to test the effectiveness of the methods used for data discovery ensures the completeness and accuracy of account data detection.
[Good Practice]: For completeness, system components in the inscope networks, and systems in out-of-scope networks, should be included in the datadiscovery process. The data-discovery process should be effective on all operating systems and platforms in use. Accuracy can be tested by placing test PANs on system components and file formats in use and confirming that the data-discovery method detected the test PANs.
","uuid":"7357143b-6dfb-443d-8476-42711e2caaa3","family":"Designated Entities Supplemental Validation","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"A3.2.5.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"A3.2.5.1.a Interview personnel and review documentation to verify: () The entity has a process in place to test the effectiveness of methods used for data discovery. () The process includes verifying the methods are able to discover cleartext PAN on all types of system components and file formats in use. A3.2.5.1.b Examine the results of effectiveness tests to verify that the effectiveness of datadiscovery methods is confirmed at least once every 12 months.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"A3.2.5.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Response procedures are implemented to be initiated upon the detection of cleartext PAN outside the CDE to include:
Determining what to do if cleartext PAN is discovered outside the CDE, including its retrieval, secure deletion, and/or migration into the currently defined CDE, as applicable.
Determining how the data ended up outside the CDE.
Remediating data leaks or process gaps that resulted in the data being outside the CDE.
Identifying the source of the data.
Identifying whether any track data is stored with the PANs
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: This requirement is not eligible for the customized approach.
[Purpose]: Having documented response procedures that are followed in the event cleartext PAN is found outside the CDE helps to identify the necessary remediation actions and prevent future leaks.
[Good Practice]: If PAN was found outside the CDE, an analysis should be performed to 1) determine whether it was saved independently of other data or with sensitive authentication data, 2) to identify the source of the data, and 3) identify the control gaps that resulted in the data being outside the CDE. Entities should consider whether contributory factors, such as business processes, user behavior, improper system configurations, etc., caused the PAN to be stored in an unexpected location. If such contributory factors are present, they should be addressed per this Requirement to prevent a recurrence.
","uuid":"4e9f5278-9de0-46bc-b327-94032cd5f172","family":"Designated Entities Supplemental Validation","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"A3.2.5.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"A3.2.5.2.a Examine documented response procedures to verify that procedures for responding to the detection of cleartext PAN outside the CDE are defined and include all elements specified in this requirement. A3.2.5.2.b Interview personnel and examine records of response actions to verify that remediation activities are performed when cleartext PAN is detected outside the CDE.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"A3.2.5.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Mechanisms are implemented for detecting and preventing cleartext PAN from leaving the CDE via an unauthorized channel, method, or process, including mechanisms that are:
Actively running.
Configured to detect and prevent cleartext PAN leaving the CDE via an unauthorized channel, method, or process.
Generating audit logs and alerts upon detection of cleartext PAN leaving the CDE via an unauthorized channel, method, or process.
PCI DSS Reference: Scope of PCI DSS Requirements, Requirement 12
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: This requirement is not eligible for the customized approach.
[Purpose]: The use of mechanisms to detect and prevent unauthorized PAN from leaving the CDE allows an organization to detect and prevent situations that may lead to data loss.
[Good Practice]: Coverage of the mechanisms should include, but not be limited to, e-mails, downloads to removable media, and output to printers.
[Examples]: Mechanisms to detect and prevent unauthorized loss of cleartext PAN may include the use of appropriate tools such as data loss prevention (DLP) solutions as well as manual processes and procedures.
","uuid":"55e90f81-2164-455f-ab65-258674f48e5a","family":"Designated Entities Supplemental Validation","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"A3.2.6 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"A3.2.6.a Examine documentation and observe implemented mechanisms to verify that the mechanisms are in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement. A3.2.6.b Examine audit logs and alerts, and interview responsible personnel to verify that alerts are investigated.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"A3.2.6"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Response procedures are implemented to be initiated upon the detection of attempts to remove cleartext PAN from the CDE via an unauthorized channel, method, or process. Response procedures include:
Procedures for the prompt investigation of alerts by responsible personnel.
Procedures for remediating data leaks or process gaps, as necessary, to prevent any data loss.
PCI DSS Reference: Requirement 12
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: This requirement is not eligible for the customized approach.
[Purpose]: Attempts to remove cleartext PAN via an unauthorized channel, method, or process may indicate malicious intent to steal data, or may be the actions of an authorized employee who is unaware of or simply not following the proper methods. Prompt investigation of these occurrences can identify where remediation needs to be applied and provides valuable information to help understand from where the threats are coming.
","uuid":"dbf5e49a-1045-419c-b795-d1204641f8c3","family":"Designated Entities Supplemental Validation","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"A3.2.6.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"A3.2.6.1.a Examine documented response procedures to verify that procedures for responding to the attempted removal of cleartext PAN from the CDE via an unauthorized channel, method, or process include all elements specified in this requirement: () Procedures for the prompt investigation of alerts by responsible personnel. () Procedures for remediating data leaks or process gaps, as necessary, to prevent any data loss. A3.2.6.1.b Interview personnel and examine records of actions taken when cleartext PAN is detected leaving the CDE via an unauthorized channel, method, or process and verify that remediation activities were performed.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"A3.2.6.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Failures of critical security control systems are detected, alerted, and addressed promptly, including but not limited to failure of:
Network security controls
IDS/IPS
FIM
Anti-malware solutions
Physical access controls
Logical access controls
Audit logging mechanisms
Segmentation controls (if used)
Automated audit log review mechanisms. This bullet is a best practice until its effective date; refer to Applicability Notes below for details.
Automated code review tools (if used). This bullet is a best practice until its effective date; refer to Applicability Notes below for detail
PCI DSS Reference: Requirements 1-12
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: This requirement is not eligible for the customized approach.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: The bullets above (for automated log review mechanisms and automated code review tools (if used)) are best practices until 31 March 2025, after which they will be required as part of Requirement A3.3.1 and must be fully considered during a PCI DSS assessment.
[Purpose]: Without formal processes for the prompt (as soon as possible) detection, alerting, and addressing of critical security control failures, failures may go undetected or remain unresolved for extended periods. In addition, without formalized timebound processes, attackers will have ample time to compromise systems and steal account data from the CDE.
[Good Practice]: The specific types of failures may vary, depending on the function of the device system component and technology in use. Typical failures include a system ceasing to perform its security function or not functioning in its intended manner, such as a firewall erasing all its rules or going offline.
","uuid":"9c16063c-15e6-4b18-9162-0fc2712a871a","family":"Designated Entities Supplemental Validation","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"A3.3.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"A3.3.1.a Examine documented policies and procedures to verify that processes are defined to promptly detect, alert, and address critical security control failures in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement. A3.3.1.b Examine detection and alerting processes, and interview personnel to verify that processes are implemented for all critical security controls specified in this requirement and that each failure of a critical security control results in the generation of an alert.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"A3.3.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Failures of any critical security control systems are responded to promptly. Processes for responding to failures in security control systems include:
Restoring security functions.
Identifying and documenting the duration (date and time from start to end) of the security failure.
Identifying and documenting the cause(s) of failure, including root cause, and documenting remediation required to address the root cause.
Identifying and addressing any security issues that arose during the failure.
Determining whether further actions are required as a result of the security failure.
Implementing controls to prevent the cause of failure from reoccurring.
Resuming monitoring of security controls
PCI DSS Reference: Requirements 1-12
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: This requirement is not eligible for the customized approach.
[Purpose]: If alerts from failures of critical security control systems are not responded to quickly and effectively, attackers may use this time to insert malicious software, gain control of a system, or steal data from the entity’s environment.
[Good Practice]: Documented evidence (for example, records within a problem management system) should support processes and procedures in place that respond to security failures. In addition, personnel should be aware of their responsibilities in the event of a failure. Actions and responses to the failure should be captured in the documented evidence.
","uuid":"2de39a7f-0dc7-4975-a5d4-aaf4bd616935","family":"Designated Entities Supplemental Validation","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"A3.3.1.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"A3.3.1.2.a Examine documented policies and procedures and interview personnel to verify processes are defined and implemented to respond promptly to a security control failure in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement. A3.3.1.2.b Examine records to verify that security control failures are documented to include: () Identification of cause(s) of the failure, including root cause. () Duration (date and time start and end) of the security failure. () Details of the remediation required to address the root cause.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"A3.3.1.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Hardware and software technologies are reviewed at least once every 12 months to confirm whether they continue to meet the organization’s PCI DSS requirements.
PCI DSS Reference: Requirements 2, 6, 12.
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: This requirement is not eligible for the customized approach.
[APPLICABILITY NOTES]: The process includes a plan for remediating technologies that no longer meet the organization’s PCI DSS requirements, up to and including replacement of the technology, as appropriate.
[Purpose]: Hardware and software technologies are constantly evolving, and organizations need to be aware of changes to the technologies they use, as well as the evolving threats to those technologies. Conducting appropriate reviews of these technologies ensures that they can prepare for, and manage, vulnerabilities in hardware and software that will not be remediated by the vendor or developer.
[Good Practice]: Organizations should also consider reviewing firmware versions to ensure they remain current and supported by the vendors. Organizations also need to be aware of changes made by technology vendors to their products or processes to understand how such changes may impact the organization’s use of the technology. Regular reviews of technologies that impact or influence PCI DSS controls can assist with purchasing, usage, and deployment strategies and ensure controls that rely on those technologies remain effective. These reviews include, but are not limited to, reviewing technologies that are no longer supported by the vendor and/or no longer meet the security needs of the organization.
","uuid":"b49e220e-4fd9-4387-b749-208e34681f8b","family":"Designated Entities Supplemental Validation","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"A3.3.2 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"A3.3.2.a Examine documented policies and procedures and interview personnel to verify processes are defined and implemented to review hardware and software technologies to confirm whether they continue to meet the organization’s PCI DSS requirements. A3.3.2.b Review the results of the recent reviews of hardware and software technologies to verify reviews are performed at least once every 12 months. A3.3.2.c Review documentation to verify that, for any technologies that have been determined to no longer meet the organization’s PCI DSS requirements, a plan is in place to remediate the technology.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"A3.3.2"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: Reviews are performed at least once every three months to verify BAU activities are being followed. Reviews are performed by personnel assigned to the PCI DSS compliance program (as identified in A3.1.3), and include:
Confirmation that all BAU activities, including A3.2.2, A3.2.6, and A3.3.1, are being performed.
Confirmation that personnel are following security policies and operational procedures (for example, daily log reviews, ruleset reviews for network security controls, configuration standards for new systems).
Documenting how the reviews were completed, including how all BAU activities were verified as being in place.
Collection of documented evidence as required for the annual PCI DSS assessment.
Review and sign-off of results by personnel assigned responsibility for the PCI DSS compliance program, as identified in A3.1.3.
Retention of records and documentation for at least 12 months, covering all BAU activities.
PCI DSS Reference: Requirements 1-12
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: This requirement is not eligible for the customized approach.
[Purpose]: Regularly confirming that security policies and procedures are being followed provides assurance that the expected controls are active and working as intended. The objective of these reviews is not to reperform other PCI DSS requirements, but to confirm that security activities are being performed on an ongoing basis.
[Good Practice]: These reviews can also be used to verify that appropriate evidence is being maintained—for example, audit logs, vulnerability scan reports, reviews of network security control rulesets—to assist in the entity’s preparation for its next PCI DSS assessment.
[Examples]: Looking at Requirement 1.2.7 as one example, Requirement A3.3.3 is met by confirming, at least once every three months, that reviews of configurations of network security controls have occurred at the required frequency. On the other hand, Requirement 1.2.7 is met by reviewing those configurations as specified in the requirement.
","uuid":"687c74c2-f490-487e-9277-25559b583079","family":"Designated Entities Supplemental Validation","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"A3.3.3 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"A3.3.3.a Examine policies and procedures to verify that processes are defined for reviewing and verifying BAU activities in accordance with all elements specified in this requirement. A3.3.3.b Interview responsible personnel and examine records of reviews to verify that: () Reviews are performed by personnel assigned to the PCI DSS compliance program. () Reviews are performed at least once every three months.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"A3.3.3"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: User accounts and access privileges to inscope system components are reviewed at least once every six months to ensure user accounts and access privileges remain appropriate based on job function, and that all access is authorized.
PCI DSS Reference: Requirement 7
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: This requirement is not eligible for the customized approach.
[Purpose]: Regular review of access rights helps to detect excessive access rights remaining after user job responsibilities change, system functions change, or other modifications. If excessive user rights are not revoked in due time, they may be used by malicious users for unauthorized access. This review provides another opportunity to ensure that accounts for all terminated users have been removed (if any were missed at the time of termination), as well as to ensure that any third parties that no longer need access have had their access terminated.
","uuid":"3a817680-88e4-4b62-b887-cefcd5eb310a","family":"Designated Entities Supplemental Validation","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"A3.4.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"A3.4.1 Interview responsible personnel and examine supporting documentation to verify that: () User accounts and access privileges are reviewed at least every six months. () Reviews confirm that access is appropriate based on job function and that all access is authorized.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"A3.4.1"},{"description":"Defined Approach Requirements: A methodology is implemented for the prompt identification of attack patterns and undesirable behavior across systems that includes:
Identification of anomalies or suspicious activity as it occurs.
Issuance of prompt alerts upon detection of suspicious activity or anomaly to responsible personnel.
Response to alerts in accordance with documented response procedures.
PCI DSS Reference: Requirements 10, 12
[CUSTOMIZED APPROACH OBJECTIVE]: This requirement is not eligible for the customized approach.
[Purpose]: The ability to identify attack patterns and undesirable behavior across systems—for example, using centrally managed or automated log-correlation tools— is critical in preventing, detecting, or minimizing the impact of a data compromise. The presence of logs in all environments allows thorough tracking, alerting, and analysis when something goes wrong. Determining the cause of a compromise is very difficult, if not impossible, without a process to corroborate information from critical system components and systems that perform security functions, such as network security controls, IDS/IPS, and file integrity monitoring (FIM) systems. Thus, logs for all critical system components and systems that perform security functions need to be collected, correlated, and maintained. This could include using software products and service methodologies to provide real-time analysis, alerting, and reporting, such as security information and event management (SIEM), FIM, or change detection.
","uuid":"b285d586-82ea-4968-a860-243ec6f49560","family":"Designated Entities Supplemental Validation","parameters":[],"subControls":"","tests":[],"weight":0,"archived":false,"isPublic":true,"enhancements":"","title":"A3.5.1 ","ccis":[],"assessmentPlan":"A3.5.1.a Examine documentation and interview personnel to verify a methodology is defined and implemented to identify attack patterns and undesirable behavior across systems in a prompt manner, and includes all elements specified in this requirement. A3.5.1.b Examine incident response procedures and interview responsible personnel to verify that: () On-call personnel receive prompt alerts. () Alerts are responded to per documented response procedures.","practiceLevel":"","objectives":[],"mappings":"","controlId":"A3.5.1"}]}}