|
|
|
|
|
by borski
4063 days ago
|
|
Ha, good to see you here. I'm not suggesting that there is absolutely no value to any of PCI. The fact that it forces you to think about security at all is already of some value. However, I am saying that passing a PCI audit is incredibly easy as compared to thorough automated testing, and especially compared to a (good) manual penetration test. Because you can pass a PCI audit relatively easily, people will do that and think it's enough, when in reality there is far more they should be doing to protect their customers. Should you not do PCI? No, of course you should, as it's required by the processors. Is PCI going to protect you from getting breached? No, it's not enough, and you shouldn't pretend it is. If you have to pick exactly /one/ thing to do in addition to (or instead of) PCI, building thorough automated security testing into your SDLC process is it. |
|
I don't understand how SDLC secure testing is an addition to PCI when its really a sub requirement of PCI (Req 6 which addresses SDLC and secure code testing)
I'm going to rephrase because I'm still confused: You're saying that in addition to doing PCI, I should do a sub requirement of PCI.
Why does that sound like circular logic to me?