New Series: Tokenization Guidance

Tokenization Guidance. I have wanted to write this post since the middle of August. Every time I started writing another phone phone call came in from a merchant, payment processor, technology vendor, or someone loosely associated with a Payment Card Industry (PCI) task force or steering committee (SIG). And every conversation yielded some new sliver of information that changed what I wanted to say, or implied some research work had already been conducted that was far more interesting and useful than anything being provided to the public. This in turned prompted more calls, new conversations, more digging and – like a good mystery novel – prompted me to iteratively peel back another layer of the onion. I’ve finally reached a point where I believe I have enough of the story to understand what was published and why it’s not what they should have published. But enough of the preamble: let’s back up and dive into the subject at hand. As of August 12, 2011, the PCI task force driving the study of tokenization published an “Information Supplement” called the PCI DSS Tokenization Guidelines. More commonly known as the ‘Tokenization Guidance’ document, it discussed the dos and don’ts of using token surrogates for credit card data. The only problem is that this document is sorely lacking in actual guidance. Even the section on “Maximizing PCI DSS Scope Reduction” is a collection of broad generalizations on security, rather than practical advice. After spending the better part of the last two weeks with this wishy-washy paper, a better title would be “Quasi-acceptance of Tokenization Without Guidance”. And all my conversations indicate that this opinion is universally held outside the PCI council. “We read the guidance but we don’t know what falls out of scope!” is the universal merchant response to the tokenization information supplement. “Where are the audit guidelines?” is the second most common statement. The tokenization guidlines provides an overview of the elements of a tokenization system, along with the promise of reduced compliance requirements, but they don’t provide a roadmap on how to get there. Let’s make one thing very clear right from the start: There is very wide interest in tokenization because it promises better security, lower risk and – potentially – significant cost reductions for compliance efforts. Merchants want to reduce the work they must do in order to comply with the PCI requirements – which is exactly why they are interested in tokenization technologies. Security and lower risk are secondary benefits. But without a concrete idea of the actual cost reduction – or worse, an understanding of how they will be audited once tokenization is deployed – they are dragging their feet on adoption. There is no good reason to omit a basic cookbook for scope reduction when using tokenization. I am going to take the guesswork out of it and provide real guidance for evaluating tokenization, and clarify how to benefit from tokenization. This will be in the form of concrete, actionable steps for merchants deploying tokenization, with checklists for auditors reviewing tokenization systems. I’ll fill in the gaps from the PCI supplement, poke at the topics they decided it was politically unpalatable to discuss, and specify what you can reasonably omit from the scope of your assessment. Given an overview of what you can reasonably consider to be out of scope, I’ll advise you on how to approach compliance and follow up with some checklists to make it easier. This is more than I can cover in a simple post, so I will cover these topics over the next two weeks, ultimately wrapping this into my own tokenization guidance white paper. The series will have four parts: Key points from supplement: Outline what the PCI information supplement on tokenization means and discuss the important aspects of the technology for users to focus on. We’ll discuss what is missing from the guidance and what does – and does not – help reduce PCI assessment effort. Guidance for merchants: How tokenization changes PCI compliance. We’ll discuss critical areas of concern when deciding to adopt a tokenization solution, with guidance on reducing audit scope. This will encompass areas including implementation tradeoffs, integration, rollout, and vendor lock-in. The audit process: How tokenization impacts the auditing process, how to work with your assessor to establish testing criteria, and where to look to reduce the scope of your audit. We’ll provide guidance for working with QSAs and self assessment. Checklists: The guidance describes major components of the technology but lacks operational guidelines for assessors or merchants. As with the original PCI-DSS documents, I’ll include an audit checklist to supplement the PCI standard on what should be considered out of scope, and where you can shave time from your auditing process. I will present information I feel should have been included in the tokenization supplement. And I will advise against use of some technologies and deployment models that frankly should not have been lumped in with the supplement as they don’t simplify and reduce risks in the way any merchant should be looking for. I am willing to bet that some of my recommendations will make many interested stakeholders quite angry. I accept this as unavoidable – my guidance is geared toward making the lives of merchants who buy tokenization solutions easier, rather than to avoid conflict with vendor products. No technology vendor or payment provider ever endorses any guidance that negatively impacts their sales, so I expect blowback. As always, if you think some of my recommendations are BS, I encourage you to comment. We are open to criticism and alternate viewpoints, and we always factor relevant comments into our final research. I do ask vendors to identify yourselves. I will also assume some prior knowledge of tokenization and PCI-DSS. There is a ton of research on the Securosis blog and the Research Library on these subjects. If you are not fully up to speed on tokenization systems, or are interested in learning more about tokenization in general, I suggest you review

Read Post

Totally Transparent Research is the embodiment of how we work at Securosis. It’s our core operating philosophy, our research policy, and a specific process. We initially developed it to help maintain objectivity while producing licensed research, but its benefits extend to all aspects of our business.

Going beyond Open Source Research, and a far cry from the traditional syndicated research model, we think it’s the best way to produce independent, objective, quality research.

Here’s how it works:

  • Content is developed ‘live’ on the blog. Primary research is generally released in pieces, as a series of posts, so we can digest and integrate feedback, making the end results much stronger than traditional “ivory tower” research.
  • Comments are enabled for posts. All comments are kept except for spam, personal insults of a clearly inflammatory nature, and completely off-topic content that distracts from the discussion. We welcome comments critical of the work, even if somewhat insulting to the authors. Really.
  • Anyone can comment, and no registration is required. Vendors or consultants with a relevant product or offering must properly identify themselves. While their comments won’t be deleted, the writer/moderator will “call out”, identify, and possibly ridicule vendors who fail to do so.
  • Vendors considering licensing the content are welcome to provide feedback, but it must be posted in the comments - just like everyone else. There is no back channel influence on the research findings or posts.
    Analysts must reply to comments and defend the research position, or agree to modify the content.
  • At the end of the post series, the analyst compiles the posts into a paper, presentation, or other delivery vehicle. Public comments/input factors into the research, where appropriate.
  • If the research is distributed as a paper, significant commenters/contributors are acknowledged in the opening of the report. If they did not post their real names, handles used for comments are listed. Commenters do not retain any rights to the report, but their contributions will be recognized.
  • All primary research will be released under a Creative Commons license. The current license is Non-Commercial, Attribution. The analyst, at their discretion, may add a Derivative Works or Share Alike condition.
  • Securosis primary research does not discuss specific vendors or specific products/offerings, unless used to provide context, contrast or to make a point (which is very very rare).
    Although quotes from published primary research (and published primary research only) may be used in press releases, said quotes may never mention a specific vendor, even if the vendor is mentioned in the source report. Securosis must approve any quote to appear in any vendor marketing collateral.
  • Final primary research will be posted on the blog with open comments.
  • Research will be updated periodically to reflect market realities, based on the discretion of the primary analyst. Updated research will be dated and given a version number.
    For research that cannot be developed using this model, such as complex principles or models that are unsuited for a series of blog posts, the content will be chunked up and posted at or before release of the paper to solicit public feedback, and provide an open venue for comments and criticisms.
  • In rare cases Securosis may write papers outside of the primary research agenda, but only if the end result can be non-biased and valuable to the user community to supplement industry-wide efforts or advances. A “Radically Transparent Research” process will be followed in developing these papers, where absolutely all materials are public at all stages of development, including communications (email, call notes).
    Only the free primary research released on our site can be licensed. We will not accept licensing fees on research we charge users to access.
  • All licensed research will be clearly labeled with the licensees. No licensed research will be released without indicating the sources of licensing fees. Again, there will be no back channel influence. We’re open and transparent about our revenue sources.

In essence, we develop all of our research out in the open, and not only seek public comments, but keep those comments indefinitely as a record of the research creation process. If you believe we are biased or not doing our homework, you can call us out on it and it will be there in the record. Our philosophy involves cracking open the research process, and using our readers to eliminate bias and enhance the quality of the work.

On the back end, here’s how we handle this approach with licensees:

  • Licensees may propose paper topics. The topic may be accepted if it is consistent with the Securosis research agenda and goals, but only if it can be covered without bias and will be valuable to the end user community.
  • Analysts produce research according to their own research agendas, and may offer licensing under the same objectivity requirements.
  • The potential licensee will be provided an outline of our research positions and the potential research product so they can determine if it is likely to meet their objectives.
  • Once the licensee agrees, development of the primary research content begins, following the Totally Transparent Research process as outlined above. At this point, there is no money exchanged.
  • Upon completion of the paper, the licensee will receive a release candidate to determine whether the final result still meets their needs.
  • If the content does not meet their needs, the licensee is not required to pay, and the research will be released without licensing or with alternate licensees.
  • Licensees may host and reuse the content for the length of the license (typically one year). This includes placing the content behind a registration process, posting on white paper networks, or translation into other languages. The research will always be hosted at Securosis for free without registration.

Here is the language we currently place in our research project agreements:

Content will be created independently of LICENSEE with no obligations for payment. Once content is complete, LICENSEE will have a 3 day review period to determine if the content meets corporate objectives. If the content is unsuitable, LICENSEE will not be obligated for any payment and Securosis is free to distribute the whitepaper without branding or with alternate licensees, and will not complete any associated webcasts for the declining LICENSEE. Content licensing, webcasts and payment are contingent on the content being acceptable to LICENSEE. This maintains objectivity while limiting the risk to LICENSEE. Securosis maintains all rights to the content and to include Securosis branding in addition to any licensee branding.

Even this process itself is open to criticism. If you have questions or comments, you can email us or comment on the blog.