04 Apr 2008
A recent security breach at US supermarket chain Hannaford Bros was almost certainly the work of hackers exploiting a single code flaw on internal systems, experts say.
Hannaford Bros revealed last month that intruders had broken into its network and stolen the credit card details of some 4.2 million customers.
It is understood that the hackers managed to download card details after the cards had been swiped at the checkout and were in the process of being authorised.
Brian Chess, founder and chief scientist at security firm Fortify Software, claimed that the uniformity of the breach suggests that the attackers were taking advantage of a software weakness.
"The fact that the servers in almost all of the stores were compromised makes it much more likely that the attackers found a vulnerability in a piece of code that was common to all the servers and used malware to exploit the weakness," he said.
"My guess is that hackers first broke into the internal corporate network, then did some basic network scanning to identify all of the target servers.
"They then figured out that there was a vulnerability on some piece of code running on all of the machines. We see many organisations that are much more lax about internal systems."
Chess added that the interesting thing about the case is that Hannaford Bros is believed to be fully PCI compliant and, as such, is unlikely to have to pay fines under current PCI rules.
"The store chain had passed its PCI audit, but PCI takes a relaxed attitude towards internal machines," he said.
The security expert pointed out that PCI DSS section 6.6, for example, requires companies to "ensure that all web-facing applications are protected against known attacks by applying either of the following methods: having all custom application code reviewed for common vulnerabilities by an organisation that specialises in application security; and installing an application layer firewall in front of web-facing applications".
This means that Hannaford Bros fulfilled section 6.6 by default so long as its web applications were only for use inside the corporate network.
"PCI DSS is a lot like a fire code or a health code. It does not guarantee smooth sailing, it just helps people avoid repeating a lot of painful mistakes from the past," said Chess.
Latest stories from Security
Related articles
Related jobs
Poll
What is the most important IT priority for your company this year?
Connect with V3.co.uk
This paper focuses on a series of best practices and techniques for development teams looking to improve their software development processes
Why good data management at all levels is essential in the modern business (video, 6mins)
Technical Author - Enfield, North London - £30,000...
.NET Developer (ASP.NET, C#, VB.NET, SSIS, SSRS, C#.NET...
.NET Developer (ASP.NET, VB.NET, C#, VB, C#.NET, dot...
ASP.NET, C# Developer (.NET, C#.NET, dot NET, Web Application...
Keep up to date with the latest products, services and technologies from the world's leading IT companies. IThound.com brings you over 2,000 white papers, case studies and analyst reports.
Do you agree?
Misleading title
Article screams "Security expert slams PCI auditing". The most severe criticism made by Brian Chess about PCI was that it took a relaxed attitude to PCI. The word "slam" therefore is only the author's (Clement James) opinion
Posted by: Kamal Parmar 16 Apr 2008
Need hooked on Phonics?
Thought there was a miss print in the article but after seeing it twice (organisation) someone needs to do spell check before publishing.
Posted by: Drive-By-Viewer 05 Apr 2008
Another explanation for the data breach...
...maybe it was an inside job?
Posted by: Graham Cluley, Sophos 04 Apr 2008
Re: Security Expert Slams PCI Auditing
I wonder, would it have helped if PCI-DSS were less focused on just the cardholder information and broader in the scope of the system? I also feel for the QSA, since they will likely come under serious fire for not checking for adequate segregation of the cardholder network from the internal network, or failure to identify adequate controls for protecting the information during the authorization process...whatever the case, since they did the assessment and certified the compliance, they seem like an easy target.
Posted by: david 04 Apr 2008