Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Perimeter

7/26/2010
10:00 AM
Adrian Lane
Adrian Lane
Commentary
50%
50%

What You Should Know About Tokenization

A week ago Visa released a set of best practices and recommendations for tokenization. Unfortunately, "best practices" leaves plenty of room for poor implementations.

A week ago Visa released a set of best practices and recommendations for tokenization. Unfortunately, "best practices" leaves plenty of room for poor implementations.A few months back I wrote a post about token deployment strategies for meeting PCI compliance. What I did not discuss were some of the differences between the different tokenization technologies on the market.

Token solutions have become popular because they remove credit card data from most processing systems, thus eliminating them from inspection during PCI assessment. For example, if you have a dozen systems (order entry, customer management, payment gateways, general ledger, etc.) and you substitute a token for the Primacy Account Number, then you remove a huge portion of the PCI audit. For a lot of merchants, that means a savings of 50 percent. No credit card numbers, no security threat, so no reason to poke around.

But that assumes the token is secure. The critical part of a token strategy is to ensure the token does not betray the original credit card number. Tokens created via any mathematical function, be it cryptography or hashing, always start with the account number. That means there is a chance they can be reversed back into the original if not carefully implemented or deployed. But we know from experience that poorly implemented algorithms, bad entropy or pseudo-random number generators, or improper use of padding/salting results in tokens that are easy to hack. The only two recommendations made by Visa are for mathematical derivatives, and there is considerable leeway in its guidance. In other words, a solution that meets Visa's criteria can provide poor security.

What does this mean to you? Several things:

1. Visa should have included in its recommendation the use of completely random numbers. This is far more secure because there is simply no way to reverse-engineer the credit card number from the token given there is no mathematical relationship. The only way to gain access to the original data is through the token server itself. I recommend you select this option if it is available from your vendor.

2. If you are looking at a solution that uses cryptographic functions, then you need to understand you will be using some form of a format-preserving encryption to form the token. Despite being based on accepted strong cryptographic algorithms, the format-preserving options are not specifically endorsed by Visa or the PCI Standards Council. Make sure your vendor has had its product professionally reviewed by a noted expert in the field of cryptanalysis. Also, verify that your auditor will remove systems using encryption from the scope of the audit -- otherwise you miss out on cost savings.

3. If you are looking at a solution that uses a hashing variant, then first make sure the method used is acceptable to Visa and PCI. Second, verify that the vendor implementation has been reviewed by the cryptanalysis community. Finally, see if you can locate a product that provides random salt values for each token. Static salt values or salting with a finite set of merchant IDs offers poor security and makes the hashes vulnerable to dictionary attacks.

Take the time to verify these options so you can get full value for your tokenization investment.

Adrian Lane is an analyst/CTO with Securosis LLC, an independent security consulting practice. Special to Dark Reading. Adrian Lane is a Security Strategist and brings over 25 years of industry experience to the Securosis team, much of it at the executive level. Adrian specializes in database security, data security, and secure software development. With experience at Ingres, Oracle, and ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Why Vulnerable Code Is Shipped Knowingly
Chris Eng, Chief Research Officer, Veracode,  11/30/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win an Amazon Gift Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: I think the boss is bing watching '70s TV shows again!
Current Issue
2021 Top Enterprise IT Trends
We've identified the key trends that are poised to impact the IT landscape in 2021. Find out why they're important and how they will affect you today!
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-6017
PUBLISHED: 2020-12-03
Valve's Game Networking Sockets prior to version v1.2.0 improperly handles long unreliable segments in function SNP_ReceiveUnreliableSegment() when configured to support plain-text messages, leading to a Heap-Based Buffer Overflow and resulting in a memory corruption and possibly even a remote code ...
CVE-2020-6021
PUBLISHED: 2020-12-03
Check Point Endpoint Security Client for Windows before version E84.20 allows write access to the directory from which the installation repair takes place. Since the MS Installer allows regular users to run the repair, an attacker can initiate the installation repair and place a specially crafted DL...
CVE-2020-6111
PUBLISHED: 2020-12-03
An exploitable denial-of-service vulnerability exists in the IPv4 functionality of Allen-Bradley MicroLogix 1100 Programmable Logic Controller Systems Series B FRN 16.000, Series B FRN 15.002, Series B FRN 15.000, Series B FRN 14.000, Series B FRN 13.000, Series B FRN 12.000, Series B FRN 11.000 and...
CVE-2020-5680
PUBLISHED: 2020-12-03
Improper input validation vulnerability in EC-CUBE versions from 3.0.5 to 3.0.18 allows a remote attacker to cause a denial-of-service (DoS) condition via unspecified vector.
CVE-2020-5638
PUBLISHED: 2020-12-03
Cross-site scripting vulnerability in desknet's NEO (desknet's NEO Small License V5.5 R1.5 and earlier, and desknet's NEO Enterprise License V5.5 R1.5 and earlier) allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary script via unspecified vectors.