Do you remember Lush Cosmetics' rather public payment card data and personal data loss announced in January 2011? After 4 months of being compromised, the problem was recognised, customers were notified and the web site was shutdown.
Lush had allowed people's data to be stolen via its own web site. We still await to hear what the fines and other penalties will be levied under the Payment Card Industry Security Standards Council (PCI SSC) Data Security Standard (DSS) if they are found to have been non-compliant at the time. However the UK's Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) became involved due to the related loss of 5,000 individual's personal data and confirmed in a press release on Wednesday this week that Lush Cosmetics had also breached the Data Protection Act 1998. Formed in 1994-1995, Lush Cosmetics has been a registered data controller (No. Z8189523) since late 2003.
As expected, no enforcement notice or monetary penalty has been issued, but Lush Cosmetics Limited's Managing Director, Mark Constantine, has signed an undertaking to ensure that personal data are processed in accordance with the seventh data protection principle concerning security, and in particular take the following measures to improve the protection of personal, and cardholder data:
- Appropriate technical and organisational measures are employed, and maintained, to prevent the unlawful processing of customer data, particularly within web based systems;
- Only the minimum amount of customer personal data is stored and that this is retained only for as long as a relevant business need exists;
- Computer systems storing customer personal data must be subject of regular penetration testing , with activity logs retained for an appropriate period of time and frequently interrogated for evidence of malicious attack;
- The processing of customer credit card data is conducted by a PCI compliant external service provider;
- The data controller shall implement such other security measures as it deems appropriate to ensure that personal data is protected against unauthorised and unlawful processing, accidental loss, destruction, and/or damage.
...as long as the Data Protection Act, or succeeding legislation are in force. So correctly a focus on Lush's web systems, including penetration testing of systems holding personal data. But also other appropriate security measures as necessary. Let's hope Lush aren't left thinking penetration testing is the answer — security needs to be considered at all stages of acquisition, development, deployment and operation.
And yes, that's right, the ICO is insisting on compliance with PCI DSS. The ICO made it clear in the press release of its expectations for PCI DSS compliance by other online retailers, that will otherwise risk enforcement action by the ICO.
This seems to be a valid approach, since fines, investigation costs, etc may still be levied for lack of PCI DSS compliance too. But I have some concerns with how Lush are portraying their squeaky-clean new status in the web site's terms and conditions:
Our website (www.lush.co.uk) is now operating under level one PCI-DSS compliance. If you don't have your geek-speak handbook around, that means Personal Card Industry - Data Security Standard. Level one is the highest level achievable; we don't want to take any risks with our customers' money or data. Although this doesn't guarantee that our website is impervious to hacking, it does guarantee that your card details are safe and secure. You can read more about PCI compliance here [missing link]
I'm not entirely sure that moving all cardholder data off-site to a PCI DSS compliant third party processor necessarily means much about the security of other data on the Lush web site and elsewhere at Lush, or much about systems outside the cardholder data environment. Is this just meaningless bubbly rhetoric to provide false assurance, or maybe Lush still does not understand what they are doing? Complying with regulatory and contractual mandates isn't the same as believing in "filling the world with perfume and in the right to make mistakes, lose everything and start again". Some of that "honest meaning" mentioned by Lush would be welcome here too.
Personally I think the PCI SSC should be a bit more strict about how their name can be used to endorse systems. Hey, clerkendweller.com meets PCI DSS compliance criteria too! There's no cardholder data to begin with...
Posted on: 12 August 2011 at 08:22 hrs