ML
    • Recent
    • Categories
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    An interesting post about a security auditor's requirements!

    Water Closet
    security audit
    4
    5
    931
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • AmbarishrhA
      Ambarishrh
      last edited by

      https://serverfault.com/questions/293217/our-security-auditor-is-an-idiot-how-do-i-give-him-the-information-he-wants

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
      • scottalanmillerS
        scottalanmiller
        last edited by

        That's not a real auditor, that's a hacker posing as an auditor. If that auditor didn't have a signed, bonded affidavit from the CEO saying that he could social engineer the IT department to test their resolve then they should immediately have called the FBI, assuming that this is the US. That the person claims to be an auditor doesn't make him one, that he keeps badgering the IT guy makes what might be a mistake into clear social engineering. Charges should have been filed against them. Had they done that to a public company, charges would like have been brought under any number of federal statutes including SEC regulations.

        JaredBuschJ 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
        • JaredBuschJ
          JaredBusch @scottalanmiller
          last edited by

          @scottalanmiller said in An interesting post about a security auditor's requirements!:

          That's not a real auditor, that's a hacker posing as an auditor. If that auditor didn't have a signed, bonded affidavit from the CEO saying that he could social engineer the IT department to test their resolve then they should immediately have called the FBI, assuming that this is the US. That the person claims to be an auditor doesn't make him one, that he keeps badgering the IT guy makes what might be a mistake into clear social engineering. Charges should have been filed against them. Had they done that to a public company, charges would like have been brought under any number of federal statutes including SEC regulations.

          from the linked article:

          My "legal guy" has suggested revealing the company would probably cause more problems than needed. I can say though, this is not a major provider, they have less 100 clients using this service. We originally started using them when the site was tiny and running on a little VPS, and we didn't want to go through all the effort of getting PCI (We used to redirect to their frontend, like PayPal Standard). But when we moved to directly processing cards (including getting PCI, and common sense), the devs decided to keep using the same company just a different API. The company is based in the Birmingham, UK area so I'd highly doubt anyone here will be affected.

          scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
          • Deleted74295D
            Deleted74295 Banned
            last edited by

            Yeah...This is hilarious.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • scottalanmillerS
              scottalanmiller @JaredBusch
              last edited by

              @JaredBusch said in An interesting post about a security auditor's requirements!:

              @scottalanmiller said in An interesting post about a security auditor's requirements!:

              That's not a real auditor, that's a hacker posing as an auditor. If that auditor didn't have a signed, bonded affidavit from the CEO saying that he could social engineer the IT department to test their resolve then they should immediately have called the FBI, assuming that this is the US. That the person claims to be an auditor doesn't make him one, that he keeps badgering the IT guy makes what might be a mistake into clear social engineering. Charges should have been filed against them. Had they done that to a public company, charges would like have been brought under any number of federal statutes including SEC regulations.

              from the linked article:

              My "legal guy" has suggested revealing the company would probably cause more problems than needed. I can say though, this is not a major provider, they have less 100 clients using this service. We originally started using them when the site was tiny and running on a little VPS, and we didn't want to go through all the effort of getting PCI (We used to redirect to their frontend, like PayPal Standard). But when we moved to directly processing cards (including getting PCI, and common sense), the devs decided to keep using the same company just a different API. The company is based in the Birmingham, UK area so I'd highly doubt anyone here will be affected.

              Yeah, legal seemed to agree.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
              • 1 / 1
              • First post
                Last post