Actually this makes a pretty good case for this regulation being a joke. They clearly aren’t up to the responsibility of being a payment processor and are leaning on the law to sustain their business rather than simply demonstrating aptitude directly.
Because it's a scanner for PCI-DSS compliance, not a scan for security issues.
They do not fear that unapproved scanners will be more strict than approved scanners, they fear they will be less strict.
PCI-DSS is not government regulation, but an industry created and enforced standard. Compliance is not mandated by federal law and only a couple of states have laws that reference it. For example, Nevada requires compliance while Washington doesn't require compliance but does remove liability for breaches for compliant businesses.
Did you read downthread about the actual "2FA" feature this team "bypassed"?
It's not the size that matters, but how you use it that counts.
Regulations can be self-imposed on an industry, it does not have to be something the government imposes. Calling PCI-DSS a regulation is still accurate despite many people conflating the term "regulation" solely with government action. In this case, the authority creating the regulations is the PCI Security Standards Council who have their power because the big players in the industry give it to them.
Don't look behind the curtain.
All of HackerOne's information that you cite is about them being PCI-DSS-compliant or having undergone a SOC2 Type 2 audit. Nothing you link to identifies them as a PCI-DSS auditing company. They are not.
And the "scans" the PCI-DSS standards refers to are standard pen-test and external vulnerability scans, usually conducted by an accounting company who will certify the scan results. They are for known vulnerabilities, things like the version of Apache you are on, etc. None of the reports sent via HackerOne would qualify as a "scan" under PCI-DSS.
Please read the page again. They specifically say you can achieve compliance certification with HackerOne.
On top of that, there's not really any legal issues for being non-compliant, as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread.
HackerOne offering PCI-DSS approved auditor approved challenges gets you nowhere towards the claims you made in your first comment.
To review:
1. HackerOne would have to be a PCI DSS Approved Scanning Vendor - they are not AFAICT, neither is the CyberNews research team that did the scan AFAICT.
2. HackerOne would have to have conducted the scan - they did not. The CyberNews research team did.
3. The scan that HackerOne did would have to qualify as a PCI-DSS external scan - which ... do you get the part that HackerOne did not do the scan here or not? And nowhere did the CyberNews research team claim they performed a PCI-DSS external scan.
Please at least try to make an argument for your claims
Meet pentest requirements for PCI DSS, SOC2 Type II, and HITRUST compliance certifications.” [1]
Further, that has absolutely nothing to do with anyone reporting vulnerabilities through HackerOne. That is not a scan by the definition of PCI-DSS, the SOC2 trust services criteria, or any other security framework you care to name.
Just give it up. You're wrong.
Not anywhere on the page you linked. And a "PCI-DSS auditor approved organization" is not a "PCI-DSS approved scanning vendor" which if they were you could just quote the certificate number instead of link to HackerOne.
----
EDIT: I guess you are referring to this:
> Meet penetration testing requirements for PCI DSS and SOC2 Type II compliance certifications with our auditor-approved penetration testing methodology and Security Assessment Report.
This in no way is the same as claiming "we are a PCI-DSS auditor approved organization". Which again, would be irrelevant if it was the case.
----
Further, if you read the article, it is clear the "We" does not refer to "HackerOne".
> When we pushed the HackerOne staff for clarification on these issues, they removed points from our Reputation scores, relegating our profiles to a suspicious, spammy level.
As far as I can tell "We" refers to cybernews.com
And again even if cybernews was a PCI-DSS approved scanning vendor it would still have to qualify as an official external scan within the PCI-DSS framework.
Read the page carefully - it specifically states they are an auditor approved org.
Quote from page: “Meet penetration testing requirements for PCI DSS and SOC2 Type II compliance certifications with our auditor-approved penetration testing methodology and Security Assessment Report.[1].”
Secondly, PayPal works with HackerOne officially [2] and within the CVSS standards as they clearly state on their HackerOne page, which is complying with PCI DSS.
[1] https://www.hackerone.com/product/challenge
[2] https://hackerone.com/paypal
Edit: Archived incase:
This comment chain has convinced me that PCI-DSS is a farce.
Emphasis mine.
"...satisfy the requirements for external penetration testing for audited PCI DSS and SOC2 Type II certifications."
"Final Report Delivered. Ready for Auditors."
Quote from your source:
> If your scan fails, you must schedule a rescan within 30 days to prove that the critical, high-risk or medium-risk vulnerabilities have been patched.
Scan in this sentence refers to "a PCI DSS external scan".
The list of approved vendors that can conduct PCI DSS external scans can be found here: https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/assessors_and_solutions...
Please find cybernews' certificate number there and quote it for us, I have looked and can't find it.
I would guess that, contrary to your implication, they are not an approved scanning vendor. If this is the case then it really does not speak to the characteristics of PCI-DSS and your comment just seems wrong.
And even if they were an approved scanning vendor, from what little I know about PCI-DSS, these scans are part of larger process - so even if they were an approved scanning vendor the scan failure would still have had to be part of the larger process for this 30 day limit to apply.
I could go on and on about how much I hate PayPal and random other things, but just because I don't like something does not quite justify making false claims about it.