[AusNOG] Issues receiving from TPG Mail servers.
Mark Foster
blakjak at blakjak.net
Mon Jul 23 18:21:53 EST 2018
Maybe i've missed something. Email is valid to shift around in plain
text. TLS 1.0 might not be acceptable if you're talking minimum
encryption standards, but I agree with the posters that point out that
the Payment Card environment should have no dependencies on any email
exchange with third parties. This sounds to me like a box-ticking
exercise where the right action on the public internet is to generally
support the lowest common denominator unless it's insecure to do so -
and in the case of email, you have to assume all transactions are
insecure anyway unless you have end-to-end controls in place (which
clearly you don't in this case if TPG is one end!)
In the end you should be able to exchange email with TPG without any
encryption at all and it shouldn't affect your compliance, surely?! As
you can't be held responsible for a third party system and shouldn't be
dependent on its status for your compliance as a result.
Disclaimer: Have never tried to seek PCI compliance in any system i've
operated.
Mark.
On 23/07/2018 7:03 PM, Paul Wilkins wrote:
> PCI spec is pretty clear you're to have separation (virtual/physical)
> between PCI and other environments.
>
> OTOH, TPG SLA's do not require TLS1.0+.
>
> Someone is going to have to sling for an external MTA.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Paul Wilkins
>
> On 23 July 2018 at 16:01, Michael Junek <michael at juneks.com.au
> <mailto:michael at juneks.com.au>> wrote:
>
> Just being the 'mean security consultant' - the security level of
> each system could easily be argued - email would be considered low
> security for compatibility (which technically means that
> TLS1.0/SSL3 etc is acceptable) ; whereas the web servers are
> considered high security handling CHD, which means that they
> should covered under the full encrypted spec. It would also mean
> if that was considered, that 2.2.1 would apply, and seperation of
> function would be required.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Bradley Silverman <bsilverman at staff.ventraip.com
> <mailto:bsilverman at staff.ventraip.com>>
> *Sent:* Monday, 23 July 2018 15:56
> *To:* Michael Junek
> *Cc:* Mark Newton; ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
> <mailto:ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [AusNOG] Issues receiving from TPG Mail servers.
> @Michael - That's what we are looking at doing, though it will be
> a pain. Not sure how to go about doing it with Exim & cPanel but
> will start looking into it.
>
> Re 2.2.1, it won't fail if they have the same security level,
> which is what we are trying to accomplish by bringing TPG into
> spec. DNS is on separate servers, and the database connection
> isn't publicly accessible.
>
> Really appreciate the help with this gents. Hopefully TPG get back
> in touch with me else we will have to investigate ways of blocking
> TLS handshakes from TPG.
>
> Regards,
>
> Bradley Silverman | VentraIP Australia
> *Technical Operations*
>
> mobile. +61 418 641 103
> phone. +61 3 9013 8464
>
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 3:48 PM, Michael Junek
> <michael at juneks.com.au <mailto:michael at juneks.com.au>> wrote:
>
> On the PCI Audit side of things, however, I think the shared
> hosting such as CPanel servers will fail PCI based on
> requirement 2.2.1 regardless--
>
>
> "
>
> Implement only one primary function per server to prevent
> functions that require different security levels from
> co-existing on the same server. (For example, web servers,
> database servers, and DNS should be implemented on separate
> servers.)
>
> "
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* AusNOG <ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net
> <mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net>> on behalf of Bradley
> Silverman <bsilverman at staff.ventraip.com
> <mailto:bsilverman at staff.ventraip.com>>
> *Sent:* Monday, 23 July 2018 15:40
> *To:* Mark Newton
> *Cc:* ausnog at lists.ausnog.net <mailto:ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [AusNOG] Issues receiving from TPG Mail servers.
> @Michael - I agree that turning it off is the best way of
> solving it, the issue is we don't have the servers forcing
> TLS, that's TPG.
>
> @Mark - These are shared hosting servers, think cPanel &
> Plesk. The one server is both mail, and website. Which means
> that the server has websites that accept credit card payments,
> and therefore is subject to PCI. Any system that is on that
> server is required to comply with PCI.
>
> If the server was website only, then I'd agree 100% that it
> would be out of scope for PCI, but since the same server runs
> both email and websites for shared hosting customers, it is in
> scope.
>
> We have zero issue with any other MTA, it is only these TPG
> MTA's that are forcing both TLSv1.0 and an old cipher. If they
> either turned off TLS or upgraded to TLSv1.2 they would be up
> to spec.
>
> But we either have to make the decision to block TPG from
> being able to send to the 100,000s of email accounts we have,
> or make it so that none of our customers servers are PCI
> compliant. I'd rather speak to TPG and work with them to fix
> the underlying problem.
>
> Regards,
>
> Bradley Silverman | VentraIP Australia
> *Technical Operations*
>
> mobile. +61 418 641 103
> phone. +61 3 9013 8464
>
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 3:34 PM, Mark Newton
> <newton at atdot.dotat.org <mailto:newton at atdot.dotat.org>> wrote:
>
> But PCI Compliance only applies to the Cardholder Data
> Environment.
>
> Why on earth would you have a mail server in the
> Cardholder Data Environment?
>
> And if it isn’t in the CDE: You can run whatever version
> of TLS you want, and it’s none of PCI’s business.
>
> - mark
>
>
>
>> On Jul 23, 2018, at 3:06 PM, Bradley Silverman
>> <bsilverman at staff.ventraip.com
>> <mailto:bsilverman at staff.ventraip.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Matt,
>>
>> Really appreciate you sending me that email, I will
>> definitely send an email through to there!
>>
>> @Mark Certainly not! PCI Compliance requires that TLSv1.0
>> be disabled on the server. Postifx/Exim/Dovecot are not
>> exception to the rule, if we disable TLSv1.0 on the
>> server and remove the weak cipher, then TPG's MTAs aren't
>> able to send mail to us.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Bradley Silverman | VentraIP Australia
>> *Technical Operations*
>>
>> mobile. +61 418 641 103
>> phone. +61 3 9013 8464
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 2:48 PM, Mark Newton
>> <newton at atdot.dotat.org <mailto:newton at atdot.dotat.org>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> You’re trying to exchange payment card information
>> over email?
>>
>> - mark
>>
>>> On Jul 23, 2018, at 1:30 PM, Bradley Silverman
>>> <bsilverman at staff.ventraip.com
>>> <mailto:bsilverman at staff.ventraip.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Does anyone have a contact at TPG regarding their
>>> mail servers?
>>>
>>> We are having issues with their mail servers using
>>> non-PCI compliant ciphers which is stopping our
>>> servers accepting mail from them.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Bradley Silverman | VentraIP Australia
>>> *Technical Operations*
>>>
>>> mobile. +61 418 641 103
>>> phone. +61 3 9013 8464
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> AusNOG mailing list
>>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net <mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
>>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>> <http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net <mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
> <http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20180723/9f590d44/attachment.html>
More information about the AusNOG
mailing list