"It's alright to question your PCI auditor. This isn't about getting out of doing things that really should be done. It's about making sure you aren't unnecessarily wasting money, period. Ask them to justify their findings and recommendations. And seek a second opinion (from another auditor or a security expert) if need be."
A bit back a (then prospective) client came to me while going through a PCI audit. They'd been informed by their auditor (
VeriSign in this case) that they needed to segregate off a group of servers. Fair enough. The catch was they were also being told that this needed to be done using a second firewall, in order to be compliant, even though their existing firewall had more than enough interfaces to configure additional distinct security zones. The proposed second firewall would be under the same administrative control and offer no greater granularity in security policy enforcement. In short, it wasn't a terrible idea but it didn't seem very value enhancing either.
The client had an inkling that this shouldn't be necessary. They had further discussions with the auditor to no avail. In the interest of time and manpower, they went ahead and bought another firewall. I was called in later to integrate this and some other changes into their network. One of my first questions was "Why are we doing this?". After hearing a bit more of the background I still felt firm in my conviction that either (a) we weren't getting the entire story and thus even with a second firewall I wasn't sure we were meeting the requirements or (b) there really wasn't sufficient grounds to add a second firewall when the isolation could be done completely adequately on their existing firewall by shifting around the topology a bit to utilize available interfaces and adding some new access rules.
My view was that the assessor had a specific ideal model in mind and wasn't really listening to the arguments given thus far. This was even though those arguments weren't against the server isolation being suggested. The only disagreement was over how to get the end result.
In the interest of time I proceeded with preliminary integration plan development that included the second firewall while recommending a continued push that the auditor needed to justify their recommendation more specifically. Over the course of the next several days, after the client had gotten input from myself including points to bring up and gained additional confidence in their original inkling that the extra firewall was unnecessary, the auditor shifted gears and said implementing the requested isolation on a single firewall was acceptable.
At this point I'd only spent several hours on this project. There was no longer justification for the purchase of a second firewall and the changes required to isolate the servers were far simpler. Even though my client had already purchased the second firewall prior to my involvement, they could now return it, sell it off, re-deploy it elsewhere, use it as a spare, etc.. The expense of engineering and labor for a more complex integration effort was avoided (plus, the long-term costs of having another piece of equipment to maintain, an added failure point, and a more complex topology to troubleshoot).
There are something like
one hundred or so assessors that work with the PCI Council to do audits. Each has their own strengths, weaknesses, and agendas. Some are relatively pure-play professional services providers while others sell their own security software and hardware (and, yes, often related to assisting you in gaining PCI compliance). Assessors are allowed to recommend their own services and products as solutions to problems that come up during audits (though they are not supposed to require their use in order to pass). The PCI DSS standard isn't specific -- which is actually a good thing since every environment is different -- so there's much open to interpretation at both the end-user and the auditor level. Finally, all auditors are human and make mistakes as well.
Bottom line: it's alright to question your PCI auditor. This isn't about getting out of doing things that really should be done. It's about making sure you aren't unnecessarily wasting money, period. Ask them to justify their findings and recommendations. And seek a second opinion (from another auditor or a security expert) if need be.
-jr
