4 ms·
This is suspicious: *The "new security policies" were introduced two weeks before our audit, and the six months historical logging was not required b
by ChristianMarks 15y ago
This is suspicious:
*The "new security policies" were introduced two weeks
before our audit, and the six months historical logging
was not required before the policy changes.
These "policies" were introduced by whom? His payment processor or by his company on the advice of this "auditor"?
Or did the OP make this up?
In short, I need;
A way to 'fake' six months worth of password changes
and make it look valid
A way to 'fake' six months of inbound file transfers
Why is the poster requesting help generating plausible fake data? Is he naive? Afraid of losing his job? Unaware of the legal implications?
- drunkpotato 15y agoYes, I wondered the same thing! Aside from the legal implications, the OP seems to have some questionable ethics as well.
- lukeschlather 15y agoWhat's unethical about that? If politics have required him to do provide information he can't legally provide, falsifying the information seems like the only reasonable course of action. Of course, quitting is the other out, but I do think he has a moral obligation to prevent his company from handing any of this information over to the auditor.
- div 15y agoThe only ethical course of action is to stop the circus and explain to your manager: - what this guy is asking for - how that is in violation of the PCI data security standard - explain that you are not able, and not allowed to provide this information - explain that this likely means the auditor is a hack and steps need to be taken to get a proper auditor
- nl 15y agoI suspect either his manager knows, or he is in a position where he doesn't have a manager. To quote: if I don't provide this information we loose access to our payments platform