PCI DSS Requirement 3.2 states ‘Do not store sensitive authentication data after authorization…’ and 3.4 requires PAN to be rendered unreadable. However, best practice and the spirit of the standard strongly discourage storing PAN in logs at all. Storing PAN in logs, even encrypted, increases the attack surface and is only acceptable if there is a documented, justified business need (which debugging rarely is) and all other protections (encryption, access controls, etc.) are in place. The correct answer highlights that the absence of a legitimate business need makes it a violation.

PCI DSS scoping is based on the system’s function and interaction with cardholder data (CHD). A system that does not store, process, or transmit CHD, and is not in the same network segment as CDE systems, is generally out of scope. The key here is that the connection itself does not involve CHD. If the connection were properly segmented (e.g., a firewall rule allowing only that specific, non-CHD traffic), the server would remain out of scope. The answer emphasizes the importance of evaluating the nature of the connection and data flow.

While using a compliant third-party payment page (like a hosted payment page) greatly reduces scope, it does not eliminate the merchant’s responsibilities entirely. The merchant’s environment that redirects to or presents the payment page must not compromise the security of the payment session (e.g., via man-in-the-browser attacks). The merchant is also responsible for managing the third-party service provider relationship per Requirement 12.8. Their SAQ type will likely be simpler (e.g., SAQ A), but they are not devoid of all obligations.

PCI DSS requires segmentation to be isolated such that out-of-scope systems cannot communicate with or impact the security of the CDE. The most effective method is a defense-in-depth approach using a dedicated internal firewall (or firewall function) that explicitly denies all traffic by default (a ‘deny-all, permit-by-exception’ policy). This provides a clear, auditable control point. While VLANs and host-based firewalls can be part of a segmentation strategy, they are generally not considered sufficient on their own as primary segmentation controls, as VLANs can be vulnerable to misconfiguration and hopping attacks, and host-based controls can be inconsistent.

PCI DSS Requirement 3.6.6 mandates the separation of duties between key management and system administration functions wherever possible. The scenario describes the keys being accessible to ‘administrators.’ This conflates the roles. Ideally, the individuals who manage the keys (e.g., generate, rotate, destroy) should not be the same as those who administer the systems using the keys. This separation reduces the risk of compromise. The other options (strong crypto, secure distribution, retention/destruction) are also required, but the description does not explicitly contradict them; it is silent on separation of duties, which is the missing critical control.

System configuration standards (Requirement 2.2) are foundational security documents. Their primary purpose is to establish a secure, consistent baseline (‘build standard’) for all system types (e.g., servers, firewalls, workstations). This ensures that every deployed system starts from a known, secure state that aligns with the organization’s security policy and PCI DSS requirements. Reviewing these standards during an assessment checks if they are comprehensive, secure, and actually implemented. While they may influence patching (Option A), their core function is secure baseline configuration, not just inventory (Option C) or installation guides (Option D).

PCI DSS Requirement 6.4 mandates that production data (live PANs) must not be used for testing or development. If data from production is used, it must be sanitized (e.g., rendered unreadable via masking, truncation, encryption with key management). Furthermore, the test environment itself must be isolated from both the production CDE and out-of-scope networks to prevent accidental exposure or leakage. Simply truncating the PAN is a good sanitization method, but it does not absolve the need for a secure, isolated test environment. The environment does not necessarily need to be fully in scope if properly isolated and containing only sanitized data.

PCI DSS Requirement 12.10.2 is explicit: “Notify payment card brands and acquirers (for example, merchant bank) of a suspected or confirmed loss or theft of any materials or records that contain account data, in accordance with applicable agreements with the payment card brands and acquirers.” Timely notification to the relevant parties (acquirer/bank) is a critical and mandatory step that must be taken immediately upon suspicion or confirmation of a breach. The other actions (forensics, updating credentials, preserving evidence) are important parts of the incident response process but are not the specific ‘immediate’ requirement called out in 12.10.2.

The fundamental principle of scoping is the system’s connectivity to the CDE. If the wireless network is connected to the same network segment as systems that handle CHD, then the wireless network and its devices are in scope, regardless of their intended function. The barcode scanners may not handle CHD, but if an attacker could compromise the wireless network, they could use it as a pivot point to attack the CDE. Therefore, the wireless network is in scope and must meet all relevant PCI DSS requirements (like strong encryption, changing default settings, etc.). Segmentation (Option B) could take it out of scope, but the question states it is ‘connected to’ the CDE.

PCI DSS Requirement 3.2 states ‘Do not store sensitive authentication data after authorization…’ and 3.4 requires PAN to be rendered unreadable. However, best practice and the spirit of the standard strongly discourage storing PAN in logs at all. Storing PAN in logs, even encrypted, increases the attack surface and is only acceptable if there is a documented, justified business need (which debugging rarely is) and all other protections (encryption, access controls, etc.) are in place. The correct answer highlights that the absence of a legitimate business need makes it a violation.0