Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	Note 10 – Contingencies During the second quarter of 2015, our management became aware that certain of our products which were sold by our European subsidiary to a third-party distributor may have been resold by the distributor to parties in Iran, potentially including parties whose property and interests in property may be blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13224, Executive Order 13382 or that may be identified under Section 560.304 of 31 C.F.R. Part 560 as the “Government of Iran”. The Audit Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors has initiated an internal investigation to review this matter with the assistance of outside counsel. We have stopped all shipments to such distributor pending the outcome of the investigation. As a precautionary matter, concurrent initial notices of voluntary disclosure were submitted on June 25, 2015 with each of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), and the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”). We will file a further report with each of OFAC and BIS after completing our review and fully intend to cooperate with both agencies. Our total revenues from all sales to the particular distributor during the period relevant to review by OFAC and BIS (June 1, 2010 through June 25, 2015) were approximately $3.1 million. OFAC and BIS will review the results of our investigation when it is submitted. Following that review, OFAC and BIS may conclude that the disclosed sales resulted in violations of U.S. economic sanctions and/or export control laws and warrant the imposition of civil penalties, such as fines, limitations on the our ability to export products from the United States, and/or referral for further investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice. While the filing of a voluntary disclosure may be a mitigating factor in consideration of any penalties by these agencies, any resulting fines or restrictions may nonetheless be material to our financial results in the period in which they are imposed, but at this time we are not able to estimate the possible loss or range of loss in connection with this matter. Additionally, disclosure of this conduct and any fines or other action relating to this conduct could harm our reputation and have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and financial condition. We cannot predict when OFAC and BIS will conclude their own review of our voluntary self-disclosures or whether they may impose any penalties. On July 28, 2015 a putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, captioned Linda J. Rossbach v. Vasco Data Security International, Inc., et al., case number 1:15-cv-06605, naming VASCO and certain of its current executive officers as defendants and alleging violations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The suit was purportedly filed on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased VASCO securities between February 18, 2014 and July 21, 2015, and seeks to recover damages allegedly caused by the defendants’ alleged violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks certification as a class action and unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys’ fees. Pursuant to a September 1, 2015 scheduling order entered by the court, the lead plaintiff, once appointed, will have sixty days to file an amended complaint or notify the defendants that the lead plaintiff intends to rely on the current complaint. The defendants will then have sixty days to answer or otherwise respond to the operative complaint. Although the ultimate outcome of litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend against the action vigorously. On October 9, 2015, a derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, captioned Elizabeth Herrera v. Hunt, et al., case number 1:15-cv-08937, naming VASCO’s Board of Directors and certain of its executive officers as individual defendants and the Company as a nominal defendant. On October 22, 2015, a second derivative complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, captioned Beth Seltzer v. Hunt, et al., case number 2015-ch-15541, naming the same defendants. The complaints assert, among other things, that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by making material misstatements in, and omitting material information from, the Company’s public disclosures and by failing to maintain adequate internal controls and properly manage the Company. Among other things, the complaints seek unspecified compensatory damages and injunctive relief. On October 29, 2015, the Seltzer action was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Note 10 – Contingencies

During the second quarter of 2015, our management became aware that certain of our products which were sold by our European subsidiary to a third-party distributor may have been resold by the distributor to parties in Iran, potentially including parties whose property and interests in property may be blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13224, Executive Order 13382 or that may be identified under Section 560.304 of 31 C.F.R. Part 560 as the “Government of Iran”.

The Audit Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors has initiated an internal investigation to review this matter with the assistance of outside counsel. We have stopped all shipments to such distributor pending the outcome of the investigation. As a precautionary matter, concurrent initial notices of voluntary disclosure were submitted on June 25, 2015 with each of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), and the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”). We will file a further report with each of OFAC and BIS after completing our review and fully intend to cooperate with both agencies. Our total revenues from all sales to the particular distributor during the period relevant to review by OFAC and BIS (June 1, 2010 through June 25, 2015) were approximately $3.1 million.

OFAC and BIS will review the results of our investigation when it is submitted. Following that review, OFAC and BIS may conclude that the disclosed sales resulted in violations of U.S. economic sanctions and/or export control laws and warrant the imposition of civil penalties, such as fines, limitations on the our ability to export products from the United States, and/or referral for further investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice. While the filing of a voluntary disclosure may be a mitigating factor in consideration of any penalties by these agencies, any resulting fines or restrictions may nonetheless be material to our financial results in the period in which they are imposed, but at this time we are not able to estimate the possible loss or range of loss in connection with this matter. Additionally, disclosure of this conduct and any fines or other action relating to this conduct could harm our reputation and have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and financial condition. We cannot predict when OFAC and BIS will conclude their own review of our voluntary self-disclosures or whether they may impose any penalties.

On July 28, 2015 a putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, captioned Linda J. Rossbach v. Vasco Data Security International, Inc., et al., case number 1:15-cv-06605, naming VASCO and certain of its current executive officers as defendants and alleging violations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The suit was purportedly filed on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased VASCO securities between February 18, 2014 and July 21, 2015, and seeks to recover damages allegedly caused by the defendants’ alleged violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks certification as a class action and unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys’ fees. Pursuant to a September 1, 2015 scheduling order entered by the court, the lead plaintiff, once appointed, will have sixty days to file an amended complaint or notify the defendants that the lead plaintiff intends to rely on the current complaint. The defendants will then have sixty days to answer or otherwise respond to the operative complaint. Although the ultimate outcome of litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend against the action vigorously.

On October 9, 2015, a derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, captioned Elizabeth Herrera v. Hunt, et al., case number 1:15-cv-08937, naming VASCO’s Board of Directors and certain of its executive officers as individual defendants and the Company as a nominal defendant. On October 22, 2015, a second derivative complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, captioned Beth Seltzer v. Hunt, et al., case number 2015-ch-15541, naming the same defendants. The complaints assert, among other things, that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by making material misstatements in, and omitting material information from, the Company’s public disclosures and by failing to maintain adequate internal controls and properly manage the Company. Among other things, the complaints seek unspecified compensatory damages and injunctive relief. On October 29, 2015, the Seltzer action was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.