Take On Payments


Take On Payments, a blog sponsored by the Retail Payments Risk Forum of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, is intended to foster dialogue on emerging risks in retail payment systems and enhance collaborative efforts to improve risk detection and mitigation. We encourage your active participation in Take on Payments and look forward to collaborating with you.

September 21, 2015

Mimicking Mother Nature

A few months ago, we had a large colony of bats take up residence in our house. With the issue now resolved, and with everything we had to do to get rid of them, I realize how the whole experience was similar to the tactics of fraudsters and the challenges faced by their victims in taking preventive, detective and corrective action.

We learned of the initial intrusion purely by accident. Previously, we have never had any sign of vermin being able to gain entry, so I thought we had a solid defense. My wife had noticed a small amount of droppings on the back porch but we thought they were from squirrels. Imagine my shock when my adult son informed me we had been invaded by bats. He had discovered them one morning following an overnight stay. Departing for an early tee time, he noticed a swarm of bats flying into a soffit vent crevice. Incredulous, I waited for dusk only to see for myself a constant stream of small brown bats exiting the soffit crevice.

My wife went a little bat crazy as she imagined hoards bats swooping down to carry off one of our grandkids. Actually, she was more concerned about the real threat of respiratory disease from their droppings as well as the potential for rabies. We began to do some research, and I soon learned that bats are a protected species, so they cannot be disturbed unless they are posing an immediate health threat. They weren’t, since they were not in our living space. But the problem intensified, which I realized one evening when I saw an even larger colony emerging from our chimney.

We began contacting companies that specialize in wildlife removal. We found a wide variety of suggested courses of action and prices. We selected one company based on its reputation, process, guaranteed results, and pricing. The company’s first step was to inspect the entire house to identify any other potential points of entry and to seal them. We notified our neighbors so they could be on the lookout to make sure the bats didn’t settle inside their houses. The next step was to install one-way excluders that would permit the bats to leave but not get back in. This seemed to be working well until a group of the bats somehow got word they were being evicted. Trying to find another way into the house, they navigated an interior wall and became trapped. Without water, they soon died and a putrid smell began to emerge. After cutting several holes in the wall, the technicians were able to locate the source and remove the carcasses. After a couple of weeks, the excluders were removed and the entry points sealed so we thought the problem was resolved.

Imagine our further surprise when we returned from vacation and found about 50 dead bats in our unfinished basement. It seems a group had remained and found a chase route from the attic to the basement seeking water. With the disposal of those bats, the problem seems to have finally been resolved. As fall approaches and bats migrate to warmer climates, the threat diminishes, but I can assure you we will be on the alert next spring.

So how does this relate to the payments fraud environment? Some similarities:

  • We thought we had a strong defense perimeter and were safe, but the bats found a way inside given they require an opening of only three-eighths of an inch.
  • While our discovery came shortly after their initial entry, it was only by sheer luck. We could have acted earlier if we had not ignored the early warning sign of their droppings.
  • We thought we had identified the sole location of the problem, but they then migrated to a second entry point.
  • Regulations limited the potential range of actions we could take to deal with the issue.
  • We shared information about the situation with our neighbors so they could be on the alert.
  • We analyzed several different options for dealing with the issue and preventing its recurrence.
  • Despite what we thought was a successful process, other issues arose and required action before there was a final resolution.

This experience with Mother Nature has provided us a learning opportunity and we are better informed and on the alert for future such events.

Photo of David Lott By David Lott, a payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

September 21, 2015 in fraud, regulations, risk, risk management | Permalink


Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

September 8, 2015

Why Is the U.S. Card-Present Fraud Breakout Not Present?

Before answering the question the title poses, let me introduce myself. I'm the newest blogger in the Risk Forum. Recently, I was the faster-payments-product guy in the Retail Payments Office (RPO) at the Atlanta Fed. While in the RPO, I was a cheerleader who pushed and cajoled the industry to get same-day ACH off the ground. Incidentally, same-day ACH is due to become available universally as early as September 2016 due to a recent rule change passed by NACHA.

Back to my question—while doing some research on expanding fraud data coverage in the Fed's upcoming triennial payments study, I came across a gap in publicly available detailed fraud data for the United States compared to other geographies. As the table shows, the gap is evident from the Fourth Report on Card Fraud published in July 2015 by the European Central Bank. You probably see the "Not available" designation in the card-present subcategory.


What gives? What could be gained if this information were made available? As the footnote shows, the high-level data is taken from the Fed's last triennial payments study published in 2014. And as a previous post notes, the United States does not have a publicly available, single, uniform repository for payments fraud data. Back in 2009, the problem was covered in detail in the briefing paper "The Benefits of Collecting and Reporting Payment Fraud Statistics for the United States" by my colleague Rick Sullivan from the Kansas City Fed. In fairness, it should be noted that information is available in the United States to varying levels of detail as a paid service or through surveys conducted by such organizations as the Association of Financial Professionals and is typically distributed only to the organization's membership.

So that you know what we are missing out on in the United States, here are capsule descriptions of each card-present fraud type:

  • Counterfeit/Skimming: Fraud is perpetrated using an altered or cloned card.
  • Lost/Stolen: Fraudulent transactions result from the use of a lost or stolen card.
  • Card not received: A newly issued card in transit to a card holder is intercepted and used to commit fraud.
  • Fraudulent application: A new card is issued based on a faked identity or using someone else's identity.
  • Other: This is a catchall category for fraud not covered above.

The card-not-present subcategory, which is fully reported on in the triennial study, generally covers fraudulent payments initiated online, or by mail or telephone. Unlike card-present fraud, this type of fraud is not usually subdivided any further.

It should be noted that the current study was the first of the triennial series to report on fraud. Unfortunately, scope limitations precluded breaking out fraud further. As it is, the current study offers a wealth of payment and fraud data for cards and all other forms of noncash payments.

Adding a level of specificity for card-present fraud in the United States will help in tracking the movement of fraud from one type to another and the migration of fraud to other countries. In the United States, fraud is likely to further shift from card present to card not present due to increased counterfeiting controls at the point of sale from the anticipated broad adoption of EMV (chips) for cards and POS terminals. The Federal Reserve, in partnership with other payment system stakeholders, hopes to track these and other developments by collecting additional fraud data for the next triennial study due to be published in 2017.

What suggestions do you have for identifying and collecting other fraud data?

By Steven Cordray, payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

September 8, 2015 in EMV, fraud | Permalink


Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

August 17, 2015

Pigskin and Payments

For those who know me well, they know that I find August to be the slowest-moving month of the year. It's not because of the oppressive southern heat and humidity, but rather it's my anticipation for football season. To help speed along the "dog days of summer," I generally read my fair share of prognostication publications. Alongside the predictions, improving player safety has become a key discussion topic as the season approaches.

Armed with data showing an increase in injuries as well as long-term negative effects from playing the sport, football's governing bodies on both the collegiate and professional levels are instituting rule changes to make the game safer. Equipment manufacturers are introducing new gear to improve safety and individual teams are adding new experts to their medical staffs all in the name of player safety.

Ironically, while there is a focus on improving player safety, football players continue to get stronger and faster aided by advancements in nutrition and workout regimes. As player strength and speed improves, this contact sport becomes more vicious and dangerous. And as a fan, I'll admit that I find watching a game featuring stronger and faster players more exciting. I do not want to see players injured, but at the same time I enjoy the excitement that comes with hard tackles and big hits.

Does this state of football sound at all like the current state of the U.S. payments industry? To make payments safer, public and private entities are leading literally hundreds of initiatives across various payments rails. Network rule changes are taking place and new technologies are being harnessed all in an effort to better secure payments. At the same time, start-ups, established payment companies, payment associations, and the Federal Reserve are collaborating to improve the speed of payments.

It's hard not to get excited about the possibilities of faster payments, from important just-in-time supplier payments to simple repayments for borrowing money from a friend or family member. However, can securing payments better derail the speed of payments? By way of example and personal experience, my more secure EMV (chip) credit card has clearly reduced the speed at the point-of-sale for my card payment transactions.

But just as player strength and speed has evolved alongside safety through rule-making and technology (think about leather football helmets here), I think we have seen the same progression within the payments industry. I think football remains as exciting as ever, and the payments expert in me is clearly excited about the future of payments.

Speed and safety are not to be viewed as mutually exclusive, and I am confident that the payments industry supports this view. In both football and payments, elements of risk will exist, regardless of safety measures in place. Finding the right balance between speed and safety should be the goal in order to maintain an exciting football game or efficient payments system. I can't wait to see what lies ahead on the gridiron and within the payments industry.

Photo of Douglas A. King By Douglas A. King, payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

August 17, 2015 in emerging payments, EMV, fraud, innovation, risk management | Permalink


Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

August 3, 2015

Friendly Fraud: Nothing to Smile About (Part 2)

Last week's post discussed the increasing frequency of friendly fraud and the problems it presents for e-commerce merchants. A transaction that could be classified as friendly fraud might actually be one the customer just forget about, or one involving a family member using the customer's card without permission, or one with the customer actually not receiving the goods. So the merchant really can't just assume the customer is out to commit fraud and take an aggressive approach in dealing with the customer. The merchant would probably then have lost the customer's business altogether. But with the burden of proof on the merchant, the merchant must adopt a number of best practices to help minimize losses.

A company that works with merchants to both prevent chargeback disputes and respond to them has published a detailed guide (the site requires e-mail registration for access to the guide) to help merchants deal with friendly fraud. The following list includes some of the guide's best practices:

  • Promote a clear and fair refund policy that encourages customers to contact the merchant directly instead of the card issuer.
  • Make sure that the name of the business is on all billing statements—clearly, to avoid confusion.
  • Ensure that the customer communication channels—such as a call center or e-mail—are accessible.
  • Be responsive to customer inquiries.
  • Clearly communicate shipping charges and delivery timeframes to avoid misunderstandings about the total cost or delivery date of orders.
  • Always obtain the card security code and use address validation services. For larger-value purchases, consider the use of delivery confirmation and other validation services.
  • With digital goods or services, consider using a secondary verification tool—an activation code or purchase confirmation page—to ascertain that the customer received the goods.
  • When there is a chargeback, make every effort to contact the customer directly to attempt to resolve the matter. While the contact may not resolve this particular situation, it may offer a lesson that might help prevent future chargebacks from other customers.
  • Keep a database of customers who initiate chargebacks that appear fraudulent. Research shows that customers who deliberately defraud merchants and succeed at it are very likely to do it again.

As with all efforts to fight payments fraud, merchants must study their own customer base. They should identify their particular risks and then employ the practices that will help them best mitigate their fraud losses.

Photo of David Lott By David Lott, a payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

August 3, 2015 in cards, fraud | Permalink


Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

July 27, 2015

Friendly Fraud: Nothing to Smile About (Part 1)

Friendly fraud (also referred to as chargeback fraud or first-party fraud) occurs when someone makes an online purchase then later requests a chargeback from the bank. The person has received the goods or services, but claims they were defective or the transaction never authorized. Sometimes this happens because of buyer's remorse—the customer just doesn't want to have to explain his or her regret to the merchant, preferring to initiate a chargeback and let the bank resolve it with the merchant. Sometimes the buyer's remorse comes from a child making purchases, particularly digital goods, using the parent's card, or when a merchant's refund time limit has passed but the cardholder still wants to be reimbursed.

While there certainly can be legitimate disputes, friendly fraud is becoming a growing problem for e-commerce merchants. Not only are the merchants out the cost of the goods or services, but they also incur administrative costs and fees from the card-issuing bank. Companies selling digital goods, office supplies, or electronics—as well as auction sites—seem to be the most frequent targets of friendly fraud, but other types of businesses can also be affected.

One of the main difficulties merchants experience in combating this fraud is predicting or recognizing when it first occurs, since it often occurs on the account of a "good" customer. And with these remote purchases, the merchant is at a disadvantage in determining if a legitimate cardholder made the purchase or the goods were actually received by the cardholder.

Because the burden of proof is on the merchant, the merchant community has started to implement a number of tactics to help reduce this increasing problem. In our next installment on this topic, we will discuss some of those tactics.

Photo of David Lott By David Lott, a payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

July 27, 2015 in cards, fraud | Permalink


Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

June 29, 2015

The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same

As I write this blog on the screened porch of a North Alabama lake house, the cicadas are constantly buzzing in the background. I am fascinated by the life cycle of this species—namely, the emergence of the periodical cicadas from belowground every 13 to 17 years. This life cycle got me thinking how the world has changed since the last time the 17-year cicadas emerged. And while in this neck of the woods, some things have changed—new houses have been built and personal watercraft are now constantly buzzing on the lake—some things have remained the same. The nearest grocery store is still 30 minutes away and the iced tea is as sweet as it ever was. Is this mixed scenario really any different for payment card fraud?

Certainly a lot has changed in card payments during the last 17 or so years. We've witnessed the enormous growth of debit card transactions, the continued growth of credit card transactions, the emergence of the e-commerce and mobile payments channels, and the almost global adoption of the EMV (chip) card. As card payment usage has evolved, so has the fraud landscape. Lost and stolen card fraud fell out of vogue while counterfeit card fraud took off only to see stolen card fraud re-emerge when the issuance of EMV cards in most markets thwarted counterfeit card fraud. Point-of-sale (POS) fraud is occurring less often across the globe because of EMV and PIN verification, driving the fraudsters to the Internet to commit card-not-present (CNP) fraud.

But what hasn't changed is the global rate of fraud. An article in the August 2013 Nilson Report estimated that the annual cost of card fraud worldwide in 2012 was 5.2 cents for every $100 spent, resulting in $11.27 billion in losses. This figure compares to Nilson's estimate of fraud losses in 1998, which ran approximately 4.8 cents for every $100 spent and resulted in a little less than $2 billion of fraud. Perhaps a fraud rate in the 5 basis points range is the industry-wide acceptable rate, but with billions of dollars being invested to mitigate fraud, I would like to think that over time the rate would be reduced (though I must admit that I am not sure what the acceptable rate should be).

Maybe this speaks to the tenacity of the card fraudsters. As we in the Retail Payments Risk Forum have often stressed, once one door is fortified, the fraudsters find another door to enter. And if we could dive deeper within the figures, I am certain that is what we would find, according to various estimates of fraud and anecdotal evidence. For example, the emergence of EMV and the use of PIN verification instead of signature verification have reduced POS fraud. Today, CNP fraud rates are significantly higher than POS fraud rates and many industry risk efforts are focused on mitigating CNP fraud.

When the cicadas reappear, undoubtedly the payment card usage and fraud landscape will look different. Perhaps mobile payments will have taken off and the use of biometrics as a method of verification will be commonplace. I feel confident that in 17 years the industry will make substantial strides in reducing e-commerce CNP fraud rates—but also that new areas of fraud will appear. Is the industry prepared to fight the next generation of fraud or will it just continue to Band-Aid the past? Should we expect a 5 basis points rate of fraud when the cicadas emerge in another 17 years? I'd like to think the rate will be lower. At a minimum, hopefully, it will remain as consistent as the sweet iced tea in this neck of the woods.

Photo of Douglas A. King By Douglas A. King, payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

June 29, 2015 in cards, chip-and-pin, EMV, fraud, innovation, mobile payments | Permalink


Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

January 26, 2015

Tackling Fraud with Data

As the dust settles on the 2014 retail holiday season, it isn't surprising to learn that e-commerce was once again the winner. ComScore reported that online holiday spending through December 21 was $48.3 billion, a 15 percent increase over 2013. And there is nothing to suggest that this growth trajectory will flatten. While these trends are encouraging for online retailers' sales departments, they must be challenging for their fraud and loss prevention teams. According to the 2013 Federal Reserve Payments Study, card-not-present fraud rates were approximately three times higher than card-present fraud rates in 2012.

Just before the holiday shopping season, CyberSource released its 15th Annual Online Fraud Management Benchmark Study This 2014 study reveals that merchants improved order conversion through lower rejection rates while keeping their fraud losses stable. Naturally, I was curious about the tools that yielded these results and wondered to what extent they might have changed. Using CyberSource's 2012 study to compare, I found some surprises.

In 2012, validation tools were used the most—79 percent of merchants used a card verification number and 77 percent used address verification. Of the merchants who did not use these tools, 81 percent indicated they planned to implement a card verification number and 61 percent planned to use address verification. While merchants can implement these tools with little cost, their effectiveness, according to the surveyed merchants, is limited.

Given the 2014 report's positive findings, coupled with the expected very high use of card verification numbers and address verification reported in 2012, I was expecting merchants to rate the effectiveness of these tools higher. Interestingly, even though these validation tools remained the most prominent, their usage did not increase as expected, despite the number ofmerchants who planned to implement them following the 2012 study. And there was not a significant increase in their reported effectiveness.

Here's what did change: the use of proprietary data tools such as customer order history, in-house positive and negative lists, and company-specific fraud scoring models. Purchase device tracking tools, such as fingerprinting, also saw an increase in usage, though not as large of an increase as the proprietary data tools. And it is these tools that, generally speaking, are rated as the most effective fraud management tools by the merchants surveyed.

The 2014 study highlighted improved fraud management. I have several of my own highlights. Merchants appear to be more apt and capable of leveraging their own data today than the preceding several years. And they are finding that using this data is more effective in combating fraud than traditional validation services. I think it's important to note that only two tools (device fingerprinting and a fraud scoring model) were selected by more than 50 percent of merchants as most effective. Even though traditional validation services are still highly used and useful, no single tool is a panacea for fraud management. A layered approach using multiple tools and data elements is critical for success. I suspect this trend of merchants using their own customer data to manage CNP fraud will continue. I also expect that data-centric tools will become more effective as merchants become more sophisticated with data analysis.

What is your view on the future role of proprietary data in CNP fraud management?

Photo of Douglas A. KingBy Douglas A. King, payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

January 26, 2015 in cards, fraud, online banking fraud | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to blogs that reference Tackling Fraud with Data:


Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

September 29, 2014

Let's Talk Token, Part II: Distinguishing Attributes

Several weeks ago, Portals and Rails embarked on a series of posts on tokenization. In the first installment, we defined tokenization and distinguished between a merchant-centric enterprise tokenization solution and payment tokens generated as an issuer-centric end-to-end solution. Since writing the first post, payment tokens has jumped front and center in the payments community when Apple introduced Apple Pay, which uses tokenization. Also, the Mobile Payments Industry Workgroup just released a detailed white paper recounting their recent meeting on the current tokenization landscape in the United States.

In today's installment, we look at some distinguishing attributes of the end-to-end token initiatives currently under way and consider their impact on mitigating risk in payments transactions.

  • Token format: Common ground exists in the payments industry in terms of the token format. The end-to-end token solution relies on the creation of a token, known as a device account number (DAN), to initiate a payment in place of the original primary account number (PAN). To mitigate operational risks and make use of existing messaging rules and applications associated with the payment transaction, it is imperative that the format of the DAN preserves the format structure of the PAN. This means that DAN generation should be as random as possible, even while preserving the original PAN format structures to maintain basic card or account validation rules associated with the PAN.

  • Token type: Payment tokens can be dynamic or static. Dynamic tokens are valid either for a single transaction or for a limited number of transactions occurring in a very short time. By the time a fraudster intercepts a dynamic token, it has likely already expired, so the fraudster can’t use it. However, there is a slight down side to dynamic tokens—they can work against loyalty programs as well as some back-end fraud detection systems. Because each transaction has a different DAN, merchants and processors cannot consolidate multiple transaction information for an individual cardholder.

    On the other hand, static tokens are multi-use, so they allow merchants to connect the token user with past transactions. But given their multi-use nature, they are not as secure as dynamic tokens. For additional security, each transaction with a static token can include an additional element: a uniquely generated cryptogram.

  • Device coverage: Tokens can be created and stored either on a secure element on a mobile phone or in a cloud. Much industry discussion focuses on which approach is more secure, but the approach also has an impact on device access to the token. Storing a token only on secure elements limits tokens to mobile phones, a situation that does not address the significant volume of card-not-present payments that consumers conduct on computers and other devices. Alternatively, storing a token in a cloud would allow any connected device (mobile, tablet, laptop, or computer) to access the token, so all e-commerce transactions would be covered.

  • Token service provider: A number of parties can play the critical provider role. The provider is ultimately responsible for generating and issuing the DAN, maintaining the DAN vault, and mapping the DAN to the PAN for presentment to the issuer that ultimately authorizes the transaction. A network, issuer, processor, or another third-party provider can perform this role. We can make a case for any of these parties to play the role, but the critical risk mitigation factor to note is that the merchant should never see the PAN, thereby preventing a breach of payment card data within their systems.

To date, a standards body controlled by the largest global card networks and a company representing the largest global banks has driven most of the payment tokenization standardization efforts. Although these organizations have advocated for public discussions and input in an open environment, some critics argue that the management of standards development should be left to an open-standards body such as X9 or ISO. Tokenization efforts and standards will continue to evolve as tokenization may play a critical role in mitigating payment risk in the future. Still, security challenges will remain even with its adoption. In the next installment of this tokenization series, we will examine risks that that a tokenized payments environment won't resolve, and risks that will be all new.

By Douglas A. King, payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

September 29, 2014 in authentication, fraud, mobile payments | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to blogs that reference Let's Talk Token, Part II: Distinguishing Attributes:


Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

August 4, 2014

Fishing for Your Private Data

fishing Recently, I received a text from my daughter about an e-mail that appeared to be from her financial institution. The e-mail stated that online access to her bank account would be terminated because she had tried to access her account from several computers. However, she could retain access by clicking on a link. While my daughter's natural reaction was concern that she would lose online access to her bank account, I told her that this was probably a phishing incident.

Unlike the hobby of fishing, phishing is the work of fraudsters. With phishing, fraudsters attempt to dupe a consumer or employee into believing that they must immediately provide personal or private data in response to an e-mail that appears to be (but is not actually) from a legitimate entity. Much like fishing, phishing relies on numerous casts, with the phisher hoping that many of those who receive the e-mail will be fooled and swallow the bait. If they get hooked, malware may be loaded on their computer to monitor their keystrokes and pull out financial service website log-on credentials. Or, in my daughter's case, if she had clicked on the link, it would have most likely taken her to a legitimate-looking web page of the bank and requested her online banking credentials. The volume and velocity by which anyone can send e-mails has created a wide window of opportunity for fraudsters.

In their e-mail, the fraudsters create a sense of urgency by indicating some sort of drastic action will be taken unless the customer acts immediately. Although organizations have repeatedly posted statements that they would never send an e-mail asking for private data, this threatened action often causes the recipient to act without considering the consequences or taking the time to call the company or organization to verify the e-mail's authenticity. If it is not authentic, the individual should immediately delete the e-mail without replying, without clicking on any links embedded in the email, and without opening any attachments.

In addition to the need for consumers and employees to be wary of e-mails that are not legitimate, financial institutions must continually stay abreast of the latest technologies to help combat these schemes and educate customers. In a past post, we discussed steps financial institutions should take to help customers protect themselves from fraudsters. These schemes remain in the news even though banks, businesses, and government entities continue to post educational information and best practices for consumers and employees. As my daughter's example demonstrates, consumers opening bank accounts for the first time are not likely to know these schemes. This example suggests that—in addition to educating both business and consumer customers generally—it would be beneficial for financial institutions to place more emphasis on education concerning these schemes at the time customers open their accounts.

Photo of Deborah Shaw

August 4, 2014 in banks and banking, consumer fraud, consumer protection, data security, fraud, identity theft | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to blogs that reference Fishing for Your Private Data:


Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

April 14, 2014

Danger Ahead! ATM Cash-Outs

The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) issued a warning in April to financial institutions about criminals continuing to launch attacks against ATM and web-based card management systems, especially those of small- to medium-size financial institutions (FI). Dubbed "unlimited operation" by the U. S. Secret Service, this type of attack can saddle a financial institution with fraud losses in the millions of dollars. As we highlighted in a post from last May, a bank in Oman experienced this type of attack in late 2012, which resulted in a loss to the bank of almost $40 million. Imagine the impact of a loss of that magnitude to a small to midsized FI.

These attacks are especially concerning for a number of reasons. First, the criminal organizations that carry them out are highly sophisticated and well-organized, and they have an international reach. The Oman attack included a money mule network across 26 countries—including the United States—performing more than 36,000 withdrawals in a 12-hour period.

Second, unlike typical counterfeit card fraud attacks that involve a large number of accounts, the criminals behind the card management system frauds need to compromise only a small number of card accounts. The attack that resulted in the $40 million loss involved only 12 accounts. Early in this type of operation, the criminals generally obtain the PINs of the cards for these accounts by conducting some sort of covert surveillance (pinhole camera or shoulder surfing). They then counterfeit the cards using those PINs.

Third, the attacks are generally timed to take place around holidays, when bank, IT, and fraud monitoring staff levels are low.

Fourth, the criminals get remote access to the financial institutions' card management systems to reset account balances and card withdrawal parameters. They can then use the counterfeit cards over their pre-established transaction limits or balances and drain the ATMs of all cash. The criminals usually obtain access to FIs' networks using e-mail phishing schemes that target processor or network employees. Through gullible employees, malware is loaded onto the network that later gives the criminals access to the FIs’ card management systems.

Major online networks now have transaction velocity monitoring capability, which detects a high number of transactions on an individual account. This approach is necessarily only a secondary and reactive measure, not a preventive measure.

FIs should immediately address the risk mitigation steps that the new FFIEC warning outlines. Because the vast majority of small to midsized FIs depend on third-party processors to run their card management systems, it is imperative all FIs verify that their processors have the controls and safeguards in place to prevent such attacks, and they should insist on seeing validation of those controls.

Photo of David LottBy David Lott, a retail payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

April 14, 2014 in ATM fraud, cards, cybercrime, fraud | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to blogs that reference Danger Ahead! ATM Cash-Outs:


Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

Google Search

Recent Posts

November 2015

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          



Powered by TypePad