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.
Federal Reserve Web Sites
Other Bank Regulatory Sites
November 4, 2019
Encouraging Password Hygiene
Practicing good password hygiene such as using strong passwords and never using them for any other application can be a huge nuisance. Many people, including yours truly, would love to see passwords fade into oblivion and be replaced by stronger authentication technologies, such as biometrics. But the fact remains that passwords will continue to be used extensively for the foreseeable future, and for as long as they remain with us, it's imperative that we adhere to good password protocol. Verizon's 2019 Data Breach Investigation Report reveals that more than 60 percent of successful data breach hacks were due to compromised or stolen log-in credentials.
Information that describes good password practices is abundant, but people continue to be careless. So how can we successfully encourage people to actually follow these practices?
Interestingly, while I was pondering this issue, I came across a Wall Street Journal article. Written by a cybersecurity professor, the article describes research that the author and her colleagues did on this very topic—how to get people to create strong passwords—and I thought it would be useful to share their findings.
So what's the secret to getting us to use strong passwords, according to these researchers? It's the simple incentive of time—and by this I mean the length of time we're allowed to keep our passwords. The researchers found that people were willing to use stronger passwords if they could keep them for longer than they had in the past.
The conventional wisdom used to be that we should change passwords at least once a year. Now many financial service providers and others require users to change passwords every 30 days. However, some organizations continue to allow longer time periods, or perhaps don't enforce change at all, but offset the longer duration with stricter rules, requiring longer passwords with a minimum number of special characters. I imagine most of us are accustomed to the strength bar or bubble graphic that shows us the strength of a password as we're creating it. These might be useful in educating us about what strong passwords look like, but the researchers found them to be ineffective in driving people to create strong passwords.
I'll admit I don't always practice the best password hygiene. One of several reasons for this is that it seems my passwords expire so frequently. But I could get fully on board with building stronger, unique passwords if that meant I would have more time before I had to change them.
Have you seen or experienced other tactics or solutions that have pushed you to use better password hygiene? If so, we would love to hear from you!
October 28, 2019
Should We Throw in the Towel When It Comes to Data Breach Prevention?
We've all heard it said—we've probably, cynically, said it ourselves: "It's not a matter of if but when your company will be hit by a data breach." Reports about cyberattacks and network breaches fill my daily newsfeed with headlines on ransomware attacks, attacks on multifactor authentication, and 5G network vulnerabilities. For each new, better, stronger, faster solution the industry comes up with, criminals find a way to circumvent it in seemingly short order. Is there anyone whose personal information hasn't been stolen once, twice, five times? I've lost count of how many times I've received six months of free credit monitoring.
In today's world, is there any way for an organization to fully protect itself against the broad spectrum of ever-evolving threats and still have time, resources, and capital left over to conduct its everyday business? Or should we assume that breaches are a foregone conclusion, throw in the towel when it comes to prevention, and turn our focus instead to incident response?
According to Verizon's 2019 Data Breach Investigations Report , small businesses were frequent targets of breaches. (The report looked at incidents occurring from November 1, 2017, to October 31, 2018.) Other findings it reported: outside actors perpetrated 69 percent of breaches, 52 percent were the result of hacking, and it took months or longer to discover 56 percent of the incidents.
Last year, I wrote about committing to muscle memory your organization's plan for the right of boom. A Google search on "data breach response" returns pages of results with guides, resources, and services, but the midst of a cyber-event is probably not the best time to come up with a plan. Turns out, there's an app for that! At a recent fintech conference, I saw a demo of a dynamic breach response solution that turns response into a routine business process. The company likens its app to "an airbag for network breaches" and claims the tool helps organizations prepare for, detect, and respond to data breaches. Another company demonstrated a white-labeled application for financial institutions that aims to reduce post-breach fraud and identity theft of consumers through algorithmic risk assessments that produce recommendations for actions to take to mitigate these risks.
October is National Cybersecurity Awareness Month. It's a good time to review your own right of boom plan or take steps to implement one. One resource: the Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity Resources Road Map for small and midsize businesses.
While it is not hyperbole to assert that criminals will breach your organization's network, you should not throw in the towel or lower your defenses against such threats. Rather, you should avail yourself of technological innovations to support breach prevention and response preparedness so your organization can restore normal business operations as quickly as possible. What approach has your organization taken to adopting threat prevention and response preparedness?
October 21, 2019
Looking for Partners in Safer Payments
The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta is currently identifying financial technology companies (fintechs) involved in payments. Our goal is to build relationships with these companies so we can understand their issues and challenges.
The Federal Reserve's mission for payments is to ensure an effective and efficient system. In pursuing this mission, the Atlanta Fed focuses on the accessibility, integrity, and confidentiality of payments. We play a significant role in this mission by virtue of being an operator of ACH and check clearing as well as a payments researcher.
We are also at the center of an important regional hub of fintech activity. In Georgia, there are 120 fintech companies employing more than 38,000 workers. According to the Technology Association of Georgia, the top 20 Georgia-based fintech companies generate $72 billion in revenues annually, and 70 percent of all domestic card transactions flow through Georgia-based fintechs, earning this region the nickname of "Transaction Alley."
In addition, venture capital investment in fintech contributes to Atlanta being ranked as the 13th most important fintech hub in the world and fourth in the United States (behind San Francisco, New York, and Chicago), according to the University of Cambridge's 2018 Global Fintech Hub Index .
Given our expertise, our role in payments toward furthering the Federal Reserve’s mission, and our location, the Atlanta Fed, in partnership with fintech companies in Transaction Alley, has a unique opportunity to have a real impact on advancing safety in this innovative payments space.
Fintechs in payments aim to produce useful and profitable payments-related products and services but may lack awareness of consumer compliance and rights or the importance of development practices that culminate in safe and secure products and services. Our work will focus on safer payments innovation for payments used by consumers.
The Atlanta Fed is also interested in experimenting with innovative technology used by fintech companies where we believe the technology could solve our business problems or be beneficial to us. This experimentation will give us first-hand experience and deep knowledge of fintech-developed technology and therefore an understanding of the contribution and impact the technology has on the payments ecosystem.
Through this work, we hope also to advance economic mobility and resilience, another priority for the Atlanta Fed. Our desire is to engage fintechs with products or solutions that provide low-cost, accessible options to advance financial inclusion and improve consumers' financial health.
Together with the payments fintech industry, we can bring clarity regarding the impact of fintech solutions on the payments system. So we encourage the fintech payment innovators to partner with the Atlanta Fed to understand payments risk and create safer payments solutions.
Get in touch with me at Mary.Kepler@atl.frb.org to start the conversation.
October 15, 2019
The Range of Un-Friendly Fraud
My colleague Doug King recently penned a call to action in a Take On Payments post on friendly fraud. That post was the first we'd written about this issue in more than four years. But the feedback we received about the post echoed our concern that these disputes are becoming more frequent and expanding into new scenarios that clearly indicate that, at least to the merchant community, this type of fraud is anything but friendly.
Further research into this problem indicates a range of reasons for a cardholder to dispute a transaction. The spectrum runs from a well-intentioned misunderstanding to a premeditated effort to avoid paying for the goods or services. Below are some common friendly fraud scenarios.
Merchant description or error: A cardholder may be confused when a company descriptor in the transaction detail does not match the company name they are familiar with, so disputes a legitimate transaction. Sometimes this happens, as Doug described in his post, if a parent company name is used rather than the d/b/a name, which frequently occurs with online international transactions. Or sometimes the final transaction amount differs from the amount the cardholder thought he or she was supposed to pay because, for example, there was a miscalculation of sales tax or delivery charges. In most cases, the cardholder, upon seeing all the transaction details, remembers the transaction and withdraws the dispute.
Family usage: Family members sometimes use another family member's payment card without permission. For example, a child might use a parent's card to purchase online gaming credits or features, or a sibling might purchase gasoline, clothing, or something else. With ecommerce transactions, many merchants resort to "electronic fingerprinting" of the device used in the transaction to capture the device ID, IP address, and other details for further documentation. Hopefully, with this additional information provided to the cardholder, the cardholder will do some detective work to determine if the transaction should be honored.
Refunds or buyer's remorse: A cardholder with second thoughts about a nonrefundable purchase might deny that they made the transaction—perhaps a store's return policy deadline has passed or the cardholder just doesn't want the trouble of going through the refund process. To help combat this type of chargeback, the card brands all have "compelling evidence" chargeback documentation rules. These rules allow the merchant to provide additional documentation for certain disputes proving that the cardholder either participated in the transaction, actually received the goods or services, or benefited from the transaction. Merchants must be selective about which of these disputes to contest, depending on the transaction amount, the availability of supplemental evidence, and resource costs to collect and provide such evidence.
Criminal theft: A cardholder who understands the chargeback regulations may use them against a merchant, having purchased an item or service with no intention of making payment. The cardholder may falsely claim that goods were never delivered. Some colleagues and I recently spoke with a business owner who operates several casual dining restaurants. Because of a technology interoperability issue with the restaurant management software, the restaurant has not been able to implement EMV chip readers. The owner said that some patrons became aware of the absence of these readers and spread the word to others, to the point that the losses have become significant. Because of the EMV chip liability shift rules, the owner is considered noncompliant and has no defense against the chargebacks.
All these types of friendly fraud are almost impossible to detect upfront, especially those toward the more benign end of the range. For a merchant, having reasonable return policies and fully disclosing them and hiring exceptional customer service representatives will take them a long way with some of the disputes. But to defend themselves from the determined criminal, merchants' or card issuers' only recourse may be keeping a file listing cardholder accounts suspected of repeated friendly fraud claims.
What techniques do you think are most effective in combatting friendly fraud?
- Encouraging Password Hygiene
- Should We Throw in the Towel When It Comes to Data Breach Prevention?
- Looking for Partners in Safer Payments
- The Range of Un-Friendly Fraud
- Payments Webinar October 10: Cash in the 21st Century
- "Insuring" Ransomware Will Continue to Flourish
- Designing Disclosures to Be Read
- Is There a Generation Gap in Cash Use?
- What the Most Convenient Food Tells Us about Payments
- Is Friction in Payments Always Bad?
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- account takeovers
- ATM fraud
- bank supervision
- banking regulations
- banks and banking
- card networks
- check fraud
- consumer fraud
- consumer protection
- credit cards
- cross-border wires
- data security
- debit cards
- emerging payments
- financial services
- financial technology
- identity theft
- law enforcement
- mobile banking
- mobile money transfer
- mobile network operator (MNO)
- mobile payments
- money laundering
- money services business (MSB)
- online banking fraud
- online retail
- Payment Services Directive
- payments fraud
- payments innovation
- payments risk
- payments study
- payments systems
- phone fraud
- remotely created checks
- risk management
- Section 1073
- skills gap
- social networks
- third-party service provider
- trusted service manager
- Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices (UDAP)
- wire transfer fraud
- workforce development
- workplace fraud