advertisement
advertisement

This is page 2 of:

One Payment App Uses Often-Called Friends To Authenticate. (Privacy? What’s That?)

February 16th, 2012

When a customer changes elements of those attributes—perhaps by upgrading the OS or deleting no longer needed applications—the system guesses whether those changes make sense. A customer upgrading the mobile OS, for example, would not be a fraud trigger nearly as much as that customer downgrading the mobile OS, Kleitsch said. “It’s all about weighing the attributes,” de los Reyes said.

If the Buck system suspects that the phone trying to make the purchase is not the phone that signed up for the service, it can prompt for secondary authentication, such as by asking for a CVV or a ZIP Code, de los Reyes said. Each retailer can also set its own security triggers—such as a number of purchases or a dollar amount, within a set timeframe—and Buck has its own fraud triggers on top of those. “It watches for an excessive number of transactions. If all of a sudden we see 10 transactions all within 30 minutes,” the system will either ask for more information, shut down the use of the payment card on file or even shut down the entire application, de los Reyes said.

With all of those mechanisms in place, Kleitsch argues, the single-click payment from the Buck app is reasonably secure. Indeed, it’s optimally secure given the nascent nature of the mobile payment market and the need to make the transactions as effortless as possible for consumers. Slow down the process too much—such as by insisting on a PIN—and risk consumers avoiding the mobile transactions entirely. Once consumers are used to and comfortable with mobile transactions, additional security can be added.

The only problem: Who will pay the cost of fraudulent transactions during the initial phase? The most likely hole is when consumers using this app misplace their phones or have those phones stolen. Given that the phone will be authenticated, some bad transactions will proceed before the various excessive-use fraud triggers (or the user disables the phone and cancels the associated payment cards) kick in and end the thefts.

As those decisions are debated among the brands, issuers and processors, apps such as those from Buck are going to look attractive from a market growth perspective but less so from a risk perspective. And yes, the chances are that retailers will end up footing the bill for the experimentation—and pocketing the profits if it all works.


advertisement

Comments are closed.

Newsletters

StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!
advertisement

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

StorefrontBacktalk
Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.