Oct
09
2015
Risk
October 9th, 2015 by Elma Jane

Credit card fraud is much more difficult to prevent in a card-not-present transaction. In a face-to-face setting the merchant can inspect the card to ensure that it is valid and can verify that the cardholder is an authorized user on the account. None of these actions can be performed when the payment is submitted online or accepted by phone. As we moved in adopting EMV Technology, majority of fraud is going to migrate away from counterfeit and stolen cards towards the card-not-present transaction as happened in other countries.

A combination of best practices and fraud prevention tools can provide card-not-present merchants with strong fraud prevention capabilities.

Steps to avoid fraud and protect your business for a card-not-present transaction:

  • Email Verification: Send a message to the email address provided by the customer requesting that the customer verify the email address is correct, you can ensure that the email is associated with the other information provided.   
  • Maintain PCI compliance:All merchants accepting card payments are now required to be compliant with the requirements of the PCI DSS (Payment Card Industry Data Standard) which sets the rules for data security management, policies, procedures, network architecture, software design and other protective measures.
  • Security Code Verification. Requesting the three digit security code on the back of a credit card. Visa (CVV2), MasterCard (CVC 2) and Discover (CID) cards, and the 4-digit numbers located on the front of American Express (CID) cards. Card Security Codes help verify that the customer is in a physical possession of a valid card during a card-not-present transaction.
  • Use an Address Verification Service (AVS): Enables you to compare the billing address provided by your customer with the billing address on the card issuer’s file before processing a transaction. AVS is good protection against card information obtained through means like phishing and malware because fraudster might not know the billing address.
  • Use 3D Secure Service: MasterCard and Verified by Visa enable cardholders to authenticate themselves to their card issuers through the use of personal passwords they create when they register their cards with the programs. The liability of any fraudulent charges through the 3D service is picked up by the issuer, not the merchant.
  • Verify the phone number and transaction information.Prior to shipping your products, call the phone number provided by the customer and verify the transaction information. Criminals may be unable to verify such information, because in their haste to max out the credit line before the fraud is discovered, they often order at random and do not keep records.

 

 

 

Posted in Best Practices for Merchants, e-commerce & m-commerce, Mail Order Telephone Order, Payment Card Industry PCI Security, Travel Agency Agents Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Mar
14
2014
March 14th, 2014 by Elma Jane

Merchant and Consumer Groups Seek Senate Support To Forego EMV Chip and Signature As Breach Concerns Rise

There’s no shortage of answers  in trying to put a stop to hackers set on throwing chaos into the way consumers transact at the point of sale, or online for  that matter. Yesterday, the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs subcommittee on national security and international trade and finance got its chance to hear some of them.

During the hearing, William Noonan, deputy special agent in charge, U.S. Secret Service, noted the advances in computer technology and greater access to personally identifiable information online, which have created a virtual marketplace for transnational cyber criminals to share stolen information and criminal methodologies. As a result, the Secret Service has observed a marked increase in the quality, quantity, and complexity of cyber crimes targeting private industry and critical infrastructure. These crimes include network intrusions, hacking attacks, malicious software, and account takeovers leading to significant data breaches affecting every sector of the world economy.

The recently reported data breaches of Target and Neiman Marcus represent only the most recent, well-publicized examples of this decade-long trend of major data breaches perpetrated by cyber criminals intent on targeting the nation’s retailers and financial payment systems.  The increasing level of collaboration among cyber-criminals allows them to compartmentalize their operations, greatly increasing the sophistication of their criminal endeavors and allowing for development of expert specialization. These specialties raise both the complexity of investigating these cases, as well as the level of potential harm to companies and  individuals.

So how should the industry react to prevent further breaches? Those opinions provided during testimony at the hearing varied widely, though both consumer and merchant groups would like the card networks to give up requiring only signatures for smart card purchases at the point of sale.

Consumer program director at the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, called for myriad of changes, citing that the greater risk from the recent breaches is less related to identity theft than it is to fraud on existing accounts,  and he said it’s time for players on both sides of the transaction to focus more on protecting consumers than on managing their own risk.

Until now, both banks and merchants have looked at fraud and identity theft as a modest cost of doing business and have not protected the payment system well enough. They have failed to look seriously at harms to their customers from fraud and identity theft -including not just monetary losses and the hassles of restoring their good names, but also the emotional harm that they must face as they wonder whether future credit applications will be rejected due to the fraudulent accounts.

As a first step, Congress should institute the same fraud cap, $50, on debit/ATM cards that exists on credit cards, or eliminate the $50 cap entirely, since it is never imposed because of the zero-liability policies issuers have voluntarily have imposed. Congress also should provide debit and prepaid card customers with the stronger billing-dispute rights and rights to dispute payment for products that do not arrive or do not work as promised, just as many credit card users enjoy.

Congress should  endorse a specific technology, such as EMV smart cards and if it does, require the use of PINs when initiating smart card transactions. The current pending U.S. rollout of chip cards will allow use of the less-secure chip-and-signature cards rather than the more-secure chip-and-PIN cards. Why not go to the higher-and-PIN authentication standard immediately and skip past chip and signature? There is still time to make this improvement.”

Retailers have spent billions of dollars on card-security measures and upgrades to comply with PCI card security requirements, but it hasn’t made them immune to data breaches and fraud. The card networks have made those decisions for merchants, and the increases in fraud demonstrate that their decisions have not been as effective as they should have been.

The card networks should forego chip and signature and go straight to chip and PIN. To do otherwise would mean that merchants would spend billions to install new card readers without they or their customers obtaining PINs’ fraud-reducing benefits. We would essentially be spending billions to combine a 1990’s technology chips with a 1960’s relic signature in the face of 21st century threats.

Posted in Best Practices for Merchants, Credit card Processing, Credit Card Reader Terminal, Credit Card Security, Digital Wallet Privacy, Electronic Payments, EMV EuroPay MasterCard Visa, Financial Services, Merchant Services Account, Payment Card Industry PCI Security, Point of Sale, Small Business Improvement, Visa MasterCard American Express Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,