yes, the reputation of/quality of reporters needs to be measured, and the reported information needs to be enough to
accomplish an auth or a card purchase.

the card issuer can then use a credible report as a hint to increase the level of attention to the reported cards.

it's in a merchant's interest to have high quality fraud detection because this report is in association with an attempted purchase transaction and their report implies they decline or refund the transaction they are turning down the revenue from that card,

if a bad guy wants to break into a merchant's site, i would welcome them to immediately report all the merchant's cards as stolen rather than than stealing them and using them or waiting for the merchant to do so in a breach notice.

On Jan 25, 2008, at 3:11 PM, John Ioannidis wrote:

Perry E. Metzger wrote:
That's not practical. If you're a large online merchant, and your
automated systems are picking up lots of fraud, you want an automated
system for reporting it. Having a team of people on the phone 24x7
talking to your acquirer and reading them credit card numbers over the
phone, and then expecting the acquirer to do something with them when
they don't have an automated system either, is just not reasonable.

But how can the issuer know that the merchant's fraud detection systems work, for any value of "work"? This could just become one more avenue for denial of service, where a hacked online merchant suddenly reports millions of cards as compromised. I'm sure there is some interesting work to be done here.


The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to