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.
/ji
-
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
