Tag: risk-based authentication

Meeting Know Your Customer (KYC) regulations and staying compliant is paramount to running your business with ensured confidence in who your customers are, the level of risk they pose, and maintained customer trust. What is KYC?KYC is the mandatory process to identify and verify the identity of clients of financial institutions, as required by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). KYC services go beyond simply standing up a customer identification program (CIP), though that is a key component. It involves fraud risk assessments in new and existing customer accounts. Financial institutions are required to incorporate risk-based procedures to monitor customer transactions and detect potential financial crimes or fraud risk. KYC policies help determine when suspicious activity reports (SAR) must be filed with the Department of Treasury’s FinCEN organization. According to the Federal Financial Institutions Examinations Council (FFIEC), a comprehensive KYC program should include:• Customer Identification Program (CIP): Identifies processes for verifying identities and establishing a reasonable belief that the identity is valid.• Customer due diligence: Verifying customer identities and assessing the associated risk of doing business.• Enhanced customer due diligence: Significant and comprehensive review of high-risk or high transactions and implementation of a suspicious activity-monitoring system to reduce risk to the institution. The following organizations have KYC oversight: Federal Financial Institutions Examinations Council (FFIEC), Federal Reserve Board, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), national Credit Union Administration (NCUA), Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). How to get started on building your Know Your Customer checklist 1. Define your Customer Identification Program (CIP) The CIP outlines the process for gathering necessary information about your customers. To start building your KYC checklist, you need to define your CIP procedure. This may include the documentation you require from customers, the sources of information you may use for verification and the procedures for customer due diligence. Your CIP procedure should align with your organization’s risk appetite and be comply with regulations such as the Patriot Act or Anti-money laundering laws. 2. Identify the customer's information Identifying the information you need to gather on your customer is key in building an effective KYC checklist. Typically, this can include their first and last name, date of birth, address, phone number, email address, Social Security Number or any government-issued identification number. When gathering sensitive information, ensure that you have privacy and security controls such as encryption, and that customer data is not shared with unauthorized personnel. 3. Determine the verification method There are various methods to verify a customer's identity. Some common identity verification methods include document verification, facial recognition, voice recognition, knowledge-based authentication, biometrics or database checks. When selecting an identity verification method, consider the accuracy, speed, cost and reliability. Choose a provider that is highly secure and offers compliance with current regulations. 4. Review your checklist regularly Your KYC checklist is not a one and done process. Instead, it’s an ongoing process that requires periodic review, updates and testing. You need to periodically review your checklist to ensure your processes are up to date with the latest regulations and your business needs. Reviewing your checklist will help your business to identify gaps or outdated practices in your KYC process. Make changes as needed and keep management informed of any changes. 5. Final stage: quality control As a final step, you should perform a quality control assessment of the processes you’ve incorporated to ensure they’ve been carried out effectively. This includes checking if all necessary customer information has been collected, whether the right identity verification method was implemented, if your checklist matches your CIP and whether the results were recorded correctly. KYC is a vital process for your organization in today's digital age. Building an effective KYC checklist is essential to ensure compliance with regulations and mitigate risk factors associated with fraudulent activities. Building a solid checklist requires a clear understanding of your business needs, a comprehensive definition of your CIP, selection of the right verification method, and periodic reviews to ensure that the process is up to date. Remember, your customers' trust and privacy are at stake, so iensuring that your security processes and your KYC checklist are in place is essential. By following these guidelines, you can create a well-designed KYC checklist that reduces risk and satisfies your regulatory needs. Taking the next step Experian offers identity verification solutions as well as fully integrated, digital identity and fraud platforms. Experian’s CrossCore & Precise ID offering enables financial institutions to connect, access and orchestrate decisions that leverage multiple data sources and services. By combining risk-based authentication, identity proofing and fraud detection into a single, cloud-based platform with flexible orchestration and advanced analytics, Precise ID provides flexibility and solves for some of financial institutions’ biggest business challenges, including identity and fraud as it relates to digital onboarding and account take over; transaction monitoring and KYC/AML compliance and more, without adding undue friction. Learn more *This article includes content created by an AI language model and is intended to provide general information.

The fraud problem is ever-present, with 94% of businesses reporting it as a top priority, and fraudsters constantly finding new targets for theft. Preventing fraud requires a carefully orchestrated strategy that can recognize and treat a variety of types — without adding so much friction that it drives customers away. Experian’s fraud prevention and detection platform, CrossCore®, was recently named an Overall Leader, Product Leader in Fraud Reduction Intelligence Platforms, Innovation Leader and Market Leader in Fraud Reduction by KuppingerCole. CrossCore is an integrated digital identity and fraud risk platform that enables organizations to connect, access, and orchestrate decisions that leverage multiple data sources and services. CrossCore combines risk-based authentication, identity proofing, and fraud detection into a single, state-of-the-art cloud platform. It engages flexible decisioning workflows and advanced analytics to make real-time risk decisions throughout the customer lifecycle. This recognition highlights Experian’s comprehensive approach to combating fraud and validates that CrossCore offers best-in-class capabilities by augmenting Experian’s industry-leading identity and fraud offerings with a highly curated ecosystem of partners which enables further optionality for organizations based on their specific needs. To learn more about how CrossCore can benefit your organization, read the report or visit us. Learn more

Turns out, Americans still don’t know much about CyberSecurity. That’s according to new research from the Pew Data Center, which conducted a cybersecurity knowledge quiz. The 13 question quiz was designed to test American’s knowledge on a number of cybersecurity issues and terms. A majority of online adults can identify a strong password and recognize the dangers of using public Wi-Fi. However, many struggle with more technical cybersecurity concepts, such as how to identify true two-factor authentication or determine if a webpage they are using is encrypted. As we in the industry know, cybersecurity is a complicated and diverse subject, but given the pervasiveness of news around cybersecurity, I was still a little surprised by the lack of knowledge. The typical (median) respondent answered only five of the 13 questions correctly (with a mean of 5.5 correct answers). 20% answered more than eight questions accurately, and just 1% received a “perfect score” by correctly answering all 13 questions. The study showed that public knowledge of cybersecurity is low on some relatively technical issues, like identifying the correct example of multi-factor authentication, understanding how VPNs minimize risk and knowing what a botnet is. On the flip side, the two questions that the majority of respondents answered correctly included identifying the strongest password from a list of four options and understanding that public Wi-Fi networks have risk even when they are password protected. Given the median scores, I was proud of missing only one question – guess I have more reading to do on Botnets. As an industry, it is our duty to not only create systems and securities to improve the tactical effectiveness of fraud prevention, but to educate consumers on many of these topics as well. They often are the first line of defense in stopping fraud and reducing the threat of breaches.

Has the EMV liability shift caused e-commerce fraud to increase 33% in 2016? According to Experian data, CNP fraud increased with Florida, Delaware, Oregon and New York ranked as the riskiest states. Miami accounted for the most fraudulent ZIP™ Codes in the US for shipping and billing fraud.

Experian is recognized as a leading security solution provider for fraud and identity solutions in order to protect customers and financial institutions

With the most recent guidance newly issued by the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) there is renewed conversation about knowledge based authentication. I think this is a good thing.  It brings back into the forefront some of the things we have discussed for a while, like the difference between secret questions and dynamic knowledge based authentication, or the importance of risk based authentication. What does the new FFIEC guidance say about KBA?  Acknowledging that many institutions use challenge questions, the FFIEC guidance highlights that the implementation of challenge questions can greatly impact efficacy of its usefulness. Chances are you already know this.  Of greater importance, though, is the fact that the FFIEC guidelines caution on the use of less sophisticated systems and information that can be easily guessed or obtained from an Internet search, given the amount of information available.    As mentioned above, the FFIEC guidelines call for questions that “do not rely on information that is often publicly available,” recommending instead a broad range of data assets on which to base questions.  This is an area knowledge based authentication users should review carefully.  At this point in time it is perfectly appropriate to ask, “Does my KBA provider rely on data that is publicly sourced”  If you aren’t sure, ask for and review data sources.  At a minimum, you want to look for the following in your KBA provider:     ·         Questions!  Diverse questions from broad data categories, including credit and noncredit assets ·         Consumer question performance as one of the elements within an overall risk-based decisioning policy ·         Robust performance monitoring.  Monitor against established key performance indicators and do it often ·         Create a process to rotate questions and adjust access parameters and velocity limits.  Keep fraudsters guessing! ·         Use the resources that are available to you.  Experian has compiled information that you might find helpful: www.experian.com/ffiec Finally, I think the release of the new FFIEC guidelines may have made some people wonder if this is the end of KBA.  I think the answer is a resounding “No.”  Not only do the FFIEC guidelines support the continued use of knowledge based authentication, recent research suggests that KBA is the authentication tool identified as most effective by consumers.  Where I would draw caution is when research doesn’t distinguish between “secret questions” and dynamic knowledge based authentication, which we all know is very different.   

Well, actually, it isn’t. The better question to ask is when to use knowledge based authentication (KBA). I know I have written before about using it as part of a risk based authentication approach to fraud account management, but I am often asked what I mean by that statement. So, I thought it might be a good idea to provide a few more details and give some examples. Basically, what I mean is this: risk segmentation based on binary verification is unwise. Binary verification can occur based on identity elements, or it can occur based on pass/fail performance from out of wallet questions, but the fact remains that the primary decisioning strategy is relying on a condition with two outcomes – verified or not verified, pass or fail – and that is unwise. When we recommend a risk based authentication approach, the view is more broadly based. We advocate using analytics and weighting many factors, including those identity elements and knowledge based authentication performance as part of an overall decision, rather than an as end-all decision. If you take this kind of approach, when might you want to use this kind of approach? The answer to that is just about any time a transaction contains a level of risk, understanding that each organization will have a unique definition and tolerance for “risk”. It could be an origination or account opening scenario, when you do not yet have a relationship with a consumer. It could be in an account management setting, when you have a relationship with the consumer and know their expected behavior (and therefore anything outside of expected behavior is risk). It could be in transactional settings where there is an exchange of money or information belonging to the consumer. All of these are appropriate uses for KBA as part of a risk based approach.

By: Kristan Frend Imagine you’re on the #1 ranked relay swim team at the World Championships and you’re leading off. You finish your leg of the race with the team in first place. As your third teammate approaches the wall, your team is in first by a full body length. You’re on pace to set a new world record. Yet the anchor of your team is nowhere to be found, ultimately resulting in your team being disqualified.   If only your fourth teammate would have made it to the blocks in time…. When you take a step back and look at your fraud risk management solutions, do you ever feel like you have all of the tools and processes available yet feel like the anchor is missing? Perhaps it’s time to reexamine your internal resources. You may have an assembly of sophisticated and robust online fraud detection tools from vendors, but you may be missing a critical piece if you’re not also effectively leveraging internal data. Through our work with clients, we’re found that it is not uncommon for organizations to manage the customer relationship through different departments or silos within the organization.   All too often there is less than optimal coordination between these functional areas in taking advantage of their own internal negative data to combat application fraud. Additionally some organizations may have negative internal data but do not incorporate the check within their verification or risk based authentication tool, creating multiple steps and operational inefficiencies. One of the ways to overcome some of these issues is by incorporating internal negative data within an automated front-end check.  Once loss data is loaded into a historical database, the next time that name, phone, address, driver’s license or SSN reappears on a new application, the data element is immediately identified as one associated with a previous loss. The negative data is securely stored for only your organization’s use and is not shared with users outside of your organization.

Many compliance regulations such the Red Flags Rule, USA Patriot Act, and ESIGN require specific identity elements to be verified and specific high risk conditions to be detected. However, there is still much variance in how individual institutions reconcile referrals generated from the detection of high risk conditions and/or the absence of identity element verification. With this in mind, risk-based authentication, (defined in this context as the “holistic assessment of a consumer and transaction with the end goal of applying the right authentication and decisioning treatment at the right time") offers institutions a viable strategy for balancing the following competing forces and pressures:   Compliance – the need to ensure each transaction is approved only when compliance requirements are met;   Approval rates – the need to meet business goals in the booking of new accounts and the facilitation of existing account transactions;     Risk mitigation – the need to minimize fraud exposure at the account and transaction level. A flexibly-designed risk-based authentication strategy incorporates a robust breadth of data assets, detailed results, granular information, targeted analytics and automated decisioning. This allows an institution to strike a harmonious balance (or at least something close to that) between the needs to remain compliant, while approving the vast majority of applications or customer transactions and, oh yeah, minimizing fraud and credit risk exposure and credit risk modeling. Sole reliance on binary assessment of the presence or absence of high risk conditions and identity element verifications will, more often than not, create an operational process that is overburdened by manual referral queues. There is also an unnecessary proportion of viable consumers unable to be serviced by your business. Use of analytically sound risk assessments and objective and consistent decisioning strategies will provide opportunities to calibrate your process to meet today’s pressures and adjust to tomorrow’s as well.

Experian’s Fraud and Identity Solutions team recently conducted a webinar entitled: “A risk-based approach to finding opportunity in today’s market: New approaches to fraud, compliance, and operational efficiency in an evolving economy.” I specifically discussed the current business drivers and fraud trends we, as a consumer and commercial authentication services provider, hear most often from our existing and potential clients. I was encouraged to have the following forces validated by our audience, and I thought they’d be worth sharing with you via this forum. In what I believe to be rank order with most influencing first:   Customer experience is king. The addressable market for most of our clients is effectively an ever more limited pool of viable consumers. From the consumer’s perspective it’s a ‘buyer’s market’. ‘Good’ consumers know they are ‘good’ and those 750 scorers don’t tolerate poor customer service.   Risk seeking credit policies may be making a comeback. Many of our clients are starting to heal from the past few years, and are ready to get back on the bike. However, this does open the door more widely for application fraud activity and risk.     New products and associated solicitations and access channels translate to higher risk as fraud prevention and fraud detection processes may be less robust in the early launch stages and certainly less time-tested.     Human & IT resources are still in short supply. As these new channels open and fraud risk increases, necessary fraud prevention and authentication oriented resources are still overly constrained and often significantly lagging in proportionality behind the recovery-minded marketing minds.     Regulatory pressures continue to equate to higher operational costs, in the form of fraud referral rates, in process engineering and human intervention and activities, not to mention the opportunity costs associated with denial of service to those ‘good’ consumers I just mentioned.     So, hosted services and solutions are where it’s at these days. Our clients want their vendors, including us at Experian, to save their IT resources, deliver quicker to market services, such as fraud models, knowledge based authentication, and other authentication tools, and provide collective capabilities that would otherwise be years away if left to the mercy of their internal development queues.     All products and processes are under review, as you might imagine. Cost control is no longer a back-burner policy and focus. ROI is the key metric these days, and likely above any other. Our clients demand flexible tools that can be deployed in multiple process points and across multiple business units. Blanket policies (including fraud prevention and authentication) are no longer good enough. Our clients’ tailored products, access channels, and market segmentations require the same level of unique design in the products we deliver.    

Many compliance regulations such the Red Flags Rule, USA Patriot Act, and ESIGN require specific identity elements to be verified and specific high risk conditions to be detected. However, there is still much variance in how individual institutions reconcile referrals generated from the detection of high risk conditions and/or the absence of identity element verification. With this in mind, risk-based authentication, (defined in this context as the “holistic assessment of a consumer and transaction with the end goal of applying the right authentication and decisioning treatment at the right time") offers institutions a viable strategy for balancing the following competing forces and pressures: Compliance – the need to ensure each transaction is approved only when compliance requirements are met; Approval rates – the need to meet business goals in the booking of new accounts and the facilitation of existing account transactions; Risk mitigation – the need to minimize fraud exposure at the account and transaction level. A flexibly-designed risk-based authentication strategy incorporates a robust breadth of data assets, detailed results, granular information, targeted analytics and automated decisioning. This allows an institution to strike a harmonious balance (or at least something close to that) between the needs to remain compliant, while approving the vast majority of applications or customer transactions and, oh yeah, minimizing fraud and credit risk exposure and credit risk modeling. Sole reliance on binary assessment of the presence or absence of high risk conditions and identity element verifications will, more often than not, create an operational process that is overburdened by manual referral queues. There is also an unnecessary proportion of viable consumers unable to be serviced by your business. Use of analytically sound risk assessments and objective and consistent decisioning strategies will provide opportunities to calibrate your process to meet today’s pressures and adjust to tomorrow’s as well.

As E-Government customer demand and opportunity increases, so too will regulatory requirements and associated guidance become more standardized and uniformly adopted.  Regardless of credentialing techniques and ongoing access management, all enrollment processes must continue to be founded in accurate and, most importantly, predictive risk-based authentication. Such authentication tools must be able to evolve as new technologies and data assets become available, as compliance requirements and guidance become more defined, and as specific fraud threats align with various access channels and unique customer segments. A risk-based fraud detection system allows institutions to make customer relationship and transactional decisions based not on a handful of rules or conditions in isolation, but on a holistic view of a customer’s identity and predicted likelihood of associated identity theft.  To implement efficient and appropriate risk-based authentication procedures, the incorporation of comprehensive and broadly categorized data assets must be combined with targeted analytics and consistent decisioning policies to achieve a measurably effective balance between fraud detection and positive identity proofing results. The inherent value of a risk-based approach to authentication lies in the ability to strike such a balance not only in a current environment, but as that environment shifts as do its underlying forces. The National Institute of Standards and Technology, in special publication 800-63, defines electronic authentication (E-authentication) as “the process of establishing confidence in user identities electronically presented to an information system”. Since, as stated in publication 800-63, “individuals are enrolled and undergo an identity proofing process in which their identity is bound to an authentication secret, called a token”, it is imperative that identity proofing is founded in an approach that generates confidence in the authentication process. Experian believes that a risk-based approach that can separate valid from invalid identities using a combination of data and proven quantitative techniques is best. As “individuals are remotely authenticated to systems and applications over an open network, using a token in an authentication protocol”, enrollment processes that drive ultimate provision of tokens must be implemented with an eye towards identity risk, and not simply a series of checks against one or more third party data assets. If the “keys to the kingdom” are housed in the ongoing use of tokens provided by Credentials Service Providers (CRA) and binding credentials to that token, trusted Registration Authorities (RA) must employ highly predictive identity proofing techniques designed to segment true, low-risk identities from identities that may have been manipulated, fabricated, or in true-form are subject to fraudulent use, abuse or victimization. Many compliance-oriented authentication requirements (ex. USA PATRIOT Act, FACTA Red Flags Rule) and resultant processes hinge upon identity element (ex. name, address, Social Security number, phone number) validation and verification checks. Without minimizing the importance of performing such checks, the purpose of a more risk-based approach to authentication is to leverage other data sources and quantitative techniques to further assess the probability of fraudulent behavior.

I have already commented on “secret questions” as the root of all evil when considering tools to reduce identity theft and minimize fraud losses.  No, I’m not quite ready to jump off  that soapbox….not just yet, not when we’re deep into the season of holiday deals, steals and fraud.  The answers to secret questions are easily guessed, easily researched, or easily forgotten.  Is this the kind of security you want standing between your account and a fraudster during the busiest shopping time of the year? There is plenty of research demonstrating that fraud rates spike during the holiday season.  There is also plenty of research to demonstrate that fraudsters perpetrate account takeover by changing the pin, address, or e-mail address of an account – activities that could be considered risky behavior in decisioning strategies.  So, what is the best approach to identity theft red flags and fraud account management?  A risk based authentication approach, of course! Knowledge Based Authentication (KBA) provides strong authentication and can be a part of a multifactor authentication environment without a negative impact on the consumer experience, if the purpose is explained to the consumer.  Let’s say a fraudster is trying to change the pin or e-mail address of an account.  When one of these risky behaviors is initiated, a Knowledge Based Authentication session begins. To help minimize fraud, the action is prevented if the KBA session is failed.  Using this same logic, it is possible to apply a risk based authentication approach to overall account management at many points of the lifecycle: • Account funding • Account information change (pin, e-mail, address, etc.) • Transfers or wires • Requests for line/limit increase • Payments • Unusual account activity • Authentication before engaging with a fraud alert representative Depending on the risk management strategy, additional methods may be combined with KBA; such as IVR or out-of-band authentication, and follow-up contact via e-mail, telephone or postal mail.  Of course, all of this ties in with what we would consider to be a comprehensive Red Flag Rules program. Risk based authentication, as part of a fraud account management strategy, is one of the best ways we know to ensure that customers aren’t left singing, “On the first day of Christmas, the fraudster stole from me…”  

In my previous three postings, I’ve covered basic principles that can define a risk-based authentication process, associated value propositions, and some best-practices to consider. Finally, I’d like to briefly discuss some emerging informational elements and processes that enhance (or have already enhanced) the notion of risk-based authentication in the coming year.  For simplicity, I’m boiling these down to three categories: 1. Enterprise Risk Management – As you’d imagine, this concept involves the creation of a real-time, cross channel, enterprise-wide (cross business unit) view of a consumer and/or transaction.  That sounds pretty good, right?  Well, the challenge has been, and still remains, the cost of developing and implementing a data sharing and aggregation process that can accomplish this task.  There is little doubt that operating in a more silo’d environment limits the amount of available high-risk and/or positive authentication data associated with a consumer…and therefore limits the predictive value of tools that utilize such data.  It is only a matter of time before we see more widespread implementation of systems designed to look at a single transaction, an initial application profile, previous authentication results, or other relationships a consumer may have within the same organization -- and across all of this information in tandem.  It’s simply a matter of the business case to do so, and the resources to carry it out. 2. Additional Intelligence – Beyond some of the data mentioned above, some additional informational elements emerging as useful in isolation (or, even better, as a factor among others in a holistic assessment of a consumer’s identity and risk profile) include these areas:  IP address vs. physical address comparisons; device ID or fingerprinting; and biometrics (such as voice verification).  While these tools are being used and tested in many organizations and markets, there is still work to be done to strike the right balance as they are incorporated into an overall risk-based authentication process.  False positives, cost and implementation challenges still hinder widespread use of these tools from being a reality.  That should change over time, and quickly to help with the cost of credit risk. 3. Emerging Verification Techniques – Out-of-band authentication is defined as the use of two separate channels, used simultaneously, to authenticate a customer.  For example: using a phone to verify the identity of that person while performing a Web transaction.  Similarly, many institutions are finding success in initiating SMS texts as a means of customer notification and/or verification of monetary or non-monetary transactions.  The ability to reach out to a consumer in a channel alternate to their transaction channel is a customer friendly and cost effective way to perform additional due diligence.  

By: Kennis Wong In this blog entry, we have repeatedly emphasized the importance of a risk-based approach when it comes to fraud detection. Scoring and analytics are essentially the heart of this approach. However, unlike the rule-based approach, where users can easily understand the results, (i.e. was the S.S.N. reported deceased? Yes/No; Is the application address the same as the best address on the credit bureau? Yes/No), scores are generated in a black box where the reason for the eventual score is not always apparent even in a fraud database. Hence more homework needs to be done when selecting and using a generic fraud score to make sure they satisfy your needs. Here are some basic questions you may want to ask yourself: What do I want the score to predict? This may seem like a very basic question, but it does warrant your consideration. Are you trying to detect these areas in your fraud database? First-party fraud, third-party fraud, bust out fraud, first payment default, never pay, or a combination of these? These questions are particularly important when you are validating a fraud model. For example, if you only have third-party fraud tagged in your test file, a bust out fraud model would not perform well. It would just be a waste of your time. What data was used for model development? Other important questions you may want to ask yourself include:  Was the score based on sub-prime credit card data, auto loan data, retail card data or another fraud database? It’s not a definite deal breaker if it was built with credit card data, but, if you have a retail card portfolio, it may still perform well for you. If the scores are too far off, though, you may not have good result. Moreover, you also want to understand the number of different portfolios used for model development. For example, if only one creditor’s data is used, then it may not have the general applicability to other portfolios.