Perimeter
10/18/2011
07:02 PM
Commentary
Commentary
Commentary
50%
50%

FFIEC Goes Beyond Traditional Authentication

The FFIEC recommends that organizations provide additional business and fraud detection controls to offset weaknesses in authentication technology

The FFIEC's recommendations for layered protection include mechanisms other than authentication to detect and prevent fraud. It is important to use information about customer location and behavior as an aid in detecting fraud.

In my previous post, I provided an overview of the supplement to the Authentication in an Internet Banking Environment guidance.

The FFIEC authentication supplement gives specific examples of fraud detection and monitoring systems that financial institutions should consider. It recommends monitoring customer transaction history and behavior. For example, it might be a sign of fraud when a customer who has never transferred funds to an nonaffiliated account does so for the first time. Address changes, changes to banking instructions for funds, and changes to beneficiaries are other important activities that should be verified through multiple contact methods.

The guidance also suggests institutions use multiple communication channels for confirmation of important transactions. For example, confirming password changes by email, telephone, and/or surface mail can provide more reliable authentication and might help to expose fraud attempts to customers. Another effective technique for preventing fraud is to require waiting periods after important account modifications, like address changes and banking instructions. While not foolproof, this approach provides more of an opportunity for customers to play a part in recognizing fraudulent activity.

The use of multiple layers of security is nothing new in the financial industry. Almost all of these methods are commonly implemented in mutual-fund companies and banks. In fact, any organization that extends credit (even the car dealership down the street) is supposed to be on the lookout for activities that would suggest that identity has been stolen and someone is attempting to perpetrate fraud.

The FTC’s Red Flag Rules require organizations to have controls in place to detect apparently fraudulent activities. Examples of “red flags” include mismatches of personal identifying information, incorrect signatures, mismatched addresses, and use of known stolen identities. The use of such nontechnical information is not just a suggestion -- it’s a requirement.

All organizations, whether they are financial institutions, merchants, or health care companies, should consider the types of activities that might signal identity theft, fraud, and misuse of accounts as components of their security control arsenal.

Richard Mackey is vice president of consulting at SystemExperts Corp.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Dark Reading December Tech Digest
Experts weigh in on the pros and cons of end-user security training.
Flash Poll
Title Partner’s Role in Perimeter Security
Title Partner’s Role in Perimeter Security
Considering how prevalent third-party attacks are, we need to ask hard questions about how partners and suppliers are safeguarding systems and data.
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2014-8551
Published: 2014-11-26
The WinCC server in Siemens SIMATIC WinCC 7.0 through SP3, 7.2 before Update 9, and 7.3 before Update 2; SIMATIC PCS 7 7.1 through SP4, 8.0 through SP2, and 8.1; and TIA Portal 13 before Update 6 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via crafted packets.

CVE-2014-8552
Published: 2014-11-26
The WinCC server in Siemens SIMATIC WinCC 7.0 through SP3, 7.2 before Update 9, and 7.3 before Update 2; SIMATIC PCS 7 7.1 through SP4, 8.0 through SP2, and 8.1; and TIA Portal 13 before Update 6 allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files via crafted packets.

CVE-2014-1421
Published: 2014-11-25
mountall 1.54, as used in Ubuntu 14.10, does not properly handle the umask when using the mount utility, which allows local users to bypass intended access restrictions via unspecified vectors.

CVE-2014-3605
Published: 2014-11-25
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2014-6407. Reason: This candidate is a reservation duplicate of CVE-2014-6407. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2014-6407 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to pre...

CVE-2014-6093
Published: 2014-11-25
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in IBM WebSphere Portal 7.0.x before 7.0.0.2 CF29, 8.0.x through 8.0.0.1 CF14, and 8.5.x before 8.5.0 CF02 allows remote authenticated users to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via a crafted URL.

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Now that the holiday season is about to begin both online and in stores, will this be yet another season of nonstop gifting to cybercriminals?