Perimeter
10/18/2011
07:02 PM
Commentary
Commentary
Commentary
Connect Directly
RSS
E-Mail
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
Partner Perspectives
What's This?
In a digital world inundated with advanced security threats, Intel Security seeks to transform how we live and work to keep our information secure. Through hardware and software development, Intel Security delivers robust solutions that integrate security into every layer of every digital device. In combining the security expertise of McAfee with the innovation, performance, and trust of Intel, this vision becomes a reality.

As we rely on technology to enhance our everyday and business life, we must too consider the security of the intellectual property and confidential data that is housed on these devices. As we increase the number of devices we use, we increase the number of gateways and opportunity for security threats. Intel Security takes the “security connected” approach to ensure that every device is secure, and that all security solutions are seamlessly integrated.
Featured Writers
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Dark Reading's October Tech Digest
Fast data analysis can stymie attacks and strengthen enterprise security. Does your team have the data smarts?
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-2012-5242
Published: 2014-10-21
Directory traversal vulnerability in functions/suggest.php in Banana Dance B.2.6 and earlier allows remote attackers to include and execute arbitrary local files via a .. (dot dot) in the name parameter in a get_template action.

CVE-2012-5243
Published: 2014-10-21
functions/suggest.php in Banana Dance B.2.6 and earlier allows remote attackers to read arbitrary database information via a crafted request.

CVE-2012-5702
Published: 2014-10-21
Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in dotProject before 2.1.7 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the (1) callback parameter in a color_selector action, (2) field parameter in a date_format action, or (3) company_name parameter in an addedit action to i...

CVE-2013-7406
Published: 2014-10-21
SQL injection vulnerability in the MRBS module for Drupal allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary SQL commands via unspecified vectors.

CVE-2014-2531
Published: 2014-10-21
SQL injection vulnerability in xhr.php in InterWorx Web Control Panel (aka InterWorx Hosting Control Panel and InterWorx-CP) before 5.0.14 build 577 allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary SQL commands via the i parameter in a search action to the (1) NodeWorx , (2) SiteWorx, or (3) R...

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Follow Dark Reading editors into the field as they talk with noted experts from the security world.