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-2014-7298
Published: 2014-10-24
adsetgroups in Centrify Server Suite 2008 through 2014.1 and Centrify DirectControl 3.x through 4.2.0 on Linux and UNIX allows local users to read arbitrary files with root privileges by leveraging improperly protected setuid functionality.

CVE-2014-8346
Published: 2014-10-24
The Remote Controls feature on Samsung mobile devices does not validate the source of lock-code data received over a network, which makes it easier for remote attackers to cause a denial of service (screen locking with an arbitrary code) by triggering unexpected Find My Mobile network traffic.

CVE-2014-0619
Published: 2014-10-23
Untrusted search path vulnerability in Hamster Free ZIP Archiver 2.0.1.7 allows local users to execute arbitrary code and conduct DLL hijacking attacks via a Trojan horse dwmapi.dll that is located in the current working directory.

CVE-2014-2230
Published: 2014-10-23
Open redirect vulnerability in the header function in adclick.php in OpenX 2.8.10 and earlier allows remote attackers to redirect users to arbitrary web sites and conduct phishing attacks via a URL in the (1) dest parameter to adclick.php or (2) _maxdest parameter to ck.php.

CVE-2014-7281
Published: 2014-10-23
Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Shenzhen Tenda Technology Tenda A32 Router with firmware 5.07.53_CN allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that reboot the device via a request to goform/SysToolReboot.

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.