3 ms·

There's a number of ways that a fake card will look different from a real card - we aggregate these signals and form a decision on real vs fake (sorry, we know

There's a number of ways that a fake card will look different from a real card - we aggregate these signals and form a decision on real vs fake (sorry, we know that's a terrible answer - we would disclose more, but it's best practice to keep specifics of fraud detection a secret to maintain efficacy). Surprisingly, the gap between real and fake is wide enough that we can with good precision separate those cases. Of course, someone could build a replica indistinguishable from a real card, but at that point you've raise the barrier of committing fraud much higher than simply having a stolen credit card number, so chances are the fraudsters would migrate to some other platform

ThePhysicist 8y ago
I once saw a presentation from BSI (Germany Cyber Security Agency) where a researcher used computer vision / AR to create a video feed of a realistically looking ID card based on a simple paper copy of the card. They could add reflections and holograms to the paper copy that looked absolutely realistic, and they were able to use it to pass a video-based identification test (Video-Ident) that's widely used by banks in Germany to remotely validate the identity of new customers. The company then had to change their validation method by asking people to not only hold up and tilt the passport (to reveal the holograms) but to also pass their hand in front of it while holding it, which would lead the AR algorithm to fail. So I'd say it's definitely possible to fool even a person let alone an algorithm, as you said it's questionable though if there aren't any easier ways for criminals to use stolen card numbers.
- julia-zheng 8y ago
  Thanks for sharing that - super helpful to know. Definitely agree it's possible to make good fake cards, but it makes it difficult enough that fraudsters will usually migrate to a different platform. Since banks are probably the most attractive business to fraudsters, we'd suspect banks would have to make life much more difficult for fraudsters than the average business in order to chase them away.
  - yuy910616 8y ago
    I do love the product and don't want to appear like I'm bashing it. Great work on lunching! Best of luck! However, it seems if this practice (scanning card) becomes more widely adopted and becomes a standard process of detecting fraud, it'd become a relatively easy target for fraudsters to crack, right? I don't know if DL or card making technology will outpace fraudsters' will to make fake cards? Further more, if I'm a fraudster and know some websites that adopt this policy, there is a big incentive for me to get a credit card embossing kit to start making cards, right? After all, I'd think it is far easier to make a copy of a card than making the magnetic strip thing? And given your tech is a strong signal of 'not fraud', if it is relatively easy to beat this system, wouldn't it attract a huge number of fraudsters?
    - avip 8y ago
      Security is always about bar raising. Any protection can be bypassed. But for a non trivial period, fraudsters would be forced to try their CC listings on other apps, not protected by this tech. This will provide tremendous value to Dyneti's customers.
      - lennyevans 8y ago
        Lena here: completely agree avip. In terms of fraud losses, most companies are really worried about fraudsters that can scale their operations, not super targeted attacks. If you can increase the cost (in terms of time and money) of committing fraud, it becomes less scalable and less profitable for the fraudster. So certainly, a fraudster can get a card embossing kit and start making cards, but this is going to be much slower. Without our solution fraudsters are just typing in a card number, which takes seconds! Unless each instance of fraud is highly valuable (for example, as is the case with banks as Julia mentioned earlier), the economics start to look worse and worse. On top of that (and this certainly applies more to any deep-learning based solutions trying to bypass us) our models will constantly improve and so we'll force the fraudsters to constantly improve any fake card generation, making the fraudsters spend time on that rather than defrauding.

ThePhysicist 8y ago

I once saw a presentation from BSI (Germany Cyber Security Agency) where a researcher used computer vision / AR to create a video feed of a realistically looking ID card based on a simple paper copy of the card. They could add reflections and holograms to the paper copy that looked absolutely realistic, and they were able to use it to pass a video-based identification test (Video-Ident) that's widely used by banks in Germany to remotely validate the identity of new customers. The company then had to change their validation method by asking people to not only hold up and tilt the passport (to reveal the holograms) but to also pass their hand in front of it while holding it, which would lead the AR algorithm to fail. So I'd say it's definitely possible to fool even a person let alone an algorithm, as you said it's questionable though if there aren't any easier ways for criminals to use stolen card numbers.

julia-zheng 8y ago
Thanks for sharing that - super helpful to know. Definitely agree it's possible to make good fake cards, but it makes it difficult enough that fraudsters will usually migrate to a different platform. Since banks are probably the most attractive business to fraudsters, we'd suspect banks would have to make life much more difficult for fraudsters than the average business in order to chase them away.
- yuy910616 8y ago
  I do love the product and don't want to appear like I'm bashing it. Great work on lunching! Best of luck! However, it seems if this practice (scanning card) becomes more widely adopted and becomes a standard process of detecting fraud, it'd become a relatively easy target for fraudsters to crack, right? I don't know if DL or card making technology will outpace fraudsters' will to make fake cards? Further more, if I'm a fraudster and know some websites that adopt this policy, there is a big incentive for me to get a credit card embossing kit to start making cards, right? After all, I'd think it is far easier to make a copy of a card than making the magnetic strip thing? And given your tech is a strong signal of 'not fraud', if it is relatively easy to beat this system, wouldn't it attract a huge number of fraudsters?
  - avip 8y ago
    Security is always about bar raising. Any protection can be bypassed. But for a non trivial period, fraudsters would be forced to try their CC listings on other apps, not protected by this tech. This will provide tremendous value to Dyneti's customers.
    - lennyevans 8y ago
      Lena here: completely agree avip. In terms of fraud losses, most companies are really worried about fraudsters that can scale their operations, not super targeted attacks. If you can increase the cost (in terms of time and money) of committing fraud, it becomes less scalable and less profitable for the fraudster. So certainly, a fraudster can get a card embossing kit and start making cards, but this is going to be much slower. Without our solution fraudsters are just typing in a card number, which takes seconds! Unless each instance of fraud is highly valuable (for example, as is the case with banks as Julia mentioned earlier), the economics start to look worse and worse. On top of that (and this certainly applies more to any deep-learning based solutions trying to bypass us) our models will constantly improve and so we'll force the fraudsters to constantly improve any fake card generation, making the fraudsters spend time on that rather than defrauding.