4 ms·

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm simply stating that this is not an effective prevention method. I'm even going to argue that this can potentially _hurt_ whatever

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm simply stating that this is not an effective prevention method. I'm even going to argue that this can potentially _hurt_ whatever fraud system they have in place, as it could create a lot of false-negatives. Once the fraudsters pick up on this they'll change the ports. From then on, this script is useless. At best, the result of the data points created by this script is going to create a temporary drop in fraud, which can be used by the aforementioned 'consultant' to claim (premature) victory. Give it a month or two, and the fraud numbers are going to go back to their previous levels.

anon102010 6y ago
Do you deal with fraud issues. My guess is not. "The fraudsters may adapt" is a complaint with almost all fraud fighting approaches - and yet many even older methods STILL have value even if fraudsters could work around them. Many fraudsters are using scripts and tools they don't even know how to modify but that circulate and are used. In person use has geo checks, so easy to avoid by using cards in a local area - but fraud prevention STILL picks up out of billing zip attempts at use. So you'll be wrong here. And even a 6 month decline in fraud is highly valuable to any of these large scale players.