U.S. patent application number 14/801086 was filed with the patent office on 2015-11-12 for transaction assessment and/or authentication.
This patent application is currently assigned to IDM Global, Inc.. The applicant listed for this patent is IDM Global, Inc.. Invention is credited to Taher Elgamal, Dan Kolkowitz, Kieran Gerard Sherlock.
Application Number | 20150324802 14/801086 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 43069307 |
Filed Date | 2015-11-12 |
United States Patent
Application |
20150324802 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
Kolkowitz; Dan ; et
al. |
November 12, 2015 |
TRANSACTION ASSESSMENT AND/OR AUTHENTICATION
Abstract
Systems and methods for assessing and authenticating
transactions are disclosed. Some exemplary embodiments may
authenticate transactions based at least in part on a comparison of
a newly obtained electronic signature associated with a user with a
previously obtained electronic signature associated with the user,
where a payment instrument presented for use in the transaction is
also associated with the user. Exemplary electronic signatures may
comprise any information which may identify the user, such as
browser fingerprints, computer fingerprints, IP addresses,
geographic IP location information, information associated with a
payment, and/or a typing patterns.
Inventors: |
Kolkowitz; Dan; (Los Altos
Hills, CA) ; Elgamal; Taher; (San Francisco, CA)
; Sherlock; Kieran Gerard; (Palo Alto, CA) |
|
Applicant: |
Name |
City |
State |
Country |
Type |
IDM Global, Inc. |
Palo Alto |
CA |
US |
|
|
Assignee: |
IDM Global, Inc.
Palo Alto
CA
|
Family ID: |
43069307 |
Appl. No.: |
14/801086 |
Filed: |
July 16, 2015 |
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
|
|
12776784 |
May 10, 2010 |
|
|
|
14801086 |
|
|
|
|
61178753 |
May 15, 2009 |
|
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
705/44 |
Current CPC
Class: |
G06Q 20/3825 20130101;
G06Q 20/4014 20130101; G06Q 20/401 20130101; G06Q 50/01 20130101;
G06Q 20/3821 20130101; G06Q 20/40 20130101; G06Q 20/405 20130101;
G06Q 20/4016 20130101 |
International
Class: |
G06Q 20/40 20060101
G06Q020/40 |
Claims
1-25. (canceled)
26. An authentication system for electronic transactions occurring
over computerized network comprising: a transaction authentication
system interface operatively coupled to the computerized network
for receiving proposed transaction information over the
computerized network; a user information database; and a
transaction authentication tool, operatively coupled to the
transaction authentication system interface and to the user
information database and configured to perform the steps of:
receiving, from the transaction authentication system interface, a
request to utilize a payment instrument in a transaction;
receiving, from the transaction authentication system interface,
information pertaining to the payment instrument, information
pertaining to user computer system used to initiate the
transaction, and a collected electronic signature representation of
a user including attributes associated with the user computer
system; and determining, by the transaction authentication tool, an
indication of (a) a match score between the collected electronic
signature representation of the user associated with the user
computer system and an electronic signature stored in the user
information database to establish a user identity, (b) whether the
payment instrument matches a payment instrument stored in the user
information database, (c) whether the user computer system matches
a computer identification stored in the user information database,
(d) whether the user identity, the user computer system and the
payment instrument have been previously used together, and (e)
whether the user identity, the user computer system and the payment
instrument all have good transaction reputations; transmitting by
the transaction tool, (i) a BAD indication if, based upon the
determining step it is determined that the transaction be rejected,
(ii) a GOOD indication if, based upon the determining step it is
determined that the transaction be subject to minimal scrutiny or
be accepted, and (iii) a SUSPICIOUS indication if, based upon the
determining step it is determined that the transaction be subject
to substantial additional scrutiny.
27. The authentication system of claim 26, wherein the determining
step: (w) determines a BAD indication if at least one of the user
identity, the user computer system and the payment instrument do
not have good transaction reputations; (x) determines a GOOD
indication if the match score is high, and that the payment
instrument is known, and the user computer system is known, and the
user identity, the user computer system and the payment instrument
have been previously used together, and that the user identity, the
user computer system and the payment instrument all have good
transaction reputations, (y) determines a GOOD indication if the
match score is low, and that the payment instrument is known, and
the user computer system is known, and the user identity, the user
computer system and the payment instrument have been previously
used together, and that the user identity, the user computer system
and the payment instrument all have good transaction reputations,
and (z) determines a SUSPICIOUS indication if none of (w), (x) and
(y) are satisfied.
28. The authentication system of claim 26, wherein the transaction
authentication tool is operatively connected to a third party fraud
detection service, and the transaction authentication tool is
further configured to subject the proposed transaction information
to the third party fraud detection tool upon determining a
SUSPICIOUS indication.
29. The authentication system of claim 28, wherein the transaction
authentication tool is further configured to determine at least one
of a GOOD indication and a BAD indication based upon information
received back from the third party fraud detection tool.
30. The authentication system of claim 28, wherein the third party
fraud detection tool includes information from one or more
merchants.
31. The authentication system of claim 26, wherein the collected
electronic signature and the electronic signature stored in the
user information database each have a plurality of attributes, and
the match score is determined based upon a weighted comparison of
matching attributes between the collected electronic signature and
the electronic signature stored in the user information
database.
32. The authentication system of claim 31, wherein the match score
is calculated based upon (a) a sum of weights of attributes in the
collected electronic signature that match attributes in the
electronic signature stored in the user information database, a (b)
a sum of weights of attributes in the collected electronic
signature that do not match attributes in the electronic signature
stored in the user information database, and (c) a sum of weights
of attributes in the collected electronic signature that match and
do not match attributes in the electronic signature stored in the
user information database.
33. The authentication system of claim 32, wherein the trust score
is calculated based upon (a) a sum of all weights of attributes in
the collected electronic signature that match attributes in the
electronic signature stored in the user information database, a (b)
a sum of all weights of attributes in the collected electronic
signature that do not match attributes in the electronic signature
stored in the user information database, and (c) a sum of all
weights of attributes in the collected electronic signature that
match and do not match attributes in the electronic signature
stored in the user information database.
34. The authentication system of claim 31, wherein the trust score
is calculated based upon (a) a sum of weights of attributes in the
collected electronic signature that match attributes in the
electronic signature stored in the user information database, (b) a
sum of weights of attributes in the collected electronic signature
that do not match attributes in the electronic signature stored in
the user information database, (c) a sum of weights of attributes
in the collected electronic signature not compared with attributes
in the electronic signature stored in the user information
database, and (d) a sum of weights of attributes in the collected
electronic signature that match, do not match, and are not compared
with attributes in the electronic signature stored in the user
information database.
35. The authentication system of claim 34, wherein the trust score
is calculated from the following equation:
(a.sup.2-(b*2)-c)*1000/d.sup.2.
36. An authentication system for electronic transactions occurring
over computerized network comprising: a transaction authentication
system interface operatively coupled to the computerized network
for receiving proposed transaction information over the
computerized network; a user information database; and a
transaction authentication tool, operatively coupled to the
transaction authentication system interface and to the user
information database and configured to perform the steps of:
receiving, from the transaction authentication system interface, a
request to utilize a payment instrument in a transaction;
receiving, from the transaction authentication system interface,
information pertaining to the payment instrument, information
pertaining to user computer system used to initiate the
transaction, and a collected electronic signature representation of
a user including attributes associated with the user computer
system; and determining, by the transaction authentication tool, an
indication of (a) a match score between the collected electronic
signature representation of the user associated with the user
computer system and an electronic signature stored in the user
information database to establish a user identity, (b) whether the
payment instrument matches a payment instrument stored in the user
information database, (c) whether the user computer system matches
a computer identification stored in the user information database,
(d) whether the user identity, the user computer system and the
payment instrument have been previously used together, and (e)
whether the user identity, the user computer system and the payment
instrument all have good transaction reputations; and transmitting
by the transaction tool, (i) a first indication if, based upon the
determining step it is determined that the transaction be rejected,
(ii) a second indication if, based upon the determining step it is
determined that the transaction be accepted, and (iii) a third
indication if, based upon the determining step it is determined
that the transaction be subject to substantial additional third
party scrutiny.
Description
CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS
[0001] This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional
Application No. 61/178,753, filed May 15, 2010, which is
incorporated by reference.
BACKGROUND
[0002] The present disclosure is directed to transaction assessment
and/or authentication systems and methods and, more particularly,
to systems and methods for assessing and/or authenticating
transactions to identify fraudulent payments.
SUMMARY
[0003] Exemplary embodiments may include systems and methods for
assessing and authenticating transactions are disclosed. Some
exemplary embodiments may authenticate transactions based at least
in part on a comparison of a newly obtained electronic signature
associated with a user with a previously obtained electronic
signature associated with the user, where a payment instrument
presented for use in the transaction is also associated with the
user. Exemplary electronic signatures may comprise any information
which may identify the user, such as browser fingerprints, computer
fingerprints, IP addresses, geographic IP location information,
information associated with a payment, and/or a typing
patterns.
[0004] In an aspect, an exemplary system may uniquely identify a
user using the network and payment attributes presented in the
regular contexts of payment transactions. Attributes may include
browser fingerprints, computer fingerprints, IP addresses, geo-IP
location information, information entered regularly on payment, the
typing pattern when entering fields in the payment information.
Such information may comprise an electronic signature and may
uniquely identify a user across merchants and payment networks. In
some exemplary embodiments, only when enough information is
available to identify the user is the user known through his or her
electronic signature.
[0005] In an aspect, an exemplary system may positively recognize a
user through his or her payment an/or network behavior to approve
transactions on the basis of being the known good user of a payment
instrument.
[0006] In an aspect, an exemplary method may include collecting the
history data of charges, entered information, and summary data on
those transactions being accepted or rejected to build a database
that becomes part of an electronic signature for a user.
[0007] In an aspect, an exemplary method may include using hashes
of attributes collected in a transaction that can be stored at a
central location and/or may be used in a positive system to
uniquely identify known users to a collection of merchants and
payment networks. The hashes may not be reversed to extract
personal information, which may allow cooperation between merchants
and payment entities without compromising customer information.
[0008] In an aspect, an exemplary method may include explicitly
identifying a user on first use of a payment instrument for the
purpose of collecting an electronic signature for use in subsequent
network transactions.
[0009] In an aspect, an exemplary method may include a check of an
electronic signature on a transaction for the purpose of detecting
whether the user is the same or not as a requirement for acceptance
of a card-not-present transaction.
[0010] In an aspect, an exemplary method of detecting identity
theft may include the use of an electronic signature to recognize
the use of a card by a different user than the one to whom it was
issued.
[0011] In an aspect, an exemplary method may include using a
payment through a known trusted source as establishing a base
reputation for a user with an electronic signature for a merchant
or a collection of merchants not affiliated with the trusted
source. For example, verification made through a trusted online
retailer may be used to establish that the user was recognized and
able to pay through those services, and may give an increased level
of confidence that the user is known accurately to the service.
[0012] In an aspect, a computer-readable medium may
computer-executable instructions stored thereon, which, when
executed by a computer, enable the computer to perform a method
including storing a first electronic signature associated with a
user, the first electronic signature including a plurality of
attributes collected in connection with a prior transaction;
associating the first electronic signature with a payment
instrument utilized in the prior transaction; receiving a second
electronic signature in connection with a proposed transaction
utilizing the payment instrument; determining whether the second
electronic signature correlates with the first electronic signature
by comparing the second electronic signature with the first
electronic signature; if the second electronic signature correlates
with the first electronic signature, confirming that the payment
instrument and the second electronic signature are associated with
one another; and if the second electronic signature does not
correlate with the first electronic signature, determining that the
payment instrument and the second electronic signature are not
associated with one another.
[0013] In detailed embodiment, the plurality of attributes may
include at least one of a browser fingerprint, a computer
fingerprint, an IP address, geographic IP location information,
information associated with a payment, a typing pattern, user name,
user billing address, user shipping address, user phone number,
email address, and account name. In a detailed embodiment,
comparing the second electronic signature with the first electronic
signature may include comparing individual attributes collected in
connection with the proposed' transaction to corresponding ones of
the plurality of attributes collected in connection with the prior
transaction. In a detailed embodiment, determining whether the
second electronic signature correlates with the first electronic
signature may be based at least in part upon a trust score
calculated using a weighted consideration of at least some of the
plurality of attributes collected in connection with the prior
transaction. In a detailed embodiment, the weighted consideration
may include calculating the trust score based at least in part upon
matching attributes, non-matching attributes, attributes not
compared, and a maximum possible trust score.
[0014] In a detailed embodiment, determining whether the second
electronic signature correlates with the first electronic signature
may include calculating a trust score based at least in part upon
at least one of a reputation score associated with the payment
instrument, a reputation score associated with a computer utilized
in the proposed transaction, and a reputation score associated with
the user.
[0015] In a detailed embodiment, the browser fingerprint may
include at least one of a user agent, a screen resolution, a
software plug-in, a time zone, a system language, whether Java is
enabled, whether cookies are enabled, a site visited, and an IP
address. In a detailed embodiment, the computer fingerprint may
include at least one of a processor characteristic, a memory size
of the machine, a value that is loaded at a key location, a value
of a registry of a loaded operating system, an Ethernet MAC
address, raw networking information, network information, a loaded
program, and a log file. In a detailed embodiment, the network
information may include a network provider, whether an IP address
is consistent with a known IP address, a geographical proximity of
an address registered with a payment instrument and the IP address
as determined by an IP to geo-location service, whether or not a
proxy is in use, whether a known bad IP address is in use, and
whether the IP address is associated with a service provider who
was associated with the user in the prior transaction.
[0016] In an aspect, a computer-readable medium may include
computer-executable instructions stored thereon, which, when
executed by a computer, enable the computer to perform a method
including receiving a received electronic signature including a
plurality of received attributes and information pertaining to a
payment instrument; determining whether the received electronic
signature correlates with any of a plurality of stored electronic
signatures by comparing the plurality of received attributes of the
received electronic signature to a plurality of stored attributes
associated with the plurality of stored electronic signatures; if
the received electronic signature correlates with one of the
plurality of stored electronic signatures, determining whether the
payment instrument is associated with the one of the plurality of
stored electronic signatures based at least in part upon at least
one prior transaction involving the one of the plurality of stored
electronic signatures and the payment instrument and if the payment
instrument is associated with the one of the plurality of stored
electronic signatures, confirming an association between the
payment instrument and the received electronic signature; and if
the received electronic signature does not correlate with one of
the plurality of stored electronic signatures, determining that the
payment instrument is not associated with the received electronic
signature.
[0017] In a detailed embodiment, the information pertaining to the
payment instrument may include a credit card number.
[0018] In a detailed embodiment, the plurality of received
attributes may include at least one of a browser fingerprint, a
computer fingerprint, an IP address, geographic IP location
information, information associated with a payment, a typing
pattern, user name, user billing address, user shipping address,
user phone number, email address, and account name. In a detailed
embodiment, the browser fingerprint may include at least one of a
user agent, a screen resolution, a software plug-in, a time zone, a
system language, whether Java is enabled, whether cookies are
enabled, a site visited, and an IP address. In a detailed
embodiment, the computer fingerprint may include at least one of a
processor characteristic, a memory size of the machine, a value
that is loaded at a key location, a value of a registry of a loaded
operating system, an Ethernet MAC address, raw networking
information, network information, a loaded program, and a log file.
In a detailed embodiment, the network information may include a
network provider, whether an IP address is consistent with a known
IP address, a geographical proximity of an address registered with
a payment instrument and the IP address as determined by an IP to
geo-location service, whether or not a proxy is in use, whether a
known bad IP address is in use, and whether the IP address is
associated with a service provider who was associated with the user
in the prior transaction.
[0019] In a detailed embodiment, determining whether the received
electronic signature correlates with any of the plurality of stored
electronic signatures may include determining which ones of the
plurality of received attributes match stored attributes associated
with individual stored electronic signatures. In a detailed
embodiment, determining whether the received electronic signature
correlates with any of the plurality of stored electronic
signatures may include calculating a trust score based at least in
part upon which ones of the plurality of received attributes match
stored attributes associated with individual stored electronic
signatures. In a detailed embodiment, calculating the trust score
may include applying different weights to different ones of the
plurality of received attributes. In a detailed embodiment,
calculating the trust score may be based at least in part upon a
reputation score. In a detailed embodiment, the method may include,
if the trust score is below a first predetermined threshold,
determining that the payment instrument is not associated with the
received electronic signature; if the trust score is between the
first predetermined threshold and a second predetermined threshold,
determining that the payment instrument is associated with the
received electronic signature at a low confidence level; and if the
trust score is above the second predetermined threshold,
determining that the payment instrument is associated with the
received electronic signature at a high confidence level.
[0020] In an aspect, a computer-readable medium may include
computer-executable instructions stored thereon, which, when
executed by a computer, enable the computer to perform a method
including receiving, from a user computer system, a request to
utilize a payment instrument in a transaction; transmitting, to an
authentication system, information pertaining to the payment
instrument and a collected electronic signature including
attributes associated with the user computer system; and receiving,
from the authentication system, an indication of whether the
collected electronic signature associated with the user computer
system correlates with a stored electronic signature associated
with the payment instrument obtained in connection with a previous
transaction involving the user computer system and the payment
instrument.
[0021] In a detailed embodiment, the attributes associated with the
user computer system may include at least one of a browser
fingerprint, a computer fingerprint, an IP address, geographic IP
location information, information associated with a payment, a
typing pattern, user name, user billing address, user shipping
address, user phone number, email address, and account name.
[0022] In a detailed embodiment, the indication may include at
least one of an indication corresponding to a high confidence
correlation, a low confidence correlation, and no correlation. In a
detailed embodiment, the method may include, if the indication
corresponds to the high confidence correlation, accepting the
transaction; if the indication corresponds to the low confidence
correlation, initiating additional fraud detection assessment; and
if the indication corresponds to no correlation, rejecting the
transaction. In a detailed embodiment, the high confidence
correlation may be associated with a high user match score, a known
payment instrument, a known computer that have previously been used
together.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0023] The detailed description refers to the following figures in
which:
[0024] FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating an exemplary
transaction assessment and authentication environment;
[0025] FIG. 2 is a block diagram illustrating example information
which may be collected and/or utilized in electronic
signatures;
[0026] FIG. 3 is flow chart illustrating an exemplary transaction
assessment and authentication method;
[0027] FIG. 4 is block diagram illustrating an exemplary system for
assessing and authenticating a transaction;
[0028] FIG. 5 is a block diagram illustrating an exemplary system
for assessing and authenticating a transaction;
[0029] FIG. 6 is a block diagram illustrating an exemplary
computer-readable medium;
[0030] FIG. 7 is a block diagram illustrating an exemplary
computer-readable medium; and
[0031] FIG. 8 is a block diagram illustrating an exemplary
computer-readable medium; all in accordance with at least some
aspects of the present disclosure.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
[0032] The illustrative embodiments described in the detailed
description and drawings are not meant to be limiting. Other
embodiments may be utilized, and other changes may be made, without
departing from the spirit or scope of the subject matter presented
here. It will be readily understood that the aspects of the present
disclosure, as generally described herein, and illustrated in the
figures, may be arranged, substituted, combined, and designed in a
wide variety of different configurations, all of which are
explicitly contemplated and make part of this disclosure.
[0033] The present disclosure relates, inter alia, to methods and
systems associated with transaction assessment and/or
authentication and, more particularly, to assessing and/or
authenticating transactions to identify fraudulent payments.
[0034] The present disclosure contemplates that transaction fraud
is becoming more prevalent due, in large part, to the Internet. For
example, transaction frauds may include fraudulent use of payment
instruments such as credit cards, debit cards and other similar
instruments. Some fraud-check systems maintain lists of known bad
cards, bad addresses, and/or bad computer system fingerprints,
which may be referred to as "black lists." Further, some
fraud-check systems perform analytics with the bad cards, bad
addresses, and/or bad computer system fingerprints to determine
whether a given transaction appears legitimate. Some of these
fraud-check systems also determine a risk associated with a
transaction.
[0035] Some exemplary embodiments according to the present
disclosure may utilize information associated with a user to
develop and/or maintain an association between a user and a payment
instrument. In some exemplary embodiments, transaction assessment
and/or authentication systems and methods may be configured to
collect information associated with a user of a payment instrument
and/or to compare such newly collected information with previously
collected information. Based at least in part upon the comparison
of the previously collected information and the newly collected
information, some exemplary systems and methods may be configured
to determine whether the user is associated with the presented
payment instrument. Some exemplary embodiments may be configured to
maintain all or part of the information related to users'
transactions over time, which may increase the level of trust in an
identity matching scheme.
[0036] Some exemplary embodiments may utilize data that may be
collected in transactions using Internet online payment systems for
online merchants. For example, data associated with a transaction
may be collected to build a representation of the user who is
associated with the payment instrument used in the transaction. In
some exemplary embodiments, data associated with attributes that
can be seen in the network and/or the transaction that may be
associated with and/or may identify a user may be analyzed and/or
used to create an electronic signature of the user. Exemplary
attributes include, but are not limited to, browser fingerprints,
computer fingerprints, IP addresses, geographic IP location
information, information associated with a payment, and/or a typing
pattern when entering data in fields related to the payment.
Browser fingerprints may include attributes associated with an
individual's browser that may be extracted using standard
interfaces. For example, browser fingerprints may include
characteristics such as user agent (includes browser and operating
system), screen resolution, software plug-ins (in a manageable
state), time zone, system language, whether Java is enabled,
whether cookies are enabled, sites visited, and/or IP address. The
present disclosure contemplates that matching browser fingerprint
characteristics in a subsequent interaction with those collected
during a prior interaction may indicate a high probability that the
same browser was used in both the prior and subsequent
interactions.
[0037] Some exemplary computer fingerprints may allow a determine
of whether a physical machine is the same as one that has been seen
in the past. Computer fingerprints may include, for example,
processor characteristics (e.g., model number, version, speed,
cache size serial number, etc.), memory size of the machine, values
that are loaded at key locations, values of the registry of the
loaded operating system, Ethernet MAC (media access control)
address, raw networking and network information (e.g.,
configuration parameters), loaded programs, and/or log files. Some
exemplary embodiments may utilize performance on specified
benchmark program fragments, such as by measuring the performance
of a program that includes different characteristics including
input/output and CPU (central processing unit) speed. Such an
approach may take into account the other processes running on a
user's machine, the amount of memory, etc., and it may provide
reproducible results so that it may act as a part of a fingerprint.
Example information associated with a payment may include behaviors
observed on entered information (e.g., typing rhythms, billing
addresses entered, cards used, passwords or PINs stored and/or
requested), Zip code, full name entered, and/or loaded verses empty
fields on entering information (for example, the browser may have
the previously entered values from the last instance of the user).
This can be seen to be entered by the browser rather than typing by
the speed of entry of the characters. In some exemplary
embodiments, the electronic signature may uniquely identify the
user at the same merchant in future transactions and/or at other
merchants where the same attributes can be seen.
[0038] In some exemplary embodiments, when a transaction is
presented by a user to a merchant, data related to the user's
electronic signature may be collected. The newly collected
electronic signature data may be compared to previously collected
electronic signature data associated with that user to determine
whether or not the newly collected electronic signature correlates
with the previously collected electronic signature. If the newly
collected electronic signature correlates with the previously
collected electronic signature, then it may be assumed that the
user has been identified. If the newly collected electronic
signature does not correlate with the previously collected
electronic signature, then it may be assumed that the user in the
present transaction is not the same user who participated in
previous transactions. Thus, by associating a particular payment
instrument with a known user (e.g., by identifying the user by his
or her electronic signature), it may be determined whether or not
the payment instrument presented in a particular transaction is
known to belong to the user who is presenting the payment
instrument.
[0039] In some exemplary embodiments, a lack of correlation between
the newly collected electronic signature and the previously
collected electronic signature may be used to identify transactions
which may merit further assessment. For example, if the newly
collected electronic signature correlates with a known, previously
collected electronic signature of a different user (e.g., a user
other than the user involved in the transaction), then the
transaction may be flagged for further assessment, such as further
determination of whether or not fraud is involved or whether
additional fraud checks need to be performed.
[0040] The present disclosure contemplates that the notion of using
an electronic signature associated with a user to identify the user
in a payment network may be aided by the standardization of World
Wide Web interfaces. Merchant payment interfaces often utilize
standard World Wide Web technology to provide user catalogs and
payment collection. This may include the input of credit card
and/or other payment information through applications running on
users' computers or as browser applications. Some exemplary
embodiments according to the present disclosure may be configured
to collect certain pieces of information for the purpose of
identifying the user who is behind the payment instrument. Some of
these pieces of information are not necessarily related to the
transaction, but may instead relate to characteristics of the
user's computer environment and/or network sessions. For example,
characteristics of the user's computer environment may include
browser fingerprint information and/or typing characteristics of
the user. Characteristics of the network sessions may include IP
address, whether or not the user is coming from a known location
associated with the user, and/or whether or not the user is
utilizing a network proxy. The whole collection of the information
(or parts thereof) may provide a unique user electronic signature.
Such an electronic signature may allow a determination of whether a
particular user is associated with a particular payment instrument
they are presenting.
[0041] As illustrated in FIG. 1, an exemplary transaction
assessment and authentication environment 100 may include a
merchant 102 submitting information pertaining to a transaction to
a transaction assessment and authentication system 104. System 104
may include a positive user ID module 106, which may employ an
electronic signature database 108 and/or authentication services
110 to establish a user ID 112. Users who are not positively
identified (e.g., unknown users) may be subjected to one or more
third party fraud detection processes 114, such as fraud model
and/or black listing analyses 116. Users who are positively
identified (e.g., verified users) and/or unknown users who have
undergone third party fraud detection processes 114 may be
evaluated under a fraud policy 118, and system 104 may provide an
accept 120 or reject 122 output associated with the user.
[0042] FIG. 2 illustrates example information 200 which may be
collected and/or utilized in electronic signatures. Personal
information 202 may include a user's name, address, and related
information 204 and/or computer and IP location information 206.
Transactions and payments information 208 may include account
numbers and details 210 and/or payment history information 212.
Authentication information 214 may include information associated
with online retailer accounts 216 and/or out of band authentication
218 (e.g., authentication of the user via communications channels
other than the primary communications channel being used to conduct
the transaction, such as authentication using a telephone for a
transaction conducted via the internet). Web experience information
220 may include social networks friends 222 and/or website-related
data 224, such as cookies and/or visited URLs (uniform resource
locators) associated with the user's web experience.
[0043] Some exemplary embodiments may be configured to utilize
electronic signatures to identify users, or as a common component
in the identification of users. In some exemplary embodiments, this
may reduce or eliminate dependence upon user-supplied information
to identify users. In some exemplary embodiments, the actual
underlying data in an electronic signature may be less important
than correlation between aspects of a newly collected electronic
signature and a previously collected electronic signature.
[0044] Some exemplary embodiments may reduce the likelihood that a
user's identity may be hidden. For example, some exemplary
embodiments may asses the degree of correlation of a newly
collected electronic signature with a previously collected
electronic signature. The degree of correlation may be evaluated to
determine whether such electronic signatures uniquely identify the
user. If so, the electronic signature may be considered to be
positive identification of the user in the transaction.
[0045] Some exemplary embodiments may use any technology to help
identify a user at their computer or site using identifying
attributes and/or data. Instead of (or in addition to) using
technologies to generate "blacklists" (or negative lists of users
with bad payment credentials), some exemplary embodiment may use
attributes to help identify the user in different contexts. The
present disclosure contemplates that the attributes may not
necessarily identify the user completely. Cryptographic techniques
may be used to store encrypted information that may be transmitted
by the user. The encrypted information may assist a merchant in
determining the identification of a consumer (user) using a payment
instrument.
[0046] As illustrated in FIG. 3, some exemplary transaction
assessment and authentication methods 300 may include cryptographic
hashing and/or encryption of the information. For example, newly
collected electronic signature information 302, such as user name
304, user address 306, geographic location 308, credit card data
310, and/or other information 312, may be run through a hash
operation 314 and/or encryption operation 316 prior to conducting
identity matching 318 to evaluate the correlation with a previously
collected electronic signature, such as from an electronic
signature database 320. In some exemplary embodiments, the original
information run through the hash and/or encryption operations may
not be readily obtained from the hashed and/or encrypted result. In
such embodiments, the correlation of the newly collected electronic
signature and the previously collected electronic signature may be
performed on hashed and/or encrypted data. Thus, although the
actual information making up the electronic signature may not be
retrievable (e.g., only hashed and/or encrypted data may be
transmitted), assessment of correlation (e.g., matching) of
attributes may be performed. For example, while the geographic
location of a user may not be retrievable from the hash of the
geographic location data, the newly obtained hash of the user's
geographic location may be compared to a previously collected hash
of the user's geographic location. If the hashes match, then the
newly collected and previously collected geographic locations
correlate.
[0047] In some exemplary embodiments, using hashed and/or encrypted
data may allow private user data to be transmitted across the
internet only in hashed and/or encrypted form, which may provide
privacy advantages. In some exemplary embodiments, using hashed
and/or encrypted data may allow a plurality of merchants or other
parties to cooperate to reduce fraudulent transaction without
divulging confidential customer information. For example, merchants
or other parties may contribute hashed and/or encrypted information
comprising user electronic signatures which may be used by other
parties for transaction assessment through matching. However,
because the information is hashed and/or encrypted, the underlying
information may not be retrievable.
[0048] Some exemplary embodiments may determine whether a payment
instrument belongs to a user based on network information
associated with the user. For example, network information
associated with the user may include the network provider, whether
the IP address is consistent with the user's known IP address, the
geographical proximity of the address registered with a payment
instrument (e.g., credit card or payment card) and the IP address
as determined by an IP to geo-location service, whether or not the
user is utilizing a proxy or known bad set of IP locations as
determined by a service or black list, and/or whether the IP
address is associated with a service provider who was associated
with the user in past transactions. In this manner, some exemplary
embodiments may enable a merchant to accurately assess whether a
payment instrument (such as a credit card) belongs to the user of
the payment instrument or not.
[0049] Some exemplary embodiments may address a growing problem
with on-line and/or Internet transaction payments. For example,
when a merchant receives a user request to charge a credit card, it
may be beneficial to determine whether to accept the request based
on the information presented by the user. In the case of stolen
credit cards, the information about the user may be stolen at the
same time along with the physical and/or virtual credit card
information. This information may include a name, address, phone
number and other pieces of billing and/or personally identifiable
information. Since each merchant may verify their own customer's
data, the personal data utilized for this kind of fraudulent
activity may be replicated over and over. Some exemplary
embodiments may reduce problems associated with the loss of that
information and verification by the merchant. For example, if the
system detects that a different user is using a known payment
instrument, it may alert certain parties of the possibility of
identity theft. By establishing the user's identity prior to
processing the transaction, some exemplary embodiments may allow
Internet payments to approach card-present situations in terms of
fraud prevention and trustworthiness.
[0050] In some exemplary embodiments, the systems and methods
described herein may assist merchants in determining whether they
should accept a credit card payment based on whether the user
making the payment owns the credit card. This may provide
confidence and/or information to the merchant that the user owns
the credit card. Such information may be considered by the merchant
before processing the credit card payment. Some exemplary
embodiments may reduce the differences between transactions where
the credit card is present ("card-present" transaction) and
transactions where the credit is not present ("card not present"
transactions) since it may help establish that the user actually
owns the credit card in an analogous way to clerk asking a person
for drivers license and/or other credentials by matching the name
and/or other information on the credit card with the license
information. This may be a useful tool for all involved parties
since it tends to provide proof that a user owned the credit card,
presented the credit card to the merchant and that the merchant
performed the actual fraud checks. This may be better than in many
"card-present" cases, as a merchant may not be able perform the
required identity checks and there may be no record of whether they
were performed.
[0051] Some exemplary embodiments may determine whether the payment
requesting user is the same user who actually owns the card,
instead of asking if a user's credentials are bad (e.g., whether
they are on a blocked list, or are coming from known bad computer
systems, etc.). This may be accomplished using much of the same
data. But, the data may be transmitted to the authentication system
to determine whether it is the same data that has been associated
with the use of the card on an authentication network. In this
manner, the authentication system may help determine whether it is
the user that actually owns the payment instrument (as opposed to
merely whether the transaction may be risky). This may provide much
better user authentication than the explicit password-based
authentication methods that are used in some systems today. Some
exemplary embodiments may produce a trust level (or score)
indicating how close the user requesting a current payment is to
the known users of the card. A trust score may weight matching
elements to provide a high score for matching of all elements and a
very low or medium score for instances in which there are partially
matching or non-matching elements.
[0052] In some exemplary embodiments, a trust score may be
calculated as follows. A set of candidate users may be identified
base on known existing good users of the payment instrument
presented, known existing users of the computer from which the
payment request is being made, users who have made purchases
through the merchant account currently requesting payment, users
sharing the same email address, and/or other criteria that find
candidate users with a reasonable probability of matching the user
requesting payment. For each of the candidate users, the attributes
of the current payment request may be compared with the attributes
of the candidate user to determine which candidate user, if any, is
best matched by the current payment request. In some exemplary
embodiments, the attributes may include user name, user billing
address, user shipping address, user phone numbers (mobile, work,
home, fax, etc.), user typing rhythms, email address, merchant
account name. For purposes of matching, each of these attributes
may be given a weight that reflects how strongly the presence of
the attribute identifies the user. An exemplary table of user
attribute weights follows:
TABLE-US-00001 Attribute Weight (0-100) User Name 10 User Billing
Address 10 User Shipping Address 30 User Phone number 10 User
Typing rhythm 50 User email address 20 User merchant account name
10
[0053] An overall match score may be calculated for each of the
candidate users as follows. The weights of all of the attributes
that matched may be summed and designated, "matchWeight." The
weights of all of the attributes that did not match may be summed
and designated "missWeight." The weights of all of the attributes
of the candidate user may be summed and designated "maxPossible."
The weights of all of the attributes of the candidate user that
were not present in the current payment request may be summed and
designated "notInRequest."
[0054] In some exemplary embodiments, the match score may be given
by the following expression:
(matchWeight.sup.2-(missWeight*2)-notInRequest)*1000/maxPossible.sup.2
[0055] The best-matched user may be the candidate user with the
highest match score.
[0056] In some exemplary embodiments, individual known cards,
computers, and users within the authentication system may have
individual reputation scores that may be determined by the history
of payments involving that entity. For example, a user that has
been involved in many successful transactions over a long period of
time, none of which have been subsequently reversed due to fraud,
may have a high reputation score. Similarly, a user that has been
the subject of fraudulent transaction reversals (e.g., chargebacks)
may have a low reputation score.
[0057] The trust score of the user that is requesting payment may
be a function of the user match score, the reputation score of the
user, payment instrument, and computer involved in the payment
request, and/or the strength of any existing relationships between
the payment instrument and computer.
[0058] The following exemplary algorithm illustrates how these
inputs can be used to calculate a trust score for the payment
requesting user: [0059] 1. If User match score is high AND payment
instrument is known AND computer is known AND all have good
reputations AND all have been used together THEN trust score=VERY
GOOD [0060] 2. If user, payment instrument, or computer have a low
reputation then trust score=BAD [0061] 3. If user match score low
AND payment instrument is known AND computer is known AND all have
good reputations AND all have been used together THEN trust
score=GOOD [0062] 4. Otherwise trust score=SUSPICIOUS
[0063] A trust score may be used, for example, to determine how
much scrutiny to apply to the transaction from a fraud analysis
perspective. For example, if a user's trust score is VERY GOOD or
GOOD then only limited resources may to be applied to this user's
transaction. Similarly if a user's trust score is BAD then the
transaction may be rejected without further analysis. However if a
user's trust score is SUSPICIOUS then this may be a transaction
that deserves closer inspection.
[0064] In some exemplary embodiments, accumulating the transactions
performed by users may improve the accuracy of these scores over
time.
[0065] Some exemplary embodiments may reduce problems associated
with stolen credit cards used on the Internet (e.g. when a user
presents a credit card to a merchant, the merchant may ask if the
user owns the credit card, and, if not, then merchant must perform
more checks to determine if the credit card is stolen). If the user
is known to the authentication system, then the merchant may know
that the credit card is being used legitimately. If the user is not
known to the authentication system, then the merchant may make a
separate determination of the riskiness of the transaction (e.g.,
by checking black lists). Thus, some exemplary embodiments may
reduce the frequency of checking the black lists in many cases,
since most transactions are in fact legitimate.
[0066] In some exemplary embodiments, the authentication system may
operate in a computer network environment as follows. The merchant
may embed a code in their applications which may take data from the
user's environment and pass it across to the authentication system.
For example, such data from the user's environment may include the
same data as the browser fingerprint as described above. In the
user's browser, an encrypted cookie may store any data that is
passed to the authentication system. The encrypted cookie may also
store user's information that has been previously known. In one
embodiment, the user may not see the data, as it may only be a
credential that gets transmitted to the authentication system. Some
exemplary embodiments may compare the previous values with the
values that are passed across in the active session. If an
application operates outside of the browser, the routines may use
the same protocol, but assemble their own cookie outside of the
browser cookie facilities and cache.
[0067] Further, in some exemplary embodiments, a central server may
receive requests from merchants. An application programming
interface (API) may send the cookie together with the network
information for the user. This may include all the components of
the API which may be gathered by the embedded code. When the user
presents the information to the authentication system through the
API, they may include the cookie (which may include past behavior
and/or local information). If information in the cookie does not
match the current information, then a message may be provided that
the user cannot be identified and/or authenticated. In such a case,
a user may be identified by the authentication system by a number
of different methods. The methods may lead to the same or similar
corroborating information.
[0068] In some exemplary embodiments, transactions may occur with
merchants, issuers and/or any entity that the user might want to
present the payment instrument to. When a user presents a payment
instrument to a merchant (for example), the merchant may request
assistance from the authentication system to determine whether the
user is the same user who has used the payment instrument in the
past. In contacting the authentication system, the user may
transmit data associated with the user's computer system and/or
network connection (including an IP address, for example). The
authentication system may utilize this data to make a determination
as to whether the user is the same user who has used the same
payment instrument in the past.
[0069] In some exemplary embodiments, the payment instrument issuer
may set up a policy so that when a user presents the payment
instrument, a check may be performed to confirm that the user's
information matches the policy for the user identified as owning
the payment instrument. Otherwise, the user may be deemed not
authenticated.
[0070] In some exemplary embodiments, a merchant (for example) may
collect data from the connection according to a policy that may be
provided by the central authority. The user may not know what
information to collect, nor may they give any information about
themselves except network information that is being transmitted and
information that may be gathered from the network connection. The
authentication system may analyze whether the payment instrument
information is coming from the user or another entity. If the
merchant has implemented authentication system algorithms for
identifying the user, then it may be determined with near certainty
that it is the user. Otherwise, a result may be returned that
indicates that positive identification of the user cannot be
determined. Future transactions may then be known with relative
certainty.
[0071] In some exemplary embodiments, a set of APIs may collect
information related to the behavior of the user involved with the
transaction. This may be deemed a "fingerprint" of the user. The
fingerprint may be used as part of the electronic signature of the
user.
[0072] In some exemplary embodiments, when a merchant is asked to
accept payment for a transaction, they may ask the authentication
system whether this is the same user as defined by the
issuer/authority for the payment instrument. The merchant may not
make any determination of whether the payment should be taken.
Instead, the authentication system may determine whether the user
owns the payment instrument, and if the payment should be accepted.
Based, at least in part, on the user's information (including
network information, for example), the decision may be made whether
this is the same user that owns this payment instrument as has been
seen in the past on the Internet. If the user has registered with
the payment instrument issuer, the determination of whether the
user is the actual owner of the credential may be easily
effectuated. The merchant may not know anything about the user
beyond what they know through accepting the payment instrument.
There is no identity of the user that is transmitted around the
authentication system. Thus, some exemplary embodiments may
maintain privacy of all users in the system while verifying their
ownership of their payment credentials through matching their
electronic signatures.
[0073] In some exemplary embodiments, a method to determine the
identity of a user through use of network signatures may be
provided. An exemplary network signature may include information
known about the browser or computer environment, the IP address,
networking locations that the user is known to come from, and/or
the total history of the user's behavior. The network signature for
a user may provide a unique identity in various contexts. This
method may include weighing components of the network
characteristics gathered through a user's activity on the
Internet.
[0074] In some exemplary embodiments, the algorithm to calculate a
trust score for a payment requesting user described above may be
adapted to identify the user via their network characteristics by
substituting attributes of the user's network signature for user
attributes. An exemplary table of network characteristic attribute
weights follows:
TABLE-US-00002 Attribute Weight (0-100) PC Fingerprint 80 Browser
Fingerprint 50 IP Address 20 IP Geolocation 10 Browser Geolocation
40
[0075] Such a method may provide a proof of identity at the time of
a transaction. In some exemplary embodiments, the method may be
implemented in an embedded Java applet.
[0076] In some exemplary embodiments, the authentication system
and/or method may provide payment integration with security
features. Such embodiments may provide details and/or reports
related to transactions, and may correlate security information
with user data.
[0077] In some exemplary embodiments, an authentication system may
provide fraud checks together with transaction data for a user.
This may include a set of APIs that allow a merchant to plug in the
payment instruments and/or accounts together with order information
and/or payment information. Such a system may provide analytics
about where users are from, which payment methods they typically
use, among others.
[0078] In some exemplary embodiments, a dynamic set of checks may
uniquely identify a user across network identities. A network
identity may be provided through the network signature. The network
signature may be defined by the set of network attributes which may
comprise the user's identity from the point of view of the
merchant. For example, network attributes may include the IP
addresses that the user has come from, the browser or computer
information sampled in the application, and/or the cookie that
indicates the same computer or browser has visited the Web site or
merchant before.
[0079] In some exemplary embodiments, an authentication system may
include a test to register the user to a new computer based on a
required set of credentials. This may also bind the network
signature to another computer and/or another network identity. In
some exemplary embodiments, multiple payment methods may be
accepted for the same network identity.
[0080] FIG. 4 illustrates an exemplary system 400 for assessing and
authenticating a transaction, which may include a merchant computer
system 402, a user computer system 404, and/or server system(s)
406, which may implement transaction assessment and authentication
methods described herein. Server system(s) 406 may include an
electronic signature scoring service 408, merchant electronic
signature policies 410, anti-fraud systems and policies 412, and/or
an external anti-fraud interface 414. Server system(s) 406 may be
operatively connected to third party identity providers 416 and/or
third party anti-fraud services 418. Merchant computer system 402
may include merchant code 420 (e.g., an electronic signature and
fraud interface) and/or may be operatively connected to existing
anti-fraud relations 422 and/or third party authentication services
424.
[0081] In some exemplary embodiments, the merchant computer system
402, user computer system 404, and/or server system(s) 406 may be
in communication with each other directly or via network
connections (such as the Internet, an intranet or other network).
The user information (including network information, for example)
may be transmitted to the user information database(s) for
storage.
[0082] In some exemplary embodiments, an electronic commerce
payment instrument verification system and/or method may use unique
attributes of computers (e.g., such as is described in the cookie
and network signature above) and/or prior purchasing behavior
(e.g., such as the transaction list and transactions results that
have been seen for the user) associated with a payment instrument
to determine whether a person attempting to use the payment
instrument is truly its owner. Some exemplary embodiments may
include one or more servers configured to receive payment requests
from merchant computer systems, where the servers and associated
software may be configured to verify the identity of the payment
instrument user prior to allowing the payment to be made to the
merchant. For example, the servers may receive one or more pieces
of information (which may be encrypted) from the user's computer to
verify the location of the computer using the network address or
other network characteristics. The servers may be configured to
determine the degree to which the user's prior purchasing behavior
correlates with the requested transaction. For example, the servers
may compare the network address(es) used in the past to determine
whether the there is a correlation between the current transaction
and the previous transaction(s). Based at least in part upon
correlation and/or matching information between the previously
collected data and the newly collected data, a transaction may be
authorized.
[0083] Some exemplary embodiments may include a transaction
assessment and authentication system that relies upon an
independent combination of an electronic signature and prior
purchasing behavior to deny or allow use of a payment instrument in
a transaction. For example, such a system may utilize one or more
cookies on the user's computer in its assessment and
authentication. Similarly, some exemplary methods may include
evaluating a combination of an electronic signature (which may
include one or more cookies) and prior purchasing behavior (e.g.,
such as the transactions attempts and the results returned by the
payment processor or gateway) to deny or allow use of a payment
instrument in a transaction.
[0084] To provide additional context for various aspects of the
present invention, the following discussion is intended to provide
a brief, general description of a suitable computing environment in
which the various aspects of the invention may be implemented.
While some exemplary embodiments of the invention relate to the
general context of computer-executable instructions that may run on
one or more computers, those skilled in the art will recognize that
the invention also may be implemented in combination with other
program modules and/or as a combination of hardware and
software.
[0085] Generally, program modules include routines, programs,
components, data structures, etc., that perform particular tasks or
implement particular abstract data types. Moreover, those skilled
in the art will appreciate that aspects of the inventive methods
may be practiced with other computer system configurations,
including single-processor or multiprocessor computer systems,
minicomputers, mainframe computers, as well as personal computers,
hand-held wireless computing devices, microprocessor-based or
programmable consumer electronics, and the like, each of which can
be operatively coupled to one or more associated devices. Aspects
of the invention may also be practiced in distributed computing
environments where certain tasks are performed by remote processing
devices that are linked through a communications network. In a
distributed computing environment, program modules may be located
in both local and remote memory storage devices.
[0086] A computer may include a variety of computer readable media.
Computer readable media may be any available media that can be
accessed by the computer and includes both volatile and nonvolatile
media, removable and non-removable media. By way of example, and
not limitation, computer readable media may comprise computer
storage media and communication media. Computer storage media
includes volatile and nonvolatile, removable and non-removable
media implemented in any method or technology for storage of
information such as computer readable instructions, data
structures, program modules or other data. Computer storage media
includes, but is not limited to, RAM, ROM, EEPROM, flash memory or
other memory technology, CD ROM, digital video disk (DVD) or other
optical disk storage, magnetic cassettes, magnetic tape, magnetic
disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, or any other medium
which may be used to store the desired information and which may be
accessed by the computer.
[0087] An exemplary environment for implementing various aspects of
the invention may include a computer that includes a processing
unit, a system memory and a system bus. The system bus couples
system components including, but not limited to, the system memory
to the processing unit. The processing unit may be any of various
commercially available processors. Dual microprocessors and other
multi processor architectures may also be employed as the
processing unit.
[0088] The system bus may be any of several types of bus structure
that may further interconnect to a memory bus (with or without a
memory controller), a peripheral bus, and a local bus using any of
a variety of commercially available bus architectures. The system
memory may include read only memory (ROM) and/or random access
memory (RAM). A basic input/output system (BIOS) is stored in a
non-volatile memory such as ROM, EPROM, EEPROM, which BIOS contains
the basic routines that help to transfer information between
elements within the computer, such as during start-up. The RAM may
also include a high-speed RAM such as static RAM for caching
data.
[0089] The computer may further include an internal hard disk drive
(HDD) (e.g., EIDE, SATA), which internal hard disk drive may also
be configured for external use in a suitable chassis, a magnetic
floppy disk drive (FDD), (e.g., to read from or write to a
removable diskette) and an optical disk drive, (e.g., reading a
CD-ROM disk or, to read from or write to other high capacity
optical media such as the DVD). The hard disk drive, magnetic disk
drive and optical disk drive may be connected to the system bus by
a hard disk drive interface, a magnetic disk drive interface and an
optical drive interface, respectively. The interface for external
drive implementations includes at least one or both of Universal
Serial Bus (USB) and IEEE 1394 interface technologies.
[0090] The drives and their associated computer-readable media
provide nonvolatile storage of data, data structures,
computer-executable instructions, and so forth. For the computer,
the drives and media accommodate the storage of any data in a
suitable digital format. Although the description of
computer-readable media above refers to a HDD, a removable magnetic
diskette, and a removable optical media such as a CD or DVD, it
should be appreciated by those skilled in the art that other types
of media which are readable by a computer, such as zip drives,
magnetic cassettes, flash memory cards, cartridges, and the like,
may also be used in the exemplary operating environment, and
further, that any such media may contain computer-executable
instructions for performing the methods of the invention.
[0091] A number of program modules may be stored in the drives and
RAM, including an operating system, one or more application
programs, other program modules and program data. All or portions
of the operating system, applications, modules, and/or data may
also be cached in the RAM. It is appreciated that the invention may
be implemented with various commercially available operating
systems or combinations of operating systems.
[0092] It is also within the scope of the disclosure that a user
may enter commands and information into the computer through one or
more wired/wireless input devices, for example, a touch-screen, a
keyboard and a pointing device, such as a mouse. Other input
devices may include a microphone (functioning in association with
appropriate language processing/recognition software as know to
those of ordinary skill in the technology), an IR remote control, a
joystick, a game pad, a stylus pen, or the like. These and other
input devices are often connected to the processing unit through an
input device interface that is coupled to the system bus, but may
be connected by other interfaces, such as a parallel port, an IEEE
1394 serial port, a game port, a USB port, an IR interface,
etc.
[0093] A display monitor or other type of display device may also
be connected to the system bus via an interface, such as a video
adapter. In addition to the monitor, a computer may include other
peripheral output devices, such as speakers, printers, etc.
[0094] The computer may operate in a networked environment using
logical connections via wired and/or wireless communications to one
or more remote computers. The remote computer(s) may be a
workstation, a server computer, a router, a personal computer, a
portable computer, a personal digital assistant, a cellular device,
a microprocessor-based entertainment appliance, a peer device or
other common network node, and may include many or all of the
elements described relative to the computer. The logical
connections depicted include wired/wireless connectivity to a local
area network (LAN) and/or larger networks, for example, a wide area
network (WAN). Such LAN and WAN networking environments are
commonplace in offices, and companies, and facilitate
enterprise-wide computer networks, such as intranets, all of which
may connect to a global communications network such as the
Internet.
[0095] The computer may be operable to communicate with any
wireless devices or entities operatively disposed in wireless
communication, e.g., a printer, scanner, desktop and/or portable
computer, portable data assistant, communications satellite, any
piece of equipment or location associated with a wirelessly
detectable tag (e.g., a kiosk, news stand, restroom), and
telephone. This includes at least Wi-Fi (such as IEEE 802.11x (a,
b, g, n, etc.)) and Bluetooth.TM. wireless technologies. Thus, the
communication may be a predefined structure as with a conventional
network or simply an ad hoc communication between at least two
devices.
[0096] The system may also include one or more server(s). The
server(s) may also be hardware and/or software (e.g., threads,
processes, computing devices). The servers may house threads to
perform transformations by employing aspects of the invention, for
example. One possible communication between a client and a server
may be in the form of a data packet adapted to be transmitted
between two or more computer processes. The data packet may include
a cookie and/or associated contextual information, for example. The
system may include a communication framework (e.g., a global
communication network such as the Internet) that may be employed to
facilitate communications between the client(s) and the
server(s).
[0097] Some exemplary embodiments of the invention may accumulate
results from transactions over time, such as charge backs and
refunds. This information may help in assessing the fraud score of
a transaction requested by the user. For example, a lower fraud
score would result from knowledge that this user does regular
charge backs, then merchants can apply their anti-fraud policy to
determine whether the transaction would be accepted.
[0098] Some exemplary embodiments may be configured to associate a
credit card or another payment instrument with more than one user,
as in a family situation. Building a graph connecting multiple
users to the devices, locations, and payment instruments may also
affect the fraud score of a transaction. A graph may associate
different entities through having common key attributes that may
uniquely identify a user. For example, if two users share the same
browser or PC fingerprint, then the graph may identify those two
users as associated by sharing the browser or fingerprint. The same
may apply for IP address, credit card number or billing address,
for example.
[0099] In some exemplary embodiments, use of a payment instrument
through a known trusted source (e.g., certain well-known and
trusted online retailers) may establish a base reputation for a
user with an electronic signature for a merchant or collection of
merchants not affiliated with the trusted source. For example,
recognizing the user's use of the trusted source for a transaction
may provide an increased level of confidence that the user is known
to accurately to the service.
[0100] FIG. 5 is a block diagram illustrating an exemplary system
500 for assessing and authenticating transactions according to the
present disclosure. One or more merchant computer systems 502, one
or more user computer systems 504, and/or one or more server
systems 506 may be operatively connected via one or more networks
508, such as the Internet, one or more intranets, etc. Server
systems 506 may include a transaction authentication tool interface
510, which may be operatively connected to one or more transaction
authentication tool management databases 512, one or more user
information databases 514 (which may include user data,
authentication data, transaction data, etc.), and/or transaction
authentication tool software 516 (which may be provided on one or
more computer-readable media 518).
[0101] FIG. 6 is a block diagram illustrating an exemplary
computer-readable medium 600 including computer-executable
instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by a computer,
enable the computer to perform a method 602 including the following
operations. Operation 604 may include storing a first electronic
signature associated with a user, the first electronic signature
including a plurality of attributes collected in connection with a
prior transaction. Operation 606 may include associating the first
electronic signature with a payment instrument utilized in the
prior transaction. Operation 608 may include receiving a second
electronic signature in connection with a proposed transaction
utilizing the payment instrument. Operation 610 may include
comparing the second electronic signature with the first electronic
signature. Operation 612 may include, if the second electronic
signature correlates with the first electronic signature,
confirming that the payment instrument and the second electronic
signature are associated with one another. Operation 614 may
include, if the second electronic signature does not correlate with
the first electronic signature, determining that the payment
instrument and the second electronic signature are not associated
with one another.
[0102] FIG. 7 is a block diagram illustrating an exemplary
computer-readable medium 700 including computer-executable
instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by a computer,
enable the computer to perform a method 702 including the following
operations. Operation 704 may include receiving a received
electronic signature including a plurality of received attributes
and information pertaining to a payment instrument. Operation 706
may include comparing the plurality of received attributes of the
received electronic signature to a plurality of stored attributes
associated with a plurality of stored electronic signatures.
Operation 708 may include, if the received electronic signature
correlates with one of the plurality of stored electronic
signatures, determining whether the payment instrument is
associated with the one of the plurality of stored electronic
signatures based at least in part upon at least one prior
transaction involving the one of the plurality of stored electronic
signatures and the payment instrument and, if the payment
instrument is associated with the one of the plurality of stored
electronic signatures, confirming an association between the
payment instrument and the received electronic signature. Operation
710 may include, if the received electronic signature does not
correlate with one of the plurality of stored electronic
signatures, determining that the payment instrument is not
associated with the received electronic signature.
[0103] FIG. 8 is a block diagram illustrating an exemplary
computer-readable medium 800 including computer-executable
instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by a computer,
enable the computer to perform a method 802 including the following
operations. Operation 804 may include receiving, from a user
computer system, a request to utilize a payment instrument in a
transaction. Operation 806 may include transmitting, to an
authentication system, information pertaining to the payment
instrument and a collected electronic signature including
attributes associated with the user computer system. Operation 808
may include receiving, from the authentication system, an
indication of whether the collected electronic signature associated
with the user computer system correlates with a stored electronic
signature associated with the payment instrument obtained in
connection with a previous transaction involving the user computer
system and the payment instrument.
[0104] While exemplary embodiments have been set forth above for
the purpose of disclosure, modifications of the disclosed
embodiments as well as other embodiments thereof may occur to those
skilled in the art. Accordingly, it is to be understood that the
disclosure is not limited to the above precise embodiments and that
changes may be made without departing from the scope. Likewise, it
is to be understood that it is not necessary to meet any or all of
the stated advantages or objects disclosed herein to fall within
the scope of the disclosure, since inherent and/or unforeseen
advantages of the may exist even though they may not have been
explicitly discussed herein.
* * * * *