Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by fweespee_ch 3733 days ago
Yes.

At $DayJob we have a similar process [e.g. Accept any card that passes the checksum, hand out rejections on a 24 hour delay after we've handled our fraud signals and processed the charge with the gateway]

The credit card processors aren't particularly interested in handling this for you and you [the merchant] pay the price if you gave the processor stolen card numbers.

Services like these:

https://www.signifyd.com/pricing/ [1% per transaction]

https://www.maxmind.com/en/minfraud-services [ $0.005 ]

would have no customers if you could get a reliable partner to handle this all for you for free-ish.

2 comments

Completely agree with fweespee_ch. Major CC processors such as Authorize.net, Braintree, etc. offer fraud protection measures but in our experience they do very little to prevent even a remotely-capable fraudster. Typical features offered are IP Velocity & regional IP (useless when the fraudsters spin up thousands of amazon servers), # of transactions per hour (not too helpful when your business already does hundreds/thousands of transactions a day), CVV and AVS credit-card response codes (ends up blocking more legitimate orders than fakes and the fraudsters typically already have this information anyway), etc.
There seems to be a huge conflict of interest here: as card processors slap you with an extra chargeback fee for the fraudulent transactions (in addition to the amount they take back anyway) it's difficult to believe that they would work very hard to help you avoid this.
Why? They have a profit motive for you to get scammed.
They do, to a point, but since you are the one who bears the fee they do the amount they can cost effectively which is frankly marginally effective.
Is it just me or is 1% likely several orders of magnitude larger than $0.005 on a per-transaction basis? That pricing is bordering on offensive.