[reconnecting]

Effective fraud prevention relies on both the full user context and the behavioral patterns of known online fraudsters. The key idea is that an IP address cannot be used as a red flag on its own without considering the broader context of the account. However, if we know that the fraudsters we're dealing with are using mobile networks proxies and are randomly switching between two mobile operators, that is certainly a strong risk signal.

[JimDabell]

An awful lot of free Wi-Fi networks you find in malls are operated by different providers. Walking from one side of a mall to the other while my phone connects to all the Wi-Fi networks I’ve used previously would have you flag me as a fraudster if I understand your approach correctly.

[reconnecting]

We are discussing user behavior in the context of a web system. The fact that your device has connected to different Wi-Fi networks doesn't necessarily mean that all of them were used to access the web application.

Finally, as mentioned earlier, there is no silver bullet that works for every type of online fraudster. For example, in some applications, a TOR connection might be considered a red flag. However, if we are talking about hn visitors, many of them use TOR on a daily basis.

[sroussey]

I’ve done a bit of anti-fraud myself and it needs a lack of privacy to work well. Well fingerprinted == less fraud. Sigh.

I’ve found TOR browsing ok, but login via TOR to just be a great alternative to snow shoeing credential stuffing.