Using a Rule Engine to Tailor Your Antifraud Strategy

Published on: 2024-08-10 18:29:56

Using a rule engine for antifraud gives businesses more control. Users can define custom rules and conditions based on data from third-party service providers and their own data. This helps identify and prevent fraudulent transactions, and reduce operational risk.

The Advantages of Integrating with Third-Party Service Providers

One key advantage of using a rule engine for antifraud is that it can integrate with third-party service providers, such as SEON, Maxmind, and FraudLabs, to access a wide range of data about potential fraud. These providers can supply useful signals and insights, but it makes sense to treat them mainly as data providers and evaluate that data yourself in a rule engine. That helps keep your antifraud strategy aligned with your business needs and risk profile.

Another advantage of using a rule engine for antifraud is that it can verify IP addresses against block lists, such as AbuseIPDB and Project Honeypot. By checking IP addresses against these lists, businesses can identify and block transactions from known malicious actors, and reduce fraud exposure.

Another benefit of using a rule engine for antifraud is that it can calculate velocities on your own data to define antifraud rules. By analyzing trends and patterns in your own transaction data, businesses can identify unusual or suspicious behavior and create custom rules to flag and prevent fraudulent transactions.

Preventing Fraud with Custom Rules for IP address

Here are five examples of rules that could be implemented using a rule engine to prevent fraud in ecommerce based on IP addresses:

  1. Block transactions from IP addresses that have been associated with high levels of fraud in the past. This rule could be based on data from third-party service providers, such as Maxmind or FraudLabs, or on your own data analysis.
  2. Require additional authentication for transactions from IP addresses that are not typically used by the customer. This rule could be based on the customer's previous transaction history or on data from third-party service providers.
  3. Block transactions from IP addresses that are known to be associated with malicious actors. This rule could be based on data from block lists, such as AbuseIPDB or Project Honeypot.
  4. Require additional authentication for transactions from IP addresses that are not in the same country or region as the customer's billing or shipping address. This rule could be based on the customer's address information or on data from third-party service providers.
  5. Block transactions from IP addresses that are associated with high levels of velocity or unusual activity. This rule could be based on your own data analysis, using velocity calculations to identify suspicious behavior.

Preventing Fraud with Custom Rules for E-mail Address

Here are five examples of rules that could be implemented using a rule engine to prevent fraud in ecommerce based on email addresses:

  1. Block transactions from customers with disposable or temporary email addresses. This rule could be based on data from third-party service providers, such as SEON or FraudLabs, or on your own data analysis.
  2. Require additional authentication for transactions from customers with newly-created email addresses. This rule could be based on the customer's previous transaction history or on data from third-party service providers.
  3. Block transactions from customers with email addresses that are known to be associated with malicious actors. This rule could be based on data from block lists or databases of known fraudulent email addresses.
  4. Require additional authentication for transactions from customers with email addresses that are not in the same domain as the customer's billing or shipping address. This rule could be based on the customer's address information or on data from third-party service providers.
  5. Block transactions from customers with email addresses that are associated with high levels of velocity or unusual activity. This rule could be based on your own data analysis, using velocity calculations to identify suspicious behavior.

Custom Rules for Browser Information and Antifraud

Here are five examples of rules that could be implemented using a rule engine to prevent fraud in ecommerce based on browser information:

  1. Block transactions from customers using browsers that are known to be associated with high levels of fraud. This rule could be based on data from third-party service providers, such as WhatIsMyBrowser or FraudLabs, or on your own data analysis.
  2. Require additional authentication for transactions from customers using browsers that are not typically used by the customer. This rule could be based on the customer's previous transaction history or on data from third-party service providers.
  3. Block transactions from customers using browsers that are known to be associated with malicious actors. This rule could be based on data from block lists or databases of known fraudulent browser information.
  4. Require additional authentication for transactions from customers using browsers that are not commonly used in the customer's country or region. This rule could be based on data from third-party service providers, such as WhatIsMyBrowser, or on your own data analysis.
  5. Block transactions from customers using browsers that are associated with high levels of velocity or unusual activity. This rule could be based on your own data analysis, using velocity calculations to identify suspicious behavior.

Custom Rules for Physical Addresses and Antifraud

Here are five examples of rules that could be implemented using a rule engine to prevent fraud in ecommerce based on physical addresses:

  1. Block transactions from customers with fake or invalid addresses. This rule could be based on data from third-party service providers, such as Ekata or Google Places API, or on your own data analysis.
  2. Require additional authentication for transactions from customers with newly-created or recently-changed addresses. This rule could be based on the customer's previous transaction history or on data from third-party service providers.
  3. Block transactions from customers with addresses that are known to be associated with high levels of fraud. This rule could be based on data from third-party service providers or on your own data analysis.
  4. Require additional authentication for transactions from customers with addresses that are not in the same country or region as the customer's billing or shipping information. This rule could be based on the customer's address information or on data from third-party service providers.
  5. Block transactions from customers with addresses that are associated with high levels of velocity or unusual activity. This rule could be based on your own data analysis, using velocity calculations to identify suspicious behavior.

Conclusion

Using a rule engine for antifraud gives businesses practical control. It supports fast integration with third-party service providers, checks IP addresses and email addresses against block lists, and calculates velocities on your own data to create custom rules. By treating third-party services mainly as data providers and implementing your own rules in a rule engine, businesses can identify and prevent fraudulent transactions more effectively, and reduce operational risk.

 

Related Articles

  • Building Anti-Fraud Competency Without Losing Control of Your Data

    Anti-fraud is not a product you install once and forget. It is an operating capability built from data, decision logic, traceability, and continuous tuning across the customer journey. Companies can buy parts of that stack, but if they outsource the core logic and enriched data, they often create a lock-in problem that is hard to unwind later.

  • How to integrate Maxmind minFraud Insights into a decision engine - Decisimo

    This guide shows how to integrate Maxmind minFraud Insights into your decision engine. It covers account setup, license key generation, HTTP authentication in the Decisimo portal, attribute mapping, and decision flow deployment. Follow these steps to call minFraud in parallel with other data sources, so your decision logic can evaluate IP data and risk scores quickly at runtime.

  • How to integrate FraudlabsPro into a decision engine

    This guide shows how to connect FraudLabsPro to Decisimo and use it inside your decision logic for eCommerce transaction evaluation. It walks through setup, required API details, and the data fields that help you review, approve, or reject transactions with clearer traceability.

  • How to integrate Maxmind minFraud Factors into a decision engine

    Integrate Maxmind minFraud Factors into Decisimo decision logic. Create a Maxmind account and generate an API key. Then configure an authenticated Maxmind data source in the Decisimo portal, add it to your decision flow, and deploy it to evaluate IP and overall risk scores.

  • How to integrate Ekata Address Risk API into a decision engine

    This article shows how to connect Ekata Address Risk API to a decision engine in Decisimo. It covers API key setup, data source configuration, and how to add the call to a decision flow so address checks run as part of decision logic.