In the light of some free time I decided to write an article. The main points of this project have already been described in posts on another forum, but I didn’t have time to merge it all into one. Let me tell you right away that this article is not a full description of the antifraud system. It also is not a call not to work with the payment system. This article rather can be a tool for evaluating schemes survivability when working with pp, as well as shows (veiledly of course) some areas where you should dig when searching for
Since I have worked most with the stick on schemes related to cc and acx transfers to the stick balance, they are covered most thoroughly. I dont worked with stick for uk and au transfers so i can not estimate the success of specific schemes for specific countries. But I think the logic of work is not very different in them, because the system is still the same
Here we go.
1 component of the antifraud system is account holder identification.
stick has had a three-factor antifraud that can be called a 3d-secure stick for at least 3 years now. These factors are: 1) ip address. He either matches or does not match. Subnets don’t work). 2) User’s profile, browser version, web browser version and some other parameters. 3) Cookies and all the other information which is saved on the system settings.
This information is very closely connected to the system settings and it is almost impossible to fake it.
Accordingly, depending on the country of origin we have approximately the following combination of settings: If all three factors do not coincide, the stick sends the fuck out from the moment of entry (so-called sm) or at the moment of payment. Of course some milestones may be skipped by palaver, but usually they are insignificant. if 2 of three factors or 1 do not coincide, then palka may not pass the transaction, for example, asking to bind the bank account, if it is not connected, or writing that the transaction can not be made.
2 is the history of the account and its involvement in previous froud transactions. If the account (meaning the whole complex of data, starting from the account history and ending with the coincidence of the account holder data) was involved in froud transactions in the past, the account is under the increased control of the system and it will be very difficult to work with him. Remember I had a botnetik on the de that lived very long and had about 10 accounts of pp whose holders I had gutted… passed any see. After 2 round of plum bbana on these sites palka connected a mandatory sms confirmation of any action on the account and eventually sent holders of the fuck by closing them sites. Read the correspondence was quite funny.
The second example, I was involved in the drain of money to bank accounts with prepaid. I had 2 bank accounts with the same data. And after working out of the first account I again registered in palka with the same data but with a different bank account. The second account could not work, it was banned at the stage of white transactions
3 component of the risk assessment of different types of transactions in the system are the types of transactions in the stick and directly related moment limits for different transactions in the stick.
Roughly, the following transactions in the system can be identified: 1) topping up the stick account from the bank account. By the degree of paling, the most paling is replenishing by acx from the left bank account. I do not know exactly how the robot is set up to receive payments in palka, but the manual check tranz visible and the real name of the bank account holder and his dob, and often a lot of data. Lately banks in uS started to check their names while making transactions and send firewalls to palka if the data doesn’t match. Least palaver vaer on palaer credentials, such a transaction is applied in eu. 2) payment for purchases. there are several subtypes here. a) payment from cc, b) payment from bank account by instant c) payment from balance d) echeck. Payment from the cc is the most risky in terms of sticks. From january 11th they have implemented so called new security model which clearly says that they are moving from credit card payments to guaranty payments, bank payments and so on. In yus that’s why it’s practically unrealistic to pay anything meaningful with cc through pp. Of course for old accounts with good history all is possible. It’s much more popular and instant with bank accounts or echecks. This is pretty much the standard of payments in southpac at the moment
well, the most accepted and 99% of the time the most common payment from the stick balance is donate. At one time it was as easy and unproblematic as the purchase. Now it’s been jerked around and more than 1 tranze per donated ac.
4 type p2p transfer. Doesn’t matter what form of buying a service or product or a hyft. The most groovy way to drain the stick. You should remember that the stick has long ago (even before my acquaintance with it) abandoned western union functions in the inet . And p2p transfers are more like an exception to the rule than the rule. By the way, it was also noted in the mentioned new security model (this is the real name of the current antifraud policy in pp).
5 type of withdrawal. you can withdraw money to the bank and to the cc (in some countries). On this topic, we can clearly trace the evolution of the anti-fraud system. Now it is very difficult to withdraw money at petrol stations. You may use it for withdrawal in some countries. If I’ve got a good satnav on bank account, then I’ve got better stats when I’m working with bank accounts.
well and type 6 tranz refound. They pass in 100% cases if there is dough on the account.
Additionally, it is worth considering such things as credit sticks This type of payment and transfer initially somewhere until the winter-spring of ’12 was rated roughly like a bank payment in terms of antifraud. That’s why it was very convenient to work with credit np and it poured easily.
Limits. Depending on your history, every merchant has a certain limit on how much money you can accept per day and in other time periods, using certain payment method. In addition to so urce fund also takes into account geography of clientele (it’s easier to accept payments from your countrymen than from abroad), the bank that issued the cz and sometimes a binary card if the payment is made by card, and maybe some other factors. I have only encountered these. These limits are not clearly marked and as it seems to me they are set by robot for each merchant on the basis of factors. It is important for us that when reaching this limit a client trying to pay from cz (provided his authorization in a stick as a real client and not froud) gets a message that we are not able to process ur payment and the client gets screwed. And if the original attempt was to pay with uz, then the other cast a minute later may well go insta or ecek and if they did not go all perfectly zakomplitit with a balance at the third ac. The processing of payments by the first client from UZ and its robot has sent, the customer anconfirmmed uzkonfirmed from somewhere in Mexico and will receive the long-awaited Confirm. When it is most probable to catch the moment for problem-free payment it is recommended to memebers to search for themselves.
Besides the specified limits, merchants also have limits on the account from which the payment comes, which you can get depending on whether you correctly authorized your account (ie, whether the account is placed in alerts due to mismatches in the basic authorization factors) and limits on the transactions of a certain type of savings funds. You should not rely on huge tranz from anconfirmmd cc for example from an account you bought yesterday chekked on mix sox at best case under a country. And at worst for example on sox from ukraine . I’ve seen it with our sellers as well
discussion is welcome
my best buy cc