AUTOMATED FRAUD DETECTION METHOD AND SYSTEM

• US 20140012724A1
• Filed: 03/23/2012
• Published: 01/09/2014
• Est. Priority Date: 03/23/2011
• Status: Abandoned Application

• Current Assignee: Detica Patent Ltd (BAE Systems Plc)
• Original Assignee: Detica Patent Ltd (BAE Systems Plc)
• Inventors: O'leary, Kevin, Kaers, Johan, Dixon, David, Colleran, Kilian
• Application Number:
  US14/006,788
• Publication Number:
  US 20140012724A1
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 705/35
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 20/4016 involving fraud or risk level assessment in transaction processing

Abstract

A fraud detection method and apparatus are provided, arranged to:

(i) select a sample of entities, including at least one entity known to have been exposed to fraudulent activity or suspected of having been so exposed;
(ii) inputting, from an activity database, transaction data defining activity in respect of the sample of entities, the transaction data identifying associated information processing points;
(iii) processing the input transaction data to determine, using a predetermined set of metrics, evidence of compromise in any one or more of the identified information processing points; and
(iv) ranking the identified information processing points according to likelihood of compromise.

In this way, one or more information processing points may be identified as a potential source of fraud and steps triggered to identify, from the activity database, any other entities associated with those potential sources of fraud to prevent further fraud.

Claims

1. A fraud detection method, comprising the steps of:

(i) selecting a sample of entities, including at least one entity known to have been exposed to fraudulent activity or suspected of having been so exposed;

(ii) inputting, from an activity database, transaction data defining activity in respect of said sample of entities, the transaction data identifying associated information processing points;

(iii) processing said input transaction data to determine, using a predetermined set of metrics, evidence of compromise in any one or more of the identified information processing points; and

(iv) ranking the identified information processing points according to likelihood of compromise to thereby identify a potential source of fraudulent activity.

2. The method according to claim 1, wherein step (iii) further comprises calculating, in respect of each of the identified information processing points, a feature vector having a plurality of attributes, each attribute representing a different metric in a set of metrics selected to provide, when evaluated, an indication of the likelihood of compromise of a respective information processing point relative to others of the identified information processing points.

3. The method according to claim 2, wherein the attributes of the feature vector for each information processing point are calculated incrementally using transaction data extracted from the activity database in respect of the information processing point and input as an ordered dataset, the value of each attribute at each increment being stored and updated in a shared memory store until all transaction data have been processed for the information processing point.

4. The method according to claim 3, wherein at step (iii) the calculation of feature vectors is carried out for each information processing point in parallel using a different instantiated processing thread for the calculation of each feature vector.

5. The method according to claim 2, wherein the ranking step (iv) comprises calculating a vector length for each of the feature vectors calculated in step (iii) and ranking the feature vectors, and hence the respective information processing points, in order of likelihood of compromise.

6. The method according to claim 5, wherein calculating of the vector length further comprises applying a pre-processing step to a selected one or more of the attributes and using the results of the pre-processing step in the calculation of vector length.

7. The method according to claim 6, wherein the pre-processing step includes applying a predetermined weighting to the attributes of a feature vector according to the type of information processing point it represents prior to calculating the vector length.

8. The method according to claim 1, further comprising the step:

(v) determining, from the activity database, the identity of one or more further entities, not included in the sample of entities, for which respective transaction data indicate an association with an information processing point identified in the ranking step (iv) as likely to have been a source of fraudulent activity.

9. The method according to claim 8, further comprising the step:

(vi) triggering an action to prevent fraud in respect of said one or more further entities identified at step (v).

10. The method according to claim 9 wherein, at step (vi), triggering an action comprises generating a containment message including a list of confirmed compromised information processing points.

11. The method according to claim 1, wherein the identified information processing points are of one or more types, including:

people, such as agents in a call centre;

physical transaction terminals and devices; and

stages in a transaction-based business process.

12. The method according to claim 7, wherein the application and weighting of feature vector attributes is configurable.

13. The method according to claim 2, wherein the set of metrics comprise one or more metrics selected from:

a frequency of usage by entities in the sample of entities at a respective information processing point;

a frequency of usage by entities in the sample of entities at a respective information processing point in one or more predetermined time periods or categories of time period;

a frequency of usage by entities in the sample of entities categorised by authorisation method where a respective information processing point supports different authorisation protocols;

a frequency of usage by entities in the sample of entities that is relative to an independent reference entity population that does not include entities in the sample of entities;

a total number of entities that interact with a respective information processing point;

a time difference between earliest and latest times that entities in the sample of entities access a respective information processing point;

a frequency of occurrence of a specific category of transaction;

a time difference between successive transactions;

a frequency of usage in respect of a particular host of an information processing point known to experience high transaction volumes; and

a frequency of usage by entities in the sample of entities in respect of a host in a predetermined category of host.

14. The method according to claim 1, wherein at step (i), selecting a sample of entities comprises selecting entities recorded in an incident database.

15. The method according to claim 3 wherein, in the incremental calculation of attributes, if A_i,j is the value of an attribute for a metric m_i in the set of metrics after processing an activity record x_j from the ordered dataset, and x_j+1 is the next activity record to be processed from the ordered dataset, then A_i,j+1=F_i(A_i,j,x_j+1) where F_i is a function for incrementally evaluating the metric m_i.

16. The method according to claim 1, directed to determining a potential source of fraud in a mass data compromise event.

17. The method according to claim 1 wherein, at step (iv), in ranking the identified information processing points according to likelihood of compromise, an approval policy implemented as a set of rules is applied to exclude happenstance commonalities.

18. The method according to claim 9, further comprising the step:

(vii) using the results of step (iv) and step (v) to select a different subset of the activity database or to select a different sample of entities for use in a further execution of steps (i) to (iv) to search for further potential sources of fraud.

19. A fraud detection apparatus comprising a digital processor arranged to implement a fraud detection method according to claim 1.

20. The fraud detection apparatus according to claim 19, further comprising hardware logic means arranged to implement one or more steps in the fraud detection method in hardware and to interact with the digital processor in an implementation of the method.

21. A computer program product comprising a computer-readable medium having stored thereon software code means which when loaded and executed on a computer implement a fraud detection method according to claim 1.