The Composition of a Fraud Team or Function is Often Overlooked in th Threat Intelligence Market
Threat intelligence has quickly become a must-have for fraud teams. But similar to the market for threat intelligence vendors that cover the deep & dark web—which I discussed in my previous column—the market for those that support fraud use cases is laden with misconceptions. And in order to make threat intelligence more accessible and effective for more fraud teams, it’s important for vendors and practitioners alike to recognize and debunk these misconceptions, some of which include:
Fraud is simple
Fraud is often oversimplified when referenced in the threat intelligence market. Many vendors claim that their intelligence, data sources, and tools are universally suitable for all fraud teams when in reality, they’re only suitable for a select few use cases or common types of fraud. One reason for this disconnect is that most standard definitions of fraud, though correct, are extremely simple, usually referring to it as the use of deception for personal or financial gain.
Less simple, however, is that regardless of how we define fraud, it encompasses countless deceptive schemes that target and impact different types of victims for different reasons in different ways. Banks and health insurance providers, for example, both deal with fraud, but the types of fraud they deal with, how it impacts them, and how their fraud teams might use threat intelligence to help manage it are, in most cases, quite different. Payment card fraud is typically what banks most often face, while for health insurance providers it’s usually health insurance fraud.
Further complicating matters is the fact that the same type of fraud can affect different or ..
Support the originator by clicking the read the rest link below.
