Abstract:
A fraudulent business transaction application (FBTA) is provided for monitoring application based fraud. When a consumer supplies account access information in order to carry out an Internet business transaction, the FBTA uses an online fraud mitigation engine to detect phishing trusions and identity theft. Methods are also provided for calculating travel velocity and transcation frequency, which are useful for determining a fraudulent transaction.

Description:
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS  
       [0001]     This application is a continuation-in-part of U.S. application Ser. No. 10/943,454 entitled “Fraud Risk Advisor”, filed on Sep. 17, 2004, which is herein incorporated by reference in its entirety. 
     
    
     BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION  
       [0002]     1. Field of the Invention  
         [0003]     The present invention relates to techniques for detecting fraudulent online transactions. The present invention provides methods, systems, and computer program products for operating a fraud engine that is capable of accepting an IP address and a number of factors relating to an end user in order to determine whether a transaction is fraudulent.  
         [0004]     The present invention also relates to methods, systems, and computer program products for calculating a travel velocity between two access locations, determining if a transaction is fraudulent based on a user&#39;s travel velocity between two access locations, and determining if a transaction is fraudulent based on a transaction frequency.  
         [0005]     2. Description of the Related Art  
         [0006]     The ease of hiding an identity on the Internet makes it difficult for financial services organizations to carry the “know your customer” mantra to the online world. In 2003 alone, Internet-related fraud accounted for 55% of all fraud reports according to the Federal Trade Commission, up nearly 45% from the previous year. In order for financial services organizations to continue successfully serving more of their customers online, creating a safe and secure environment is a top priority. Accordingly, there is a need and desire for a methods, systems, and computer program products for detecting and preventing fraudulent online transactions utilizing the IP address of a user.  
       SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION  
       [0007]     The present invention provides methods, systems, and computer program products (hereinafter “method” or “methods” for convenience) for determining fraudulent online transactions. In one embodiment, an end user inputs parameters and rules concerning a particular transaction into the system. Based on the parameters, rules, and other information concerning a particular transaction, the system computes a score associated with the likelihood that the transaction is fraudulent. The score is then compared with various thresholds which may be set by the end user. If the score exceeds the thresholds, then the transaction is determined to be fraudulent. Data regarding the transaction may also be output to the end user. Upon review, the end user may change the fraud status of a given transaction.  
         [0008]     Another embodiment of the present invention provides methods for calculating a travel velocity between a first and second access location, utilizing a travel velocity to determine if a transaction is fraudulent, as well as determining if a transaction is fraudulent based upon a computed transaction frequency.  
         [0009]     It will be apparent to those skilled in the art that various devices may be used to carry out the systems, methods, or computer program products of the present invention, including cell phones, personal digital assistants, wireless communication devices, personal computers, or dedicated hardware devices designed specifically to carry out embodiments of the present invention.  
         [0010]     Unless otherwise expressly stated, it is in no way intended that any method or embodiment set forth herein be construed as requiring that its steps be performed in a specific order. Accordingly, where a method, system, or computer program product claim does not specifically state in the claims or descriptions that the steps are to be limited to a specific order, it is no way intended that an order be inferred, in any respect. This holds for any possible non-express basis for interpretation, including matters of logic with respect to arrangement of steps or operational flow, plain meaning derived from grammatical organization or punctuation, or the number or type of embodiments described in the specification.  
     
    
     BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS  
       [0011]     The foregoing and other advantages and features of the invention will become more apparent from the detailed description of exemplary embodiments of the invention given below with reference to the accompanying drawings.  
         [0012]      FIG. 1  is a flow chart illustrating one embodiment of the present invention for determining whether an online transaction is fraudulent using an Online Fraud Mitigation Engine.  
         [0013]      FIG. 2  is a block diagram of a computer system for implementing embodiments of the present invention.  
         [0014]      FIG. 3  illustrates one embodiment of the present invention useful for calculating a travel velocity.  
         [0015]      FIG. 4  illustrates another embodiment of the present invention useful for calculating a travel velocity.  
         [0016]      FIG. 5  illustrates one embodiment of the present invention useful for calculating a user&#39;s travel velocity.  
         [0017]      FIG. 6  illustrates one embodiment of the present invention useful for determining a fraudulent transaction using a travel velocity.  
         [0018]      FIG. 7  illustrates one embodiment of the present invention useful for determining a fraudulent transaction using a transaction frequency.  
         [0019]      FIG. 8  shows a logical overview of a computer system which may be used to carry out the various embodiments of the present invention.  
         [0020]      FIG. 9  illustrates logically the arrangement of computers connected to the Internet in one embodiment of the present invention. 
     
    
       [0021]     In the following detailed description, reference is made to the accompanying drawings, which form a part hereof, and in which is shown by way of illustration of specific embodiments in which the invention may be practiced. These embodiments are described in sufficient detail to enable those skilled in the art to practice the invention, and it is to be understood that other embodiments may be utilized, and that structural, logical and programming changes may be made without departing from the spirit and scope of the present invention.  
       DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION  
       [0022]     Before the present methods, systems, and computer program products are disclosed and described, it is to be understood that this invention is not limited to specific methods, specific components, or to particular compositions, as such may, of course, vary. It is also to be understood that the terminology used herein is for the purpose of describing particular embodiments only and is not intended to be limiting.  
         [0023]     As used in the specification and the appended claims, the singular forms “a,” “an” and “the” include plural referents unless the context clearly dictates otherwise. Thus, for example, reference to “an encoder” includes mixtures of encoders, reference to “an encoder” includes mixtures of two or more such encoders, and the like.  
         [0024]     The term “risk factor” includes any factor used in a transaction that has some level of risk associated with it.  
         [0025]     The term “static risk factor” includes any factor that does not change at run time.  
         [0026]     The term “dynamic risk factor” includes any factor that has its value calculated at run time.  
         [0027]     The term “risk value” includes any number associated with a factor.  
         [0028]     The term “risk weight” includes any number that determines how much influence a factor&#39;s risk value is to the outcome of a risk score.  
         [0029]     The term “rule” includes any conditional statement that applies Boolean logic to risk values.  
         [0030]     The term “risk score” includes any aggregation of risk values based on a computation of risk values and risk weights or a rule setting the risk score directly.  
         [0031]     The term “online fraud mitigation engine” (OFME) includes any component of the present invention that accepts an IP address along with a number of factors to thereby create a risk score for a given transaction which can be used to determine if the transaction is fraudulent.  
         [0032]     The term “transaction” includes any type of online activity, such as online banking account access, credit card transactions, online bill pay, wire transfers, stock trades, transactions utilizing personal information, and the like.  
         [0033]     The term “transaction identifier” includes any unique system generated number that identifies a particular risk score model.  
         [0034]     The term “risk score model” includes any set of logical rules, applicable static and dynamic factors, risk weights for the factors, a fraud score algorithm, a risk score threshold, and reason codes used to identify a fraudulent transaction.  
         [0035]     The term “user” or “client” includes one or more persons, entities, or computers.  
         [0036]     The terms “method(s)”, “system(s)”, and “computer program product(s)” may be used interchangeably within various embodiments of the present invention.  
         [0037]     The methods of the present invention can be carried out using a processor programmed to carry out the various embodiments of the present invention.  FIG. 8  is a block diagram illustrating an exemplary operating environment for performing the various embodiments. This exemplary operating environment is only an example of an operating environment and is not intended to suggest any limitation as to the scope of use or functionality of operating environment architecture. Neither should the operating environment be interpreted as having any dependency or requirement relating to any one or combination of components illustrated in the exemplary operating environment.  
         [0038]     The method can be operational with numerous other general purpose or special purpose computing system environments or configurations. Examples of well known computing systems, environments, and/or configurations that may be suitable for use with the method include, but are not limited to, personal computers, server computers, laptop devices, and multiprocessor systems. Additional examples include set top boxes, programmable consumer electronics, network PCs, minicomputers, mainframe computers, distributed computing environments that include any of the above systems or devices, and the like.  
         [0039]     The method may be described in the general context of computer instructions, such as program modules, being executed by a computer. Generally, program modules include routines, programs, objects, components, data structures, etc. that perform particular tasks or implement particular abstract data types. The method may also be practiced in distributed computing environments where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network. In a distributed computing environment, program modules may be located in both local and remote computer storage media including memory storage devices.  
         [0040]     The method disclosed herein can be implemented via a general-purpose computing device in the form of a computer  801 . The components of the computer  801  can include, but are not limited to, one or more processors or processing units  803 , a system memory  812 , and a system bus  813  that couples various system components including the processor  803  to the system memory  812 .  
         [0041]     The processor  803  in  FIG. 8  can be an x-86 compatible processor, including a PENTIUM IV, manufactured by Intel Corporation, or an ATHLON 64 processor, manufactured by Advanced Micro Devices Corporation. Processors utilizing other instruction sets may also be used, including those manufactured by Apple, IBM, or NEC.  
         [0042]     The system bus  813  represents one or more of several possible types of bus structures, including a memory bus or memory controller, a peripheral bus, an accelerated graphics port, and a processor or local bus using any of a variety of bus architectures. By way of example, such architectures can include an Industry Standard Architecture (ISA) bus, a Micro Channel Architecture (MCA) bus, an Enhanced ISA (EISA) bus, a Video Electronics Standards Association (VESA) local bus, and a Peripheral Component Interconnects (PCI) bus also known as a Mezzanine bus. This bus, and all buses specified in this description can also be implemented over a wired or wireless network connection. The bus  813 , and all buses specified in this description can also be implemented over a wired or wireless network connection and each of the subsystems, including the processor  803 , a mass storage device  804 , an operating system  805 , application software  806 , data  807 , a network adapter  808 , system memory  812 , an Input/Output Interface  810 , a display adapter  809 , a display device  811 , and a human machine interface  802 , can be contained within one or more remote computing devices  814   a,b,c  at physically separate locations, connected through buses of this form, in effect implementing a fully distributed system.  
         [0043]     The operating system  805  in  FIG. 8  includes operating systems such as MICROSOFT WINDOWS XP, WINDOWS 2000, WINDOWS NT, or WINDOWS 98, and REDHAT LINUX, FREE BSD, or SUN MICROSYSTEMS SOLARIS. Additionally, the application software  806  may include web browsing software, such as MICROSOFT INTERNET EXPLORER or MOZILLA FIREFOX, enabling a user to view HTML, SGML, XML, or any other suitably constructed document language on the display device  811 .  
         [0044]     The computer  801  typically includes a variety of computer readable media. Such media can be any available media that is accessible by the computer  801  and includes both volatile and non-volatile media, removable and non-removable media. The system memory  812  includes computer readable media in the form of volatile memory, such as random access memory (RAM), and/or non-volatile memory, such as read only memory (ROM). The system memory  812  typically contains data such as data  807  and and/or program modules such as operating system  805  and application software  806  that are immediately accessible to and/or are presently operated on by the processing unit  803 .  
         [0045]     The computer  801  may also include other removable/non-removable, volatile/non-volatile computer storage media. By way of example,  FIG. 8  illustrates a mass storage device  804  which can provide non-volatile storage of computer code, computer readable instructions, data structures, program modules, and other data for the computer  801 . For example, a mass storage device  804  can be a hard disk, a removable magnetic disk, a removable optical disk, magnetic cassettes or other magnetic storage devices, flash memory cards, CD-ROM, digital versatile disks (DVD) or other optical storage, random access memories (RAM), read only memories (ROM), electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), and the like.  
         [0046]     Any number of program modules can be stored on the mass storage device  804 , including by way of example, an operating system  805  and application software  806 . Each of the operating system  805  and application software  806  (or some combination thereof) may include elements of the programming and the application software  806 . Data  807  can also be stored on the mass storage device  804 . Data  804  can be stored in any of one or more databases known in the art. Examples of such databases include, DB2®, Microsoft® Access, Microsoft® SQL Server, Oracle®, mySQL, PostgreSQL, and the like. The databases can be centralized or distributed across multiple systems.  
         [0047]     A user can enter commands and information into the computer  801  via an input device (not shown). Examples of such input devices include, but are not limited to, a keyboard, pointing device (e.g., a “mouse”), a microphone, a joystick, a serial port, a scanner, and the like. These and other input devices can be connected to the processing unit  803  via a human machine interface  802  that is coupled to the system bus  813 , but may be connected by other interface and bus structures, such as a parallel port, serial port, game port, or a universal serial bus (USB).  
         [0048]     A display device  811  can also be connected to the system bus  813  via an interface, such as a display adapter  809 . For example, a display device can be a cathode ray tube (CRT) monitor or a Liquid Crystal Display (LCD). In addition to the display device  811 , other output peripheral devices can include components such as speakers (not shown) and a printer (not shown) which can be connected to the computer  801  via Input/Output Interface  810 .  
         [0049]     The computer  801  can operate in a networked environment using logical connections to one or more remote computing devices  814   a,b,c . By way of example, a remote computing device can be a personal computer, portable computer, a server, a router, a network computer, a peer device or other common network node, and so on. Logical connections between the computer  801  and a remote computing device  814   a,b,c  can be made via a local area network (LAN) and a general wide area network (WAN). Such network connections can be through a network adapter  808 . A network adapter  808  can be implemented in both wired and wireless environments. Such networking environments are commonplace in offices, enterprise-wide computer networks, intranets, and the Internet  815 .  
         [0050]     For purposes of illustration, application programs and other executable program components such as the operating system  805  are illustrated herein as discrete blocks, although it is recognized that such programs and components reside at various times in different storage components of the computing device  801 , and are executed by the data processor(s) of the computer. An implementation of application software  806  may be stored on or transmitted across some form of computer readable media. An implementation of the disclosed method may also be stored on or transmitted across some form of computer readable media. Computer readable media can be any available media that can be accessed by a computer. By way of example, and not limitation, computer readable media may comprise “computer storage media” and “communications media.” “Computer storage media” include volatile and non-volatile, removable and non-removable media implemented in any method or technology for storage of information such as computer readable instructions, data structures, program modules, or other data. Computer storage media includes, but is not limited to, RAM, ROM, EEPROM, flash memory or other memory technology, CD-ROM, digital versatile disks (DVD) or other optical storage, magnetic cassettes, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, or any other medium which can be used to store the desired information and which can be accessed by a computer.  
         [0051]      FIG. 9  illustrates a logical overview of the Internet  815  of one embodiment of the present invention. One or more client computers  801 , for example, such as the remote computing devices  814   a,b,c  depicted in  FIG. 8 , may be connected to the Internet  815  as depicted at  901 - 1 ,  901 - 2 , and  901 - 3 . Additionally, one or more computers  902 - 1 ,  902 - 2 , and  902 - 3  of the type depicted at  801  may act as servers, providing web pages via HTTP request, database access, remote terminal services, digital file download or upload, or any other desired service. Furthermore, one or more client computers, such as  901 - 1 , may act as an Internet accessible server computer  902 - 1 , and vice versa.  
       Online Fraud Mitigation Engine  
       [0052]      FIG. 1  is a flow chart illustrating steps for performing an online fraudulent transaction determination in accordance with the present invention. At step  105 , input parameters are input into the OFME by an end user, for example, a banking institution. The OFME provides a run-time environment for the selected risk score model. The OFME provides a rules based engine for receiving input parameters; for example, a transaction identifier, an IP address, a date/time stamp, a unique identifier and a number of static factors for processing. The OFME subsequently retrieves relevant information regarding an Internet user&#39;s IP address; for example, the Internet user&#39;s location from a NetAcuity server. The operation of the NetAcuity server is discussed in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/832,959, which is commonly assigned to the assignee of the present application, which is herein incorporated by reference in its entirety.  
         [0053]     A transaction identifier, which is unique, associated with a given Internet based transaction is used by OFME to determine which risk score model should be utilized for a given transaction. The Fraud Risk Advisor uses the unique identifier for tracking purposes. The results are then stored in a database.  
         [0054]     Additional input parameters may be input into the OFME through end user supplied data. For example, the end user may utilize a hot file, suspect IP list, etc., which would be used by the OFME in the determination process. Once the OFME receives the specified input parameters, the Fraud Risk Advisor proceeds to step  112 . In step  112 , the end user will select from a set of standard risk score models or end user defined risk score models to be used for a particular determination.  
         [0055]     After the OFME loads the appropriate risk score model, the present invention proceeds to step  114  in which the OFME evaluates a given set of factors and determines a risk value for each given factor. Once the risk value has been determined for each factor associated with the OFME, the present invention proceeds to step  116  in which the OFME evaluates a given set of rules and determines a risk score.  
         [0056]     When the risk score has been determined by a rule match, the present invention proceeds to step  118  in which the OFME executes a risk score algorithm to determine an aggregate risk score. The OFME uses the standard risk value from the rules evaluation, as well as an optional static risk score to determine an aggregate risk score. For example, the rules based risk score could be assigned a value between 0 to 1,000. A risk score of 0 would be assigned to a transaction perceived to be highly fraudulent, while a risk score of 1,000 would be assigned to scores perceived to have a low risk of fraud.  
         [0057]     Dependent on the risk score calculated in step  118  and threshold limits defined by an end user, the OFME determines whether the transaction proceeds to step  120  or step  122 . If the score exceeds the predefined threshold level, the OFME proceeds to step  120  because the transaction is determined to be fraudulent. Accordingly, the transaction is flagged and forwarded to the end user for further review along with each factor value and a reason code for each factor value. If the score is within predetermined threshold limits, the OFME proceeds to step  122  because the transaction is determined to be valid.  
         [0058]     At step  130 , the end user receives output from the OFME for the pending transaction. If the transaction is determined to be fraudulent by the OFME, the end user receives the results from the OFME including factor values and reason codes for the transaction. In addition, the OFME will update the present invention&#39;s real-time statistics and store all relevant data, for example, the IP address, regarding the transaction in a database, even if the transaction is deemed valid. The stored data is used for both reporting purposes as well as analysis purposes for updating the risk score model&#39;s risk weights or removing certain factors or rules. The end user has the ability to override the results of the OFME and may flag a transaction determined to be valid as suspicious or deem a suspicious transaction valid.  
         [0059]      FIG. 2  illustrates is an exemplary processing system  200  with which the invention may be used. System  200  includes a user interface  220  in which an end user may input parameters, rules, and user defined functions to the OFME  202 . User interface  220  may comprise multiple user interfaces. The user interface  220  also receives output data from the OFME  202  regarding a certain transaction. The user interface  220  may be graphical or web based, or may use any other suitable input mechanism.  
         [0060]     Once the OFME  202  receives data from the user interface  220 , the OFME  202  acquires information associated with this data from, for example, a NetAcuity server  206 , a validation server  204  and a behavior-tracking database  208 . Validation server  204  validates email addresses and area codes supplied by the end user for a given transaction.  
         [0061]     Behavior tracking database  208  uses a unique identifier supplied by the end user associated with a given Internet user to determine whether a current Internet based transaction is in congruence with the normal behavior of the Internet user. This unique identifier is stored in the searchable behavior-tracking database  208 . When the Internet user performs an Internet based transaction, the behavior-tracking database  208  is searched and geographic data along with an ISP and domain, which may also be stored with the unique identifier, is retrieved, if available. This information is then compared to the geographic data, ISP, and domain information associated with a current IP address for the current pending Internet based transaction. The result of the comparison, an access behavior factor, is used to determine whether the current pending Internet based transaction is fraudulent. If an access behavior violation is determined, an automated challenge/response could be used to validate the Internet user accessing an account in real time. If there is no history for the current IP address available in the behavior-tracking database  208  for the Internet user, the current geographic data, ISP and domain information associated with the current IP address is added to the behavior-tracking database  208 . Accordingly, when an Internet user is creating an account, access behavior would not be used as a factor for fraud detection.  
         [0062]     The unique identifier assigned to the Internet user may store multiple access behaviors. In addition, because an Internet user may change their access behavior due to, for example, extended travel, change of residence, etc., the end user may override an access behavior violation returned by the OFME  202 .  
         [0063]     The OFME  202  uses the information supplied by the user interface  220 , NetAcuity server  206 , validation server  204  and behavior-tracking database  208  to determine a risk score associated with a given transaction. Once the OFME  202  computes the risk score, the risk score is sent along with any relevant information concerning the transaction to behavior tracking database  208 , real time statistics database  212 , user interface  220 , and OFME data storage database  210 .  
         [0064]     In one embodiment, OFME data storage database  210  may transfer data received from OFME  202  to OFME output warehouse storage  218  for long-term storage. In addition, OFME data storage database  210  may transfer data received from OFME  202  to both a Reporting subsystem  214  and a Forensics subsystem  216  for processing and output to the user interface  220 . Forensics subsystem  216  provides the end user the ability to look-up information generated by running a risk score model. Thus, the end user can determine why a transaction is deemed suspicious or why a transaction was not deemed suspicious. Reporting subsystem  214  provides various reports to the end user, for example, the number of transaction flagged as being suspicious.  
       Calculating Travel Velocity  
       [0065]     In one embodiment of the present invention, a method is provided for calculating a travel velocity between a first access point and a second access point using a first and second IP address. Calculating a travel velocity has several practical uses, including determining a fraudulent transaction, network analysis, user profiling, user account verification and tracking, network access provider analysis, and advertising. Travel velocity may also be a factor utilized by the OFME  202  to determine a fraudulent transaction.  
         [0066]      FIG. 3  illustrates one embodiment of the present invention useful for calculating travel velocity. First, a first access location is determined based on a first Internet Protocol (“IP”) address  301 . Second, a first access time is determined  302 . Third, a second access location is determined based on a second IP address  303 . Fourth, a second access time is determined  304 . Finally, the travel velocity between the first access location and the second access location is calculated  305  as a function of the first access location  301  and the first access time  302 , and the second access location  303  and the second access time  304 .  
         [0067]     A further embodiment of the present invention useful for calculating a travel velocity is logically illustrated in  FIG. 4 . While the embodiment of  FIG. 4  continues from step  305  of  FIG. 3 , no particular order of steps is expressly or implicitly required. In this embodiment, a distance between the first access location  301  and the second access location  303  is computed  401 . Second, a time difference is computed  402  between the first access time  302  and a second access time  304 . Third, the travel velocity is calculated  403  between the first access location  301  and the second access location  303  by dividing the computed distance  401  by the computed time difference  402 .  
         [0068]     For illustration purposes only, according to the embodiment of  FIG. 4 , suppose that the first IP address is 24.131.36.54, and the first access time  302  is 1:00 PM EST. Methods for determining the location corresponding to an IP address, such as those provided by a NetAcuity server, are used to determine that the first IP address corresponds to the first location  301  of Atlanta, Ga., USA. Next, a second IP address of 144.214.5.246 is provided, and the second access time  304  is 1:05 PM EST. Again, methods are used to determine that 144.214.5.246 corresponds to a second access location  303  of Hong Kong, China.  
         [0069]     Next, the distance between the first access location  301  of Atlanta, and the second access location  303  of Hong Kong, is computed  401  to be approximately 8405 miles. The computed time difference  402  between the first access time  302  of 1:00 PM EST and the second access time  304  of 1:05 PM EST is 5 minutes. Then, the computed distance  401  of 8405 miles is divided by the time difference  402  of 5 minutes, to calculate a travel velocity  403  of 8405 miles/5 minutes, or 100,860 miles per hour, which is suspiciously high.  
       Calculating a User&#39;s Travel Velocity  
       [0070]     In one embodiment of the present invention, a method is provided for calculating a user&#39;s travel velocity between a first access location and a second access location using a first and second IP address. Calculating a user&#39;s travel velocity has several practical uses, including determining a fraudulent transaction, network analysis, user profiling, user account verification and tracking, network access provider analysis, and advertising. A user&#39;s travel velocity may also be a factor utilized by the OFME  202  to determine a fraudulent transaction.  
         [0071]      FIG. 5  illustrates one embodiment of the present invention useful for calculating a user&#39;s travel velocity. First, a first access location  501  is determined for a user. The first access location  501  may be determined in a variety of ways, such as using the user&#39;s IP address to determine the first access location  501 , retrieving the first access location  501  from the user&#39;s behavior profile, or by using a user supplied first access location  501 .  
         [0072]     Second, a first access time  502  is determined for the user. A second access location is then determined for the user  503  based on the IP address of the user. Fourth, a second access time is determined for the user  504 . Then, the method of the present embodiment calculates the travel velocity  505  of the user between the first access location  501  and the second access location  503 . The user&#39;s travel velocity may be calculated using a variety of methods, including the method embodied in  FIG. 4 .  
         [0073]     In a further embodiment based on  FIG. 5 , the first access location  501  and the first access time  502  are determined from a behavior profile associated with the user. In other embodiments, the first access location  501  can be determined based on the user&#39;s last valid access location. In another embodiment, the second access location  503  and the second access time  504  are the user&#39;s current access location and current access time.  
       Determining a Fraudulent Transaction  
       [0074]     In one embodiment of the present invention, a method is provided for determining if a transaction is fraudulent by using a user&#39;s travel velocity as a fraud factor. Determining if a transaction is fraudulent based upon a user&#39;s travel velocity has several practical uses, such as stopping and deterring the theft and use of personal information online, which may result from identify theft, phishing emails, hacking, spy ware, Trojans, and the like. Likewise, the same method may be used to determine if a transaction is legitimate.  
         [0075]     One embodiment of a method for determining if a transaction is fraudulent based upon a user&#39;s travel velocity is illustrated in  FIG. 6 . First, the travel velocity of a user is computed  601  between a first access location and a second access location. One embodiment for calculating a user&#39;s travel velocity is provided in  FIG. 5  in steps  501  through  505 . Other methods for computing a travel velocity may also be employed in the embodiment of  FIG. 6 . The various embodiments included herein for determine a fraudulent transaction may utilize the OFME  202 .  
         [0076]     Behavior profiles may be utilized in the embodiment of  FIG. 6  and in other embodiments to determine if a transaction is fraudulent. For example, access locations, access times, IP addresses, geographical locations, area codes, telephone numbers, email addresses, transaction frequencies, and other factors may be stored in a behavior profile. Behavior profiles are useful because they allow one or more variables corresponding to one or more factors to be persistently stored, enabling embodiments to determine not only the travel velocity or likelihood of fraud between a first access location and a second access location, but to determine a pattern of fraudulent activity over a plurality of access locations, times, IP addresses, and the like. The behavior profile may be stored in a database such as the behavior tracking database  208  of the embodiment of  FIG. 2 .  
         [0077]     Second, the method of  FIG. 6  determines if one or more additional factors based upon the user&#39;s IP address will be computed. While only the user&#39;s travel velocity need be computed at  601 , additional factors, including factors based upon the user&#39;s IP address may be used in various embodiments. The types and number of additional factors computed  603  may vary among the different embodiments to optimize the determination of a fraudulent transaction.  
         [0078]     If an additional factor is determined to be remaining  602 , then that additional factor is computed  603 . Next, the method of  FIG. 6  then determines  602  and computes  603  remaining additional factors until no factors remain to be computed, causing the method of  FIG. 6  to proceed to step  604 .  
         [0079]     In one embodiment based on the embodiment of  FIG. 6 , an additional factor computed  603  comprises a country, region, or city associated with the IP address of the user. In another embodiment extending the embodiment of  FIG. 6 , a factor computed  603  may be a proximity of the user in comparison to a purported location of the user associated with the IP address. A factor computed  603  also may comprise the connection type of the user, such as dial-up, Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN), cable modem, Digital Subscriber Line (DSL), Digital Signal 1 (T1), or Optical Carrier 3 (OC3). The factor  603  may also comprise a host type, such as personal network end point, corporate network end point, personal or corporate proxy, personal or corporate firewall, and the like.  
         [0080]     Additional embodiments extending the embodiment of  FIG. 6  may utilize factors supplied by the user, including an address supplied by a client for comparison with an address associated with the IP address, an area code and telephone number supplied by the client for comparison with an area code and telephone number stored in a database associated with the client, or an email address supplied by the client. User supplied factors are useful to various embodiments of the present invention where the embodiments may assume that the user supplied factors are accurate as they are supplied directly by the user.  
         [0081]     Further factors may be utilized by the embodiment of  FIG. 6 , such as where a factor is an access behavior associated with the user based on transaction habits stored in a database that are compared with a current transaction. A factor may also comprise a frequency with which the transaction is attempted or executed within a predetermined amount of time, or a velocity with which a single IP address accesses or uses multiple unique identifiers within a specified period of time.  
         [0082]     In further embodiments of  FIG. 6 , a client may participate in the determination of factors to be computed at  603 . For example, in one embodiment, a client may assign a threshold level for one or more of the factors. The client may also create one or more user defined factors, and the client may also define constraint rules for one or more factors. Allowing the user to determine factors, assign threshold levels for factors, and constraint rules for factors allows the method of  FIG. 6  to optimally determine if a transaction is fraudulent in a method tailored to the user.  
         [0083]     Next, in the embodiment of  FIG. 6 , the method determines if the transaction is fraudulent based upon the user&#39;s travel velocity and zero or more additional factors, such as those described above. The determination  604  that a transaction is fraudulent or legitimate may occur in real time, near real time, or non-real time, based upon the particular implementation of the method of  FIG. 6 . The user&#39;s travel velocity may be a factor utilized by the OFME  202  to determine a fraudulent transaction, and may be stored in a behavior profile residing in a behavior tracking database  208 .  
       Transaction Frequency  
       [0084]     In one embodiment of the present invention, a method is provided for determining if a transaction is fraudulent by using a computed transaction frequency. A high transaction frequency may be useful, for example, where a user&#39;s personal information has been stolen and distributed to one or more individuals who intend to make multiple fraudulent online purchases with the personal information of the user. A high transaction frequency may indicate a fraudulent transaction where a particular transaction is attempted repeatedly from the same IP address within a predetermined period of time.  
         [0085]     Likewise, a transaction may be fraudulent where the same or a similar transaction is attempted or executed multiple times and received by or at a single IP address. For example, suppose a person&#39;s credit card information is stolen and distributed among a group of persons who intend to use that information to make fraudulent purchases at a particular online retailer who operates an e-commerce server at a particular IP address. According to one embodiment of the present invention, the frequency with which multiple IP addresses attempt or execute a transaction received at a single IP address, such as the address of an e-commerce server, may indicate that a transaction is fraudulent. In further embodiments, the factors discussed above may be incorporated to determine a fraudulent transaction, such as travel velocity or access behaviors retrieved from user profiles.  
         [0086]     Determining if a transaction is fraudulent based transaction frequency has several practical uses, such as stopping and deterring the theft and use of personal information online, which may result from identify theft, phishing emails, hacking, spy ware, Trojans, and the like. Likewise, the same methods may be used to determine if a transaction is legitimate. The embodiment illustrated in  FIG. 7  provides one method for utilizing a transaction frequency to determine a fraudulent transaction.  
         [0087]     First, in the embodiment of  FIG. 7 , a frequency is computed with which a transaction is attempted from a first IP address within a predetermined period of time. For example, if an online purchase transaction originating from a first IP address is attempted or executed a hundred times within an hour, then the embodiment of  FIG. 7  may determine that the transaction is fraudulent  702  based upon the computed transaction frequency  701 .  
         [0088]     The transaction frequency  701  may be computed in various ways, including by dividing the number of times a transaction is attempted or executed over the time period in which those transaction were attempted or executed. The transaction frequency may also be a factor utilized by the OFME  202  of the embodiment of  FIG. 2 , and stored in a behavior profile residing in a behavior tracking database  208 , also of  FIG. 2 .  
         [0089]     Transaction frequency in another embodiment may be combined with the host type of the IP address or other factors to enhance the accuracy of the fraud determination. For example, extending the embodiment of  FIG. 7 , suppose that one or more transactions have been attempted from an IP address one hundred times within an hour. Without other information, a transaction frequency of 100 attempts per hour from an IP address may indicate a fraudulent transaction. However, if that IP address represents a network proxy or firewall which provides Internet access to multiple users, then a transaction frequency of 100 attempts per hour may in fact not indicate a likely fraudulent transaction. Therefore, comparing the transaction frequency to the host type of the IP address can optimize the fraud determination by decreasing false positives when the IP address represents a proxy, firewall, or other Internet gateway which provides access for multiple users, several of whom may be conducting one or more legitimate transactions. Other factors such as connection type, travel velocity, information retrieved from a behavior profile, geographic location, user supplied factors, and the like, may also be combined with transaction frequency to enhance the accuracy of the fraud determination.  
         [0090]     While the invention has been described in detail in connection with exemplary embodiments, it should be understood that the invention is not limited to the above-disclosed embodiments. Rather, the invention can be modified to incorporate any number of variations, alternations, substitutions, or equivalent arrangements not heretofore described, but which are commensurate with the spirit and scope of the invention. In particular, the specific embodiments of the Fraud Risk Advisor described should be taken as exemplary and not limiting. For example, the present invention may be used in a web-based application. Accordingly, the invention is not limited by the foregoing description or drawings, but is only limited by the scope of the appended claims.