
Channel Convergence
Modern fraud is orchestrated across multiple channels. To combat this, organizations must break down the silos between their web, mobile, API, and contact center security teams. The first step is to normalize telemetry schemas across all channels, ensuring that data can be easily correlated. A unified user and device identity linkage is also critical, allowing the system to recognize a single user entity as they move between different surfaces. This convergence is the foundation for effective cross-channel fraud detection, as detailed in our [Fraud Intelligence Orchestration](/resources/blog/fraud-intelligence-orchestration) guide and our [Retail & eCommerce solution](/resources/solutions/retail-ecommerce).
Dynamic Risk Scoring
A dynamic, event-level risk scoring engine is the core of an omni-channel fraud defense. This engine must aggregate a wide range of signals in real time, including user behavior, geo-location, device integrity, and historical transaction patterns. By processing these signals, the engine can produce an adaptive risk score for each event, providing a nuanced assessment of the likelihood of fraud. This is a significant step up from static rules, which are often too rigid to detect sophisticated, multi-channel attacks.
Adaptive Controls
The risk score generated by the engine must be used to drive adaptive controls. For low-risk events, the user experience should be seamless. For medium-risk events, the system can implement risk-tiered challenges, such as a one-time password or a biometric check. For high-risk events, the system can apply more stringent controls, such as transaction throttling or a temporary reduction in the session's scope of permissions. This adaptive approach allows the organization to apply friction precisely where it is needed, minimizing the impact on legitimate users.
Feedback Loop
A continuous feedback loop is essential for the long-term effectiveness of the system. When fraud is confirmed, or when a legitimate user is incorrectly flagged (a false positive), this outcome must be fed back into the system. This feedback is used to retrain the machine learning models and adjust the rules, allowing the system to adapt to new fraud patterns and reduce the false positive rate over time. This closed-loop process ensures that the fraud defense system is constantly learning and improving.
Metrics
To measure the success of an omni-channel fraud program, focus on metrics that reflect its ability to detect and adapt to cross-channel attacks. The cross-channel fraud correlation rate measures how effectively the system is linking suspicious activity across different channels. The reduction in the false positive rate is a key indicator of improved customer experience. Other important metrics include the dwell time for account takeovers and the success versus abandonment rate for user challenges. These metrics provide a holistic view of the program's performance.
Sources & Further Reading
FS-ISAC Intelligence Reports.
FIDO Alliance Risk-Based Authentication Guidance.
Verizon DBIR 2025 (credential pivot data).
ACFE Annual Fraud Reports.
MITRE ATT&CK (credential access / lateral movement).
NIST Digital Identity Guidelines.
Key Takeaways
Unified telemetry & adaptive enforcement harden against coordination attempts across channels.
Recommended Reading
Banking Security Platform: Real-Time Fraud & Resilience Architecture
Composing a layered banking security platform that fuses fraud intelligence, identity assurance, data protection and operational resilience.
Fraud Intelligence & Orchestration: Signal Fusion to Decision Automation
Signal fusion strategy unifying behavioral, device, identity & transactional intelligence into adaptive orchestration.
Ransomware Trends and Prevention Strategies for 2025
Why ransomware crews are shifting toward multi-extortion, automation-assisted intrusion chains, and how to reduce blast radius before an encryption event.
7 Common Zero Trust Misconceptions (and What Actually Matters)
Zero Trust is not a product, vendor SKU, or a single architecture pattern—here is what actually produces risk compression.
Detection Engineering Playbook: Hypothesis → Validation → Automation
Move from ad-hoc rule writing to a measurable hypothesis-driven detection pipeline.