Transaction assessment and/or authentication

Abstract

Systems and methods for assessing and authenticating transactions are disclosed. Some exemplary embodiments may authenticate transactions based at least in part on a comparison of a newly obtained electronic signature associated with a user with a previously obtained electronic signature associated with the user, where a payment instrument presented for use in the transaction is also associated with the user. Exemplary electronic signatures may comprise any information which may identify the user, such as browser fingerprints, computer fingerprints, IP addresses, geographic IP location information, information associated with a payment, and/or a typing patterns.

What is claimed is: 
     
         1 - 25 . (canceled) 
     
     
         26 . An authentication system for electronic transactions occurring over computerized network comprising:
 a transaction authentication system interface operatively coupled to the computerized network for receiving proposed transaction information over the computerized network;   a user information database; and   a transaction authentication tool, operatively coupled to the transaction authentication system interface and to the user information database and configured to perform the steps of:
 receiving, from the transaction authentication system interface, a request to utilize a payment instrument in a transaction; 
 receiving, from the transaction authentication system interface, information pertaining to the payment instrument, information pertaining to user computer system used to initiate the transaction, and a collected electronic signature representation of a user including attributes associated with the user computer system; and 
 determining, by the transaction authentication tool, an indication of (a) a match score between the collected electronic signature representation of the user associated with the user computer system and an electronic signature stored in the user information database to establish a user identity, (b) whether the payment instrument matches a payment instrument stored in the user information database, (c) whether the user computer system matches a computer identification stored in the user information database, (d) whether the user identity, the user computer system and the payment instrument have been previously used together, and (e) whether the user identity, the user computer system and the payment instrument all have good transaction reputations; 
 transmitting by the transaction tool, (i) a BAD indication if, based upon the determining step it is determined that the transaction be rejected, (ii) a GOOD indication if, based upon the determining step it is determined that the transaction be subject to minimal scrutiny or be accepted, and (iii) a SUSPICIOUS indication if, based upon the determining step it is determined that the transaction be subject to substantial additional scrutiny. 
   
     
     
         27 . The authentication system of  claim 26 , wherein the determining step:
 (w) determines a BAD indication if at least one of the user identity, the user computer system and the payment instrument do not have good transaction reputations;   (x) determines a GOOD indication if the match score is high, and that the payment instrument is known, and the user computer system is known, and the user identity, the user computer system and the payment instrument have been previously used together, and that the user identity, the user computer system and the payment instrument all have good transaction reputations,   (y) determines a GOOD indication if the match score is low, and that the payment instrument is known, and the user computer system is known, and the user identity, the user computer system and the payment instrument have been previously used together, and that the user identity, the user computer system and the payment instrument all have good transaction reputations, and   (z) determines a SUSPICIOUS indication if none of (w), (x) and (y) are satisfied.   
     
     
         28 . The authentication system of  claim 26 , wherein the transaction authentication tool is operatively connected to a third party fraud detection service, and the transaction authentication tool is further configured to subject the proposed transaction information to the third party fraud detection tool upon determining a SUSPICIOUS indication. 
     
     
         29 . The authentication system of  claim 28 , wherein the transaction authentication tool is further configured to determine at least one of a GOOD indication and a BAD indication based upon information received back from the third party fraud detection tool. 
     
     
         30 . The authentication system of  claim 28 , wherein the third party fraud detection tool includes information from one or more merchants. 
     
     
         31 . The authentication system of  claim 26 , wherein the collected electronic signature and the electronic signature stored in the user information database each have a plurality of attributes, and the match score is determined based upon a weighted comparison of matching attributes between the collected electronic signature and the electronic signature stored in the user information database. 
     
     
         32 . The authentication system of  claim 31 , wherein the match score is calculated based upon (a) a sum of weights of attributes in the collected electronic signature that match attributes in the electronic signature stored in the user information database, a (b) a sum of weights of attributes in the collected electronic signature that do not match attributes in the electronic signature stored in the user information database, and (c) a sum of weights of attributes in the collected electronic signature that match and do not match attributes in the electronic signature stored in the user information database. 
     
     
         33 . The authentication system of  claim 32 , wherein the trust score is calculated based upon (a) a sum of all weights of attributes in the collected electronic signature that match attributes in the electronic signature stored in the user information database, a (b) a sum of all weights of attributes in the collected electronic signature that do not match attributes in the electronic signature stored in the user information database, and (c) a sum of all weights of attributes in the collected electronic signature that match and do not match attributes in the electronic signature stored in the user information database. 
     
     
         34 . The authentication system of  claim 31 , wherein the trust score is calculated based upon (a) a sum of weights of attributes in the collected electronic signature that match attributes in the electronic signature stored in the user information database, (b) a sum of weights of attributes in the collected electronic signature that do not match attributes in the electronic signature stored in the user information database, (c) a sum of weights of attributes in the collected electronic signature not compared with attributes in the electronic signature stored in the user information database, and (d) a sum of weights of attributes in the collected electronic signature that match, do not match, and are not compared with attributes in the electronic signature stored in the user information database. 
     
     
         35 . The authentication system of  claim 34 , wherein the trust score is calculated from the following equation:
   (a 2 −(b*2)−c)*1000/d 2 .
   
     
     
         36 . An authentication system for electronic transactions occurring over computerized network comprising:
 a transaction authentication system interface operatively coupled to the computerized network for receiving proposed transaction information over the computerized network;   a user information database; and   a transaction authentication tool, operatively coupled to the transaction authentication system interface and to the user information database and configured to perform the steps of:
 receiving, from the transaction authentication system interface, a request to utilize a payment instrument in a transaction; 
 receiving, from the transaction authentication system interface, information pertaining to the payment instrument, information pertaining to user computer system used to initiate the transaction, and a collected electronic signature representation of a user including attributes associated with the user computer system; and 
 determining, by the transaction authentication tool, an indication of (a) a match score between the collected electronic signature representation of the user associated with the user computer system and an electronic signature stored in the user information database to establish a user identity, (b) whether the payment instrument matches a payment instrument stored in the user information database, (c) whether the user computer system matches a computer identification stored in the user information database, (d) whether the user identity, the user computer system and the payment instrument have been previously used together, and (e) whether the user identity, the user computer system and the payment instrument all have good transaction reputations; and 
 transmitting by the transaction tool, (i) a first indication if, based upon the determining step it is determined that the transaction be rejected, (ii) a second indication if, based upon the determining step it is determined that the transaction be accepted, and (iii) a third indication if, based upon the determining step it is determined that the transaction be subject to substantial additional third party scrutiny.