WeChat payment interception of JD digital card payment case report

Original link: https://www.blueskyxn.com/202207/6167.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=%25e5%25be%25ae%25e4%25bf%25a1%25e6%2594%25af%25e4%25bb%2598% 25e6%258b%25a6%25e6%2588%25aa%25e4%25ba%25ac%25e4%25b8%259c%25e6%2595%25b0%25e5%258d%25a1%25e6%2594%25af%25e4%25bb%2598%25e6% 25a1%2588%25e4%25be%258b%25e6%258a%25a5%25e5%2591%258a

微信支付拦截京东数卡支付案例报告

foreword

On July 9, 2022, WeChat Pay once again refreshed its lower limit of funny risk control. Today, when I purchased the AppStore gift card on the Jingdong App, I found the problem of forced interception. You must know that I have to buy tens of thousands of Apple cards on Jingdong with WeChat every year, and I also told me that it is risky. And this time the prompt is more surprising and targeted, so I will share this case.

At the same time, I found out today that an additional mobile phone number is required to log in when using WeChat to scan the QR code in the JD web version, which was not required when I used it a few weeks ago. It is suspected that WeChat has recently upgraded its risk control on JD.com (or upgraded its risk control for JD.com digital cards).

Account and Environmental Research

WeChat A and JD A registered with mainland mobile phone number A have the most card-bound cards in WeChat

The mainland mobile phone number B is registered on WeChat B and Jingdong B, and Jingdong B is a small account, which is used less.

WeChat C registered with UK mobile number C

Both are real-name authentication with mainland China ID cards, and the identity information is the same

The annual expenditure of WeChat is 6.3W, 2.6W, 2.4W respectively, totaling 11.3W, and the consumption expenditure category is 9.3W, although it is only 1/5 of my Alipay level, but you are a fool to control the risk. Who used it? Normally, if you pay a few thousand dollars, it will be all kinds of anti-fraud and interception. The customer service is either dead or a robot. Alipay will have a call immediately, and the App will also contact the online human in minutes. WeChat payment is basically not worthy of being used as a daily payment tool, and its application scenarios are basically limited to less than 2,000 yuan, especially for small transactions within 200 yuan. Then this amount of spending is not too small, is there any problem with buying a few hundred thousand Jingdong digital card, and it is not the first time to buy, basically you have to buy a few thousand a month, cheating you, 4 When I was defrauded a few hundred years ago, your WeChat payment was very good at pretending to be dead. Now you are constantly brushing your sense of existence, and you are a fool.

QQ%E5%9B%BE%E7%89%8720220709175006.pngQQ%E5%9B%BE%E7%89%8720220709175214.pngQQ%E5%9B%BE%E7%89%8720220709174950.png

Then the difference is in addition to the phone number, there are two differences,

  1. The two mainland mobile phone numbers registered with the WeChat account have multiple openings for Android on the same machine, and the UK mobile phone number is opened separately on Apple.
  2. One of the two mainland mobile phone numbers is 0 and the other is 0.06, while the WeChat account of the UK mobile number has 400 yuan in change.

Blocking Tips and Answers

At the beginning, it was a common answer, asking you what to buy, choosing a virtual item for a game item, then saying yes, then continuing, and the result went to the next picture to say that there is a problem with the Jingdong transaction

QQ%E5%9B%BE%E7%89%8720220709175257.png

As shown in the picture, say there is a problem, and then look at the details

QQ%E5%9B%BE%E7%89%8720220709175241.png

QQ%E5%9B%BE%E7%89%8720220709175223.png

This is a cliché to learn more about the details. It seems that it is specifically aimed at “Jingdong”. The question is why don’t you go to “Pinduoduo”? There is more money laundering there, but Pinduoduo heard that refunds are easier than JD.com , especially virtual items, or Pinduoduo does not transparently transmit virtual items.

At first, I thought I could recognize the problem of two bound mobile phone numbers, because I jumped to WeChat A from Jingdong B

Then I tried WeChat A, but it didn’t work either, the same error was reported, and then I went in with the WeChat applet that was stuck as a dog, and found that the applet did not have an Apple gift card.

QQ%E5%9B%BE%E7%89%8720220709175230.png

The customer service is still the same as always, dead people and robots. There is nothing to say, so I control a variable a little.

It was found that the use of Jingdong A and Jingdong B to jump to WeChat C registered with the UK mobile phone number did not prompt any risks and abnormal errors.

Then I originally wanted to try Jingdong B’s, but Jingdong B didn’t place an order for me (? I won’t let you buy anything)

At the same time, Jingdong A’s jump to WeChat B on the iPad is also intercepted.

The above tests are in the same WIFI environment, without the use of network proxies and ad blockers.

reasoning

According to the experience, there are the following possibilities and analysis

  1. WeChat strengthens risk control on JD.com digital card orders
  2. Choosing virtual or game props for WeChat answers may lead to direct interception of payment
  3. WeChat interception and payment may chain and seal ID documents and machine codes
  4. Opening more WeChat on Android system may lead to risk control upgrade
  5. WeChat Pay discriminates against mainland mobile phone numbers
  6. WeChat Pay Discriminates Against Android Phones
  7. Purchase history and turnover have little effect on this

At the same time, the payment card should not matter, they are all using different US credit cards

This article is reprinted from: https://www.blueskyxn.com/202207/6167.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=%25e5%25be%25ae%25e4%25bf%25a1%25e6%2594%25af%25e4%25bb%2598% 25e6%258b%25a6%25e6%2588%25aa%25e4%25ba%25ac%25e4%25b8%259c%25e6%2595%25b0%25e5%258d%25a1%25e6%2594%25af%25e4%25bb%2598%25e6% 25a1%2588%25e4%25be%258b%25e6%258a%25a5%25e5%2591%258a
This site is for inclusion only, and the copyright belongs to the original author.

Leave a Comment