Skip to content
September 11, 2026
  • Bluesky
  • Facebook
  • Linkedin
  • Mastodon
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • Youtube

Daily CyberSecurity

Zero-hour alerts. Unmatched analysis.

Primary Menu
  • Home
  • CVE Data
    • CVE Watchtower
    • Top Exploited CVEs
    • CVE Stats by Vendor
    • Q2 2026 Report
    • CVE Alerts
    • CVE Alert Settings
    • Pricing
  • Cyber Criminals
  • Data Leak
  • Linux
  • Malware
  • Vulnerability
  • Submit Press Release
  • Weekly Recap
Light/Dark Button
  • Home
  • Technique
  • Common Shortcomings of Traditional Transaction Monitoring Methods
  • Technique

Common Shortcomings of Traditional Transaction Monitoring Methods

Do Son December 2, 2020 5 minutes read
tech-video

Most people tend to think of corruption and financial crimes as victimless wrongdoings that occur at no real cost. After all, no one is physically harmed by white-collar felonies such as identity theft or fraud. It’s all too easy to believe that no “real” money is lost, either. Those who have been victimized by these types of crimes typically only need to report them to the appropriate agencies to straighten things out.

Unfortunately, financial crimes such as money laundering and terrorist financing do affect millions of people. These misdeeds fund heinous illegal activities such as child labor, human trafficking, and prostitution in some of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable areas.

In fact, it’s a trillion-dollar industry. According to estimates from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, about 2 to 5 percent of the global GDP is laundered globally through legitimate banking systems each year. Though that number may sound small at first, it’s an astronomical amount of money, ranging from USD 800 billion to 2 trillion.

Transaction monitoring is an integral component of the anti-money laundering and financial crime compliance systems that financial institutions use to protect themselves from becoming unwitting participants in these types of crimes. Unfortunately, criminals are only growing more daring and technologically-savvy, rendering traditional transaction monitoring methods inefficient and obsolete. Below are a few of these old systems’ shortcomings:

Poor Data Integrity

One of the biggest challenges that financial institutions face when monitoring customer transactions is making sure that the data that they are using is complete and accurate. Often, technology architecture grows by acquisition instead of through organic means, with new data systems tacked on top of old ones. This means that some organizations may be using multiple platforms and processes to satisfy their compliance obligations.

The situation, therefore, creates a disparity in the information used to perform transaction monitoring, making it difficult to ensure that all relevant data is obtained and presented in a usable format. Additionally, poor data integrity also brings down the quality of the alerts received by the financial institution, causing investigations teams to waste time chasing unproductive leads. These issues can easily be addressed by adopting a modern, unified transaction monitoring system that can leverage all structured and unstructured data as well as integrate with external data sources. 

Lacks Holistic Oversight

Effective transaction monitoring is so challenging because it necessitates a complete and holistic view of a customer’s account. Without transaction monitoring AML software, the best approach would be to have an employee manually stop and review every transaction made by a customer before it is allowed to push through. That employee would require access to historical and current information about the customer and all their interactions in addition to every incoming and outgoing transaction to and from their account. Such an endeavor would not only be ridiculously inefficient, but would also be exorbitantly costly for the organization. 

Furthermore, while traditional rules-based transaction monitoring can detect suspicious activity based on certain behaviors, the surveillance process involved typically does not factor in behaviors that occurred before and after each specific instance. For truly impactful transaction monitoring, financial institutions should employ a state-of-the-art solution that incorporates multijurisdictional transaction filtering. Ideally, it should be able to successfully detect and process different forms of data embedded within financial transactions across various business lines. 

High Levels of ‘False Positives’

Traditional rules-based transaction monitoring systems identify criminal activity by automatically screening customer actions against a pre-determined set of regulations. Should an action break a rule, the system generates an alert and flags the transaction for further investigation by a human compliance officer.

One of the major issues with this approach is an overly simplistic application of the rules. Uniformly applying these rules throughout a bank or financial institution’s entire customer base, as well as every single transaction, may not be ideal. According to a report from Microsoft Azure, traditional transaction monitoring systems tend to generate huge numbers of false-positive alerts. This problem is so pervasive that most banks experience a false positive rate of anywhere between 95 to a whopping 99 percent.

Given that each alert must be attended to by a human investigator, the results can be downright catastrophic. The efficiency of an institution’s anti-money laundering efforts is also drastically reduced as the situation creates a significant backlog of cases pending investigation. It also reduces a compliance officer’s capacity to spend time reviewing alerts for transactions that may be truly suspicious. Having to deal with a large number of false positives may also lead to investigator fatigue, which can contribute to human error. All in all, the formulaic way that traditional transaction monitoring systems work can lead to real illicit activities going uninvestigated and criminals getting away scot-free.

Fortunately, most modern transaction monitoring software solutions are prepared to tackle these issues with event scoring applications that utilize machine learning and algorithmic models to reduce false positives. 

Eschewing traditional transaction monitoring systems and methods for more modern approaches can deliver a bevy of benefits to your business. Truly, upgrading your systems can improve data integrity, enable your organization to get to know your customers better, and empower your compliance officers to do their jobs more efficiently.

SHARE
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on LinkedInShare on TelegramShare on BlueskyShare on Mastodon
Tags: Transaction Monitoring Methods

Search

Translation

CVE ALERTS
📧

Email Delivery
Get threat intel straight to your inbox.

♾️

Unlimited Vendors
Track every technology in your stack.

🚨

All New CVE Alerts
Be the first to know about new flaws.

⚙️

Custom EPSS Threshold
Filter noise, focus on real risks.

💬

Slack & Teams Webhook
Integrate directly into your SecOps.

🚫

100% Ad-Free
Enjoy an uninterrupted reading experience.

$7/mo
Subscribe Now

🚨 Active Exploits in the Wild

  • CVE-2026-42016CVSS 8.1
    JFrog Artifactory (Self Hosted) versions before 7.133.11 are vulnerable to a privilege escalation attack due to a validation...
    Admin intel📅 Updated: Sep 11, 2026
  • CVE-2026-42018CVSS 7.5
    JFrog Artifactory could return an internal anonymous-user token to an unauthenticated caller when anonymous access is disabled, potentially...
    Admin intel📅 Updated: Sep 11, 2026
  • CVE-2026-20079CVSS 10.0
    A vulnerability in the web interface of Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center (FMC) Software could allow an unauthenticated,...
    Admin intelCISA KEV📅 Added to KEV: Sep 9, 2026📅 Updated: Sep 9, 2026
  • CVE-2025-25249CVSS 8.1
    A heap-based buffer overflow vulnerability in Fortinet FortiOS 7.6.0 through 7.6.3, FortiOS 7.4.0 through 7.4.8, FortiOS 7.2.0 through...
    Admin intelCISA KEV📅 Added to KEV: Sep 9, 2026📅 Updated: Sep 9, 2026
  • CVE-2026-87491
    Out of bounds write in V8 in Google Chrome prior to 153.0.8010.36 allowed a remote attacker to execute...
    Admin intelCISA KEV📅 Added to KEV: Sep 9, 2026📅 Updated: Sep 9, 2026
  • CVE-2026-19490
    Vulnerability in NetScaler ADC and NetScaler Gateway. This issue affects ADC: from 14.1 through 73.32 and from 13.1...
    CISA KEV📅 Added to KEV: Sep 9, 2026
  • CVE-2026-75650CVSS 10.0
    Adobe Commerce is affected by an Improper Neutralization of Special Elements Used in a Template Engine vulnerability that...
    Admin intelCISA KEV📅 Added to KEV: Sep 8, 2026📅 Updated: Sep 8, 2026
  • CVE-2026-81963CVSS 7.8
    Improper link resolution before file access ('link following') in Windows Update Stack allows an authorized attacker to elevate...
    CISA KEV📅 Added to KEV: Sep 8, 2026
Powered by CVE Watchtower

🔴 Live Critical Threats

  • CVE-2026-8778CVSS 9.8
    The MIPL Grouped Checkout Fields for WooCommerce – Customize & Organize Checkout...
  • CVE-2026-82107CVSS 9.6
    IBM DataStage on Cloud Pak for Data 5.4.0.0 could allow a remote...
  • CVE-2026-82100CVSS 9.6
    IBM DataStage on Cloud Pak for Data 5.4.0.0 could allow a remote...
  • CVE-2026-81204CVSS 9.8
    IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.11.5 could allow a remote attacker to...
  • CVE-2026-80424CVSS 9.1
    IBM DataStage on Cloud Pak for Data 5.4.0.0 could allow a remote...
  • CVE-2026-79724CVSS 9.8
    IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.11.5 could allow a remote attacker to...
  • CVE-2026-78573CVSS 9.8
    IBM ContextForge MCP Gateway 1.0.0 through 1.0.7 could allow a remote attacker...
  • CVE-2026-45764CVSS 9.1
    Suricata is a network Intrusion Detection System, Intrusion Prevention System and Network...
  • CVE-2026-19646CVSS 9.1
    IBM Common Licensing Agent 9.0, Agent 9.0.0.1, Agent 9.0.0.2, ART 9.0, ART...
  • CVE-2026-89094CVSS 9.9
    Forgejo before 16.0.4 allows remote code execution via a crafted template repository...
Powered by CVE WATCHTOWER

Our Websites
  • Penetration Testing Tools
  • The Daily Information Technology
  • Top Exploited CVEs
  • Daily CyberSecurity

    • About SecurityOnline.info
    • Advertise with us
    • Announcement
    • Contact
    • Contributor Register
    • Login
    • Disclaimer
    • DCMA
    • Privacy Policy
    • About SecurityOnline.info
    • Advertise on SecurityOnline.info
    • Contact Us

    When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here’s how it works

    • CVE Watchtower
    • CVE Statistics by Vendor 2026
    • Q2 2026 Report
    • Top Exploited CVEs
    • Bluesky
    • Facebook
    • Linkedin
    • Mastodon
    • RSS
    • Twitter
    • Youtube
    © 2017 - 2026 Daily CyberSecurity. All Rights Reserved.