I have set a "3-d secure password" for my debit card, on my bank's website. But when I purchased something in amazon.co.uk, I went through the whole process without ever being asked for that 3D password. I was asked for a card number and its expiration date.

Can anyone explain to me what happened?

I live in Bulgaria.

Note: I also wasn't asked for CVC.

  • this thread seems relevant.
    – eis
    Commented Sep 3, 2017 at 20:44
  • 2
    @Stefan: not an answer, but please do take note that the behavior is acceptable within the context of US. In case of transaction fraud, US customers can easily get back their money. I'm not sure if this is the case with your bank or your country rules. Commented Sep 4, 2017 at 7:54
  • @HoàngLong country doesn't make a difference in this regard AFAIK
    – eis
    Commented Sep 4, 2017 at 13:01
  • 1
    IIRC, when "Verified by Visa" etc were first introduced they asked for the authentication for every transaction. They then relaxed that (probably because of customer pushback) to only require it for random sample of transactions, and/or for large amounts. It may also depend on whether you have a past history of transactions with the same company from the same IP address and/or PC - my online banking service doesn't consider transfers of a few hundred pounds sterling to be worth checking every time, for example.
    – alephzero
    Commented Sep 4, 2017 at 15:17
  • 1
    @HoàngLong the country involved is certainly part of the psychology of the "user experience". Living in the UK, I sometimes buy items from the US by credit card, and I'm usually left with the feeling that the US approach to "security" is about the same level I would expect if I was buying from somewhere in the third world. And that's from US-based multinational companies, not relatively small e-commerce sites!
    – alephzero
    Commented Sep 4, 2017 at 15:38

8 Answers 8


I just read my bank's page on 3D security. It says:

If the site supports payments to be made in additional security, you will see the logos of the respective card organization Verified by Visa or MasterCard SecureCode

So apparently it's up to the site to require or not require my 3D password.

  • 54
    In fact, it usually only benefits the vendor too. Sometimes it is even worse for you to use the 3D stuff, as some banks added fine print that makes you liable for fraud if the 3D password was used, while you wouldn't be liable if you didn't use it.
    – schlenk
    Commented Sep 3, 2017 at 21:37
  • 2
    While it is good that you read that page (and would ideally have done so when signing up) it might be considered part of the research you should have done before asking the question.
    – PJTraill
    Commented Sep 4, 2017 at 22:00
  • "Sometimes it is even worse for you to use the 3D stuff, as some banks added fine print that makes you liable for fraud if the 3D password was used, while you wouldn't be liable if you didn't use it." What gives the bank the right to give someone authority to steal from you? How can they say you will be liable for the charge and not whoever stole the information from you? Isn't that like making a law to say you cannot charge someone for robbing your house simply because they picked your lock or hacked your garage door opener?
    – user64742
    Commented Sep 4, 2017 at 23:28
  • 5
    @typhon No since the bank isn't making the law. It's like the insurance company saying they won't pay out insurance if you didn't bother to lock the garage. This has nothing to do with who committed a criminal offense. It has strictly to do with whether the bank will shoulder the fraudulent charge or if you will have to. You are agreeing to this when you get a credit card from them. Essentially they are saying "hey we will give you this cool piece of plastic and send money to people who can show they saw it. Plus these are the extra rules we have for when we pay and you have to pay us."
    – DRF
    Commented Sep 5, 2017 at 11:21
  • @DRF Ah, I took as you legally agreeing not to charge anyone who steals this 3d thing.
    – user64742
    Commented Sep 5, 2017 at 13:21

Security measures like "3D password", CVV, etc. do not exist to protect you the cardholder. Do not assume that someone who lacks them can't use your card number fraudulently. All they do is allow a merchant who chooses to use them as part of their card processing merchant agreement to obtain a lower transaction fee, on the basis that the feature reduce the rate of fraudulent transactions and thus chargebacks.

If anything, these features actually hurt you as the cardholder, as they make it easier for the merchant to "prove" you authorized a transaction and harder for you to dispute it. See my answer to a related question here:


  • 8
    @Eis I don't think he does. The sentence more basic is: Do not assume not having the password will prevent someone from using the card. Which is exactly the case :)
    – EpicKip
    Commented Sep 4, 2017 at 11:04
  • 2
    I also misread the sentence in the same way as eis until reading these comments; you may want to consider rewording to "Do not assume that someone lacking these details will prevent them from using your card fraudulently" to remove all ambiguity
    – Dave
    Commented Sep 4, 2017 at 18:22
  • 3
    @IMSoP except the cardholder was already fully protected because they do not carry the cost of fraud. All that the new features add from a card holder's perspective is more ways to have a fraud claim denied.
    – Ukko
    Commented Sep 5, 2017 at 18:40
  • 2
    @IMSoP Sure, if something costs me a nickel every other year and you can reduce that to 3 cents I have benefited. But the benefit is so small it is immaterial. There have been hundreds of dollars of fraud on my cards over the past couple of decades, the potential liability of me having to pay for even one of those transactions vastly outweighs the pennies of savings from calling out a fraudulent charge.
    – Ukko
    Commented Sep 5, 2017 at 19:26
  • 2
    @njzk2: Yes it does. Click through the linked answer on money.SE and the ones it links to. Any additional evidence of validity of a transaction is more work for the cardholder to refute. The best situation for a cardholder who has received a fraudulent charge to be in is the one where the merchant has absolutely no evidence to present, and the cardholder basically wins the chargeback by default. Commented Sep 6, 2017 at 19:13

Credit card transactions have varying levels of authentication, ranging from simply submitting the card number, to card+cvc, various password systems, chip-and-pin, and so on.

The important thing here is that it is the transaction, not the card, that has this. The type of authentication used influences things like who is liable for fraudulent transactions, the ease with which the cardholder can dispute transactions, the size of the transaction fee, and the likelihood of the transaction being rejected as potentially fraudulent.

Amazon has probably found that the increase in sales from a simplified payment system more than offsets the increased costs of fraud, so the only information they require for a payment is the credit-card number.

  • 2
    Things like one-click ordering is impossible if they require the 3D secure password every time. Commented Sep 5, 2017 at 12:47
  • 2
    Some payment providers are also applying heuristics to decided whether or not to ask for the 3DS code. The idea being they (the merchant) gets some protection from the credit card company, without inconveniencing regular users. No idea how effective they are, but you might get asked sometimes and not others from the same site
    – Adam
    Commented Sep 5, 2017 at 14:00

Amazon does not even request the CVV. The only piece needed to bill a card is the card number. Processing the transaction without the CVV or the 3D will be considered riskier by the card processor (thus being more expensive, or even refusing to provide service to them) but Amazon is keen to do that in exchange of a more streamlined process to their visitors.

  • 1
    Just for the records: a few months ago a local TV channel experimented a fraud (done consensually with the chosen victim) in which they cloned the card's PAN and expiration date using an enhanced NFC reader, and then they used that information to order goods. The target website was partially blurred in the video, but it was clearly Amazon judging from the blurred colours and layout Commented Sep 4, 2017 at 10:56
  • 3
    @usr-local-ΕΨΗΕΛΩΝ Why did they even bother to clone the card to do that experiment? In the UK you don't need the physical card to make transactions to a website - you only need to know the card number, expiry date, and security code. But I suppose if the card owner had just given them that information to type in, it wouldn't have been such a "interesting" (though misleading) item for the TV program!
    – alephzero
    Commented Sep 4, 2017 at 15:26
  • 1
    You can get a credit card's number and expiration date from short (2 metres distance) with a special RFID transmitter with additional radio power, through the pocket stored in the cardholder's pocket, which in that case was consensual. E.g. in queue in a museum. The TV experiment wanted to discuss the security of contactless cards showing how one could make an Amazon order easily Commented Sep 4, 2017 at 15:59

Credit Card security features are designed to protect the merchant. Other fields including name, expiration, CVV, Secure 3D, etc are only there to reduce the risk of fraud for the merchant.

If the merchant is willing to assume the risk of a credit card, they technically only need the credit card number to process a payment.

In most cases, all a credit (non-debit) card holder needs to do is declare "fraud" and funds are reversed in a short time. This is because in a dispute the burden of proof applies to the merchant that the payment by a customer is legitimate.

NOTE: These consumer protections are NOT true for debit cards including paypal... the burden of proof switches to the customer for bank account debit cards, and it often does take months to resolve.

This is why you should use actual credit cards instead for public pay stations including gas, parking meters, etc.


3D secure is optional. It's as simple as that. It may not comply with PCI DSS to not enforce 3D secure in this case.


3D Secure implementation is the prerogative of the Merchant. 3D Secure allows for liability shift in cases of fraud. 3D Secure is mandated in some geographies due to mandates from the central banks/authorities.


Maybe you turned on one-click ordering like I did. My provider never asks for cvv on Amazon but does on other sites. Possibly because I confirmed with two-factor authentication?

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .