One threat, two responses: Why cybersecurity and fraud teams can’t stay siloed

• Fraud often begins with a cyber incident, but early warning signs go unnoticed when cybersecurity and fraud teams operate in silos. 
• Silos persist between cybersecurity and fraud teams due to a lack of communication and data-sharing gaps, which undermine banks’ ability to detect and stop fraud early. 
• Payment-specific threat intelligence gives security teams a shared lens to identify links between cyber incidents and fraud risks, enabling faster, more proactive responses that reduce losses and improve cyber fraud integration.  

Fraud and cybersecurity teams are chasing the same criminals down parallel tracks.

In most organizations, cybersecurity teams focus on detecting and containing breaches, while fraud teams monitor suspicious transactions that signal stolen data in use. Their investigations are often linked, but without coordination, the early warning signs of fraud slip through the cracks. 

This gap is costing banks: 60% of global fraud and risk executives say they don’t learn about cyber breaches until after fraud losses have already started to occur and stolen data has been monetized. This delay gives attackers a head start and leaves banks playing catch-up.

As cyber-enabled fraud surges, banks must treat cyber fraud integration as a business priority, not just a technical fix. It starts with C-level support for breaking down silos and continues with practical steps like improving data sharing, aligning success metrics and taking a unified approach to threat intelligence.

Cybersecurity and fraud prevention teams share the goal of keeping banks secure, but often remain siloed due to fundamental differences.

Key barriers include:

• Priorities and success metrics 
• Operating language 
• Organizational structure 

Although cybersecurity and fraud teams both protect the bank, they operate with distinct priorities and key performance indicators (KPIs).

Cybersecurity teams:

• Focus on protecting networks, systems and data from unauthorized access or attack 
• Detect and contain breaches by monitoring technical vulnerabilities and threat activity 
• Measure success by metrics like speed of incident response, threat containment and compliance with security frameworks 

Fraud teams:

• Focus on protecting customers and transactions from fraudulent activity to maintain customer trust 
• Detect suspicious activity through payment monitoring and fraud detection tools, and work directly with customers to resolve issues 
• Measure success based on metrics like reduction in fraud rates, recovery of losses and customer satisfaction

Because each group has different goals, there isn’t a common taxonomy or mechanism to facilitate information exchange on a regular basis.

Cybersecurity and fraud teams use different vocabularies, which contributes to communication challenges. For example, cybersecurity leaders may use the term “compromise” to describe an attacker breaching the bank’s internal systems. For fraud teams, the same term might describe a breached merchant or customer account.

These differences in vocabulary seem minor, but they point to a larger issue: cybersecurity and fraud prevention are separate disciplines that rarely find themselves in conversation. The lack of a shared language makes collaboration difficult.

At many financial institutions, cybersecurity and fraud teams sit in different divisions and report through separate chains of command. 

As a result, information is typically only exchanged when urgent issues arise. In fact, 24% of global issuers and acquirers still lack formal processes for cyber-fraud collaboration. 

Banks need intentional change management to overcome these structural barriers. By establishing regular touchpoints and using shared intelligence, fraud and cybersecurity teams can show the value of integration and encourage leaders to drive deeper structural change.

A lack of integration between cybersecurity and fraud teams is more than a theoretical risk. It plays out in real-world fraud cases every day. 

For example, here is how a digital skimming attack can escalate with siloed cybersecurity and fraud teams:

1. Cyber team notices a breach risk: The cybersecurity team receives intelligence about rising malware injections on e-commerce sites. (These attacks are surging. Nearly 11,000 unique e-commerce domains were identified with e-skimmer infections in 2024, three times more than in 2023.) Since the threat doesn’t affect the bank’s digital infrastructure directly, the cyber team doesn’t share the information or take any action. 
2. Fraud team sees fallout: Weeks later, the issuing bank fraud team notices a surge in chargebacks and suspicious transactions. Without context from the cyber team on the surge of e-skimmer attacks, they treat the activity as isolated fraud. 
3. Root cause revealed too late: After deeper investigation, the fraud team traces the fraud back to the infected sites. By then, attackers have already monetized the stolen card data. The damage isn’t limited to the cardholder. The acquirer often absorbs the debt or cost of the fraudulent transactions. 

Though the cybersecurity team identified a potential threat, they lacked a process to pass intelligence to the fraud team, allowing fraud to escalate undetected.

One of the best places to start breaking down fraud-cyber silos is with shared threat intelligence.

Threat intelligence provides data and insights into emerging cyberattacks. When that intelligence is tailored to payments, it helps bridge the gap between cyber incidents and transaction-level fraud risks, giving teams a shared foundation to act on.

With this context, cybersecurity and fraud teams can:

• Share data consistently 
• Speak a common language 
• Coordinate threat response 

Cyber and fraud teams must move beyond ad-hoc communication and establish regular touchpoints to share insights. Payments-specific threat intelligence supports this process by creating a shared foundation of relevant information. 

For example, weekly intelligence syncs allow groups to collaborate and identify emerging fraud patterns. During these syncs, teams might securely share information about compromised merchant checkout pages or stolen card numbers appearing on criminal marketplaces, following data protection best practices. 

Likewise, leaders can reinforce this collaboration. CISOs can ask about fraud risks in cyber briefings or involve fraud teams in relevant threat reviews, signaling that data sharing is an organizational priority. Equally important is ensuring that cardholder information and merchant credentials are protected and processed safely to prevent further compromise.

Cybersecurity and fraud teams define risk differently, which creates challenges for alignment. However, using threat intelligence to map technical threats to downstream fraud helps teams understand how their priorities overlap. 

For CISOs, this connection clarifies the business stakes behind technical defenses. For fraud analysts, it ties fraudulent activity back to its cyber origins. A shared frame of reference enables teams to allocate resources more efficiently and demonstrate ROI from cybersecurity and fraud prevention investments. 

When cyber and fraud teams share intelligence, they can coordinate their responses rather than work in silos. 

For example, threat intelligence may flag unusual card-testing activity on a specific merchant website, during which fraudsters initiate small test transactions to validate stolen cards. In turn, teams can review the information jointly and fraud teams can monitor at-risk card portfolios for related activity, enabling them to intervene before attackers scale their operations.

Cybersecurity and fraud prevention can no longer fight separate battles. When they do, attackers exploit the gaps. However, when teams collaborate, banks can take coordinated action to stop losses before they escalate.

Mastercard Threat Intelligence equips fraud teams with curated intelligence on the latest payment fraud threats and vulnerabilities, empowering them to collaborate with cyber teams and act early to reduce losses. 

Is your organization ready to close the gap between cyber and fraud? Discover how Mastercard Threat Intelligence can help.

Here’s a closer look at common questions about cyber fraud integration:

Since many fraudulent schemes originate as cyberattacks, integration is critical to surface early warning signs. It enables banks to link cyber incidents directly to fraud risks so teams can respond before losses escalate and protect customers.

Collaboration between cybersecurity and fraud teams helps connect early cyber indicators to downstream payment fraud. By sharing intelligence, teams can plan proactively, coordinate response efforts and protect customers more effectively from evolving threats. 

Threat intelligence provides visibility into criminal tactics before fraud occurs. Payments-specific threat intelligence highlights risks tied to cards, accounts and merchants — enabling teams to act faster, earlier and minimize financial impact.