Topic starter
15/08/2026 6:15 pm
TL;DR: More than 4 billion unique browsers and mobile devices were identified in 2024, Fingerprint says, underscoring how broad its device dataset has become. Device evidence now has to carry more of the trust decision after authentication, especially when proxies and emulators distort normal session patterns.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Fingerprint: “Celebrating 10+ years of device intelligence & fraud prevention”.
By the numbers:
- In 2024 alone, Fingerprint identified more than 4 billion unique browsers and mobile devices in over 250 countries and territories.
Key questions
Q: Why do device signals matter more when fraudsters use proxies, emulators, or anti-detect browsers?
A: Because those tools are designed to distort the session evidence that fraud controls rely on.
Q: What do teams get wrong when they rely only on runtime detection for AI agents?
A: They confuse visibility with governance.
Q: How should security teams use device intelligence without creating too much user friction?
A: Use device intelligence as one input into risk-based policy, not as a single hard verdict.
Practitioner guidance
- Define device signals as policy inputs Map browser, device, network, and automation signals to specific step-up, deny, and review decisions so the fraud policy is explicit and auditable.
- Separate human, bot, and agent handling Create distinct response paths for ordinary users, scripted bots, and AI agents so the same telemetry can drive different controls by risk tier.
- Tune controls for signal manipulation Test anti-detect browsers, VPNs, residential proxies, emulators, and virtual machines against your risk engine to see where device trust collapses.
Bottom line: Device intelligence has shifted from a niche signal source to a core fraud-control layer because attackers can now hide behind proxies, emulators, and AI-assisted automation.
Glossary terms: Device Intelligence, Smart Signals, Anti-detect Browser, Agentic Behaviour
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
This topic was modified 1 day ago by NHI Mgmt Group
15/08/2026 6:21 pm
Device intelligence is becoming an identity assurance layer, not just a fraud filter. The article shows that browser and device signals are now part of the decisioning fabric for login, payment, and suspicious-session handling. That matters because the trust question is no longer whether a user authenticated, but whether the session itself is plausible. Practitioners should treat device intelligence as governed identity evidence, not merely a background analytics feed.
A few things that frame the scale:
- U.S. fraud losses are projected to reach $40 billion by 2027.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How should fraud, IAM, and privacy teams share responsibility for device trust?
A: They should treat device trust as a shared control surface, because the same signal affects authentication, transaction risk, and data minimisation. Fraud owns detection quality, IAM owns decision integration, and privacy owns signal necessity and retention. Governance should align those three views before the model drifts out of policy.
👉 Read our full editorial: Device intelligence is becoming central to fraud prevention