410039 a non vbv bin?
Executive summary
Query: “410039 a non vbv bin?” — Available online lists used by underground forums and carding sites repeatedly include BIN 410039 as associated with Citibank and present it among “non‑VBV” BIN lists; examples appear in forum posts and BIN lists collected on Scribd (see [1], [2]). Coverage is from carding-focused sites and forums that publish “non‑VBV” BIN lists; mainstream or bank publications do not appear in the provided results [2] [1] [3].
1. What the search results actually show: repeated underground listings
Multiple carding forums and BIN list documents in the provided set list 410039 alongside other BINs and label it as a Citibank BIN presented as “non‑VBV” (i.e., no Verified by Visa/3‑D Secure step at checkout) — see the Carder.market tag and Scribd lists that mention 410039 = CitiBank [1] [2]. These pages are part of communities sharing BINs, “drops,” and lists marketed to people who seek cards that bypass extra 3‑D Secure checks [1] [3].
2. What “non‑VBV” means in these sources
In the carding ecosystem cited, “non‑VBV” is used to describe BIN ranges that allegedly skip the Verified by Visa/3‑D Secure OTP flow during some online checkouts, making transactions easier for those attempting fraud; guides and lists explain non‑VBV BINs as card ranges that “skip OTP or 3D Secure during online checkout” [4]. Several forum posts and guides explicitly promote lists of Non‑VBV BINs and how attackers test them for “hits” [5] [6].
3. Source types and their agendas — why treat these claims cautiously
All relevant sources here are underground carding forums, sites that sell BIN lists, and user‑uploaded BIN documents (e.g., Carder.market threads, Blackhat Pakistan, Scribd files) — they have clear financial incentives to promote “working” BINs and to guide illicit use [1] [5] [7]. Those pages often promise “100% working” lists and “high approval BINs,” which serves the site’s commercial or reputational agenda among criminal buyers; independent verification from banks or neutral researchers is not present in the provided corpus [7] [6].
4. What the sources don’t provide or confirm
Available sources do not mention any official Citibank statement or third‑party payment‑industry verification that 410039 is categorically “non‑VBV” across all merchants or timeframes; the listings are crowd‑shared and likely time‑sensitive [2] [1] [3]. The provided materials also don’t show legitimate merchant testing logs or any mainstream cybersecurity reporting confirming persistent non‑VBV status for BIN 410039 [2] [3].
5. How these BIN lists are used in practice, per the sources
The carding community materials describe methods: testing BINs quietly on low‑risk merchants, sharing “drops,” and updating lists as issuers or merchants add 3‑D Secure protections — so a BIN’s listed status can change fast [8] [5]. Guides advise “silent testing” and rotating sources; other pages sell monthly or regularly updated BIN lists claiming better reliability [8] [6].
6. Competing perspectives and stakes
From the carding sites’ perspective, publishing 410039 as non‑VBV is valuable intelligence for illicit operators and is treated as actionable [1] [7]. From a defender or banking perspective (not in the provided results), such lists are usually the symptom of fraud and prompt banks/merchants to remediate; however, the documents here contain no such remediation notices or official responses (available sources do not mention bank or payment‑network responses) [2] [3].
7. Practical takeaway for readers
If your question is whether 410039 appears in “non‑VBV” BIN lists: yes, in multiple underground lists and user‑uploaded BIN compilations 410039 is shown as a Citibank entry and is included in non‑VBV lists [1] [2]. If you seek authoritative or defensive confirmation (bank statements, payment‑network advisories, or independent fraud‑research reports), available sources do not provide that — the material here is produced by forums and vendors whose motive is to claim “working” BINs for illicit use [1] [6] [7].
If you want, I can: 1) extract the exact snippets mentioning 410039 from the listed pages, or 2) summarize defensive best practices (from neutral sources — note: not present in the current results) that banks and merchants use to counter BIN‑based abuses.