Non VBV bins 2026
Executive summary
A thriving underground market for “non‑VBV” BINs—Bank Identification Numbers that purportedly bypass 3‑D Secure and Verified‑by‑Visa (VBV) prompts—remains active in 2026, driven by carding forums, niche websites and Telegram channels that publish and sell lists and tools [1] [2] [3]. Sources vary wildly in reliability: some frame lists as research or testing for defenders, others openly promote carding techniques and cashout guides; independent verification of specific BIN claims is absent from the available reporting [4] [5] [6].
1. Underground supply: forums, pastebins and Telegram pumps the pipeline
Multiple carding forums and user‑generated paste sites host long lists of BINs labeled “non‑VBV” or “non‑MCSC,” and many threads explicitly invite contact via Telegram for fresh lists or paid drops, indicating an organized, marketplace structure rather than casual chatter [2] [3] [7]. Commercial sites and aggregator pages also republish the lists and advertise tools such as “silent checkers” and “live hits,” signaling an ecosystem that monetizes BIN data and transaction‑testing tools [4] [8].
2. What “non‑VBV” claims actually mean in these communities
The term as used across these sources means BIN ranges that reportedly avoid triggering VBV/3‑D Secure or Mastercard SecureCode (MSc) verification windows—i.e., transactions allegedly proceed without a one‑time password or extra authentication step [9] [8]. Sites that sell or circulate lists explicitly market them by promising fewer OTP prompts and easier “carding” flows, and even publish guides on how to test, probe and cash out using non‑VBV BINs [4] [6].
3. Reliability, decay and the “bait” problem
Several community sources warn that most free lists are outdated or deliberately misleading—Carding Legends reports that up to 90% of free BIN lists are “bait or outdated,” and that only high‑quality, constantly updated intelligence yields usable ranges [5]. Forum threads and premium sellers likewise emphasize constant testing and small‑scale “quiet” hits to map what remains viable, underlining the ephemeral nature of any published BIN list [5] [10].
4. Dual narratives: criminal tool vs researcher intelligence
While much of the material is clearly intended to facilitate card fraud—complete with cashout guides and laundering tips—some operators frame BIN research as legitimate testing or defensive intelligence useful to fraud teams and researchers studying 3‑D Secure bypasses [4] [5]. That stated alternative purpose exists in the same channels that offer practical instructions and links to criminal marketplaces, creating a blurred ethical line that benefits sellers and platform operators regardless of buyers’ claims [4] [5].
5. Marketplace tactics, monetization and operational security
Across the sampled reporting, actors monetize lists through Telegram contacts, paid forum posts, gated “premium” sites, PDFs and shared dumps; many posts explicitly trade on scarcity and freshness, pushing users toward private channels for timely hits [1] [11] [7]. This monetization model incentivizes disinformation—selling stale or fake ranges—while private channels embed layers of trust and reputation that are difficult for outsiders to audit [1] [7].
6. Limits of available reporting and risks in the ecosystem
The sources reviewed are largely self‑published, forum‑driven and designed for practitioners; there is no authoritative, independent validation of the specific BIN claims in the public reporting provided here, and many pages are explicitly commercial or criminal in tone, which limits verifiability and introduces clear legal and ethical concerns about relying on these lists [1] [2] [8]. Public defenders and fraud teams may legitimately study such artifacts, but the available material overwhelmingly reflects an illicit market rather than an evidence‑based security database [5] [4].