Impersonation

The subject obtains, clones, fabricates, or otherwise manipulates physical access credentials—such as RFID cards, NFC badges, magnetic stripes, or printed ID cards—to gain unauthorized access to secure areas. This behavior typically occurs during early-stage preparation for insider activity and enables covert physical entry without triggering standard identity-based access controls.

Badge cloning can be performed using low-cost, widely available tools that can read and emulate access credentials. Forged ID cards are often visually convincing and used to bypass casual visual verification by staff or security personnel.

Example Scenarios:

• A subject uses a Flipper Zero device to clone the 125kHz RFID signal of a coworker's legacy access badge and uses it after hours to enter the data center undetected.
• A forged ID badge created with a common card printer and online templates is worn by a co-conspirator to impersonate an IT contractor and access a locked communications room.
• The subject photographs a single-use QR visitor code from a printed pass and shares it with an external party, who uses it to enter the premises before expiration.
• A magnetic stripe card is skimmed using a USB swipe reader and rewritten onto a blank hotel-style access card.

The subject leverages synthetic identity elements, AI-generated visuals, deepfake video, or falsified credentials to obtain employment or contractor status under a false identity. This tactic is commonly used to gain insider access to an organization while avoiding standard background checks, attribution mechanisms, or compliance controls.

Common methods include:

• Using AI-generated (GAN-based) profile photos that cannot be reverse-image searched.
• Employing real-time deepfake tools during video interviews to alter facial appearance or impersonate another individual.
• Substituting a more technically skilled individual to complete a remote hiring assessment or interview under a fabricated identity.
• Presenting credentials or documentation (e.g., CVs, diplomas, certifications) created using forgery tools or generative AI.

This tactic is particularly dangerous when used to embed individuals in sensitive roles such as DevOps, system administration, SOC analyst, or software engineering, where access to production systems and intellectual property is granted shortly after onboarding.

Example Scenarios:

• A subject uses a synthetic LinkedIn profile with AI-generated imagery and falsified work history to apply for a remote DevOps role. During the live video interview, they use a deepfake overlay to match their fabricated profile photo.
• A technically skilled individual conducts a coding interview using a deepfake of another person, allowing a less qualified "puppet" to be hired under false credentials. The qualified subject later assists or directs actions remotely.
• A malicious actor obtains employment under an assumed identity to infiltrate a target organization on behalf of a third party, using synthetic documents and deepfake liveness checks to pass onboarding.

The subject creates, modifies, or misuses digital identities within internal communication or collaboration environments—such as email, chat platforms (e.g., Slack, Microsoft Teams), or shared document spaces—to impersonate trusted individuals or roles. This tactic is used to gain access, issue instructions, extract sensitive data, or manipulate workflows under the guise of legitimacy.

Impersonation in this context can be achieved through:

• Lookalike email addresses (e.g., spoofed domains or typo squatting).
• Cloned display names in collaboration tools.
• Shared calendar invites or chats initiated under false authority.
• Use of compromised or unused accounts from real employees, contractors, or vendors.

The impersonation may be part of early-stage insider coordination, privilege escalation attempts, or subtle reconnaissance designed to map workflows, bypass controls, or test detection thresholds.

Example Scenarios:

• A subject registers a secondary internal email alias (john.smyth@corp-secure.com) closely resembling a senior executive and uses it to request financial data from junior employees.
• A subject joins a sensitive Slack channel using a display name that mimics another department member and quietly monitors ongoing discussions related to mergers and acquisitions activity.
• A compromised service account is used by an insider to initiate SharePoint document shares with external parties, appearing as a legitimate internal action.
• The subject impersonates an IT support contact via Teams or email to socially engineer MFA tokens or password resets.

The subject deliberately alters their physical appearance to resemble an authorized individual or category of personnel—such as employees, contractors, vendors, maintenance staff, or delivery personnel—in order to bypass physical security measures and gain access to restricted areas. This tactic relies on exploiting visual trust cues (e.g., uniforms, badges, company branding) and is often used during reconnaissance or access staging phases prior to an insider event.

Common methods include:

• Wearing uniforms or branded clothing associated with the target organization or a trusted third party.
• Mimicking attire patterns of specific departments (e.g., IT, facilities, catering).
• Carrying props such as tools, ID lanyards, or delivery equipment to reinforce the impersonated role.

Example Scenarios:

• A subject dresses in a facilities maintenance uniform to gain access to server rooms under the pretense of conducting HVAC repairs, with no scheduled work order.
• An insider recruits an accomplice who dresses as a delivery driver to stage equipment drops and tailgate into a secure loading dock.
• During an internal staff shift, the subject wears a borrowed lanyard and IT polo shirt to move through restricted floors without being challenged.
• A former contractor retains high-visibility branded clothing and uses it months later to re-enter a secure building undetected.

Routine reviews of user accounts and their associated privileges and permissions should be conducted to identify overly-permissive accounts, or accounts that are no longer required to be active.

A subject may be required to undergo a criminal background check prior to joining the organization, particularly when the role involves access to sensitive systems, data, or physical spaces. This preventative measure is designed to identify any prior criminal conduct that may present a risk to the organization, indicate a potential for malicious behavior, or conflict with legal, regulatory, or internal policy requirements.

Criminal background checks help assess whether a subject's history includes offenses related to fraud, theft, cybercrime, or breaches of trust—each of which may elevate the insider threat risk. Roles with elevated privileges, access to customer data, financial systems, or classified information are often subject to stricter screening protocols to ensure individuals do not pose undue risk to organizational security or compliance obligations.

This control is especially critical in regulated industries or environments handling national security assets, intellectual property, or financial infrastructure. In such settings, background checks may be embedded within broader personnel vetting procedures, such as security clearances or workforce integrity programs.

Where appropriate, periodic re-screening or risk-based follow-up checks—triggered by role changes or concerning behavior—can strengthen an organization’s ability to detect emerging threats over time. When implemented consistently, background checks can serve as both a deterrent and a proactive defense against insider threat activity.

An individual’s prior employment history may be verified through formal reference checks conducted prior to their onboarding with the organization. This process aims to validate key aspects of the subject’s professional background, including dates of employment, job titles, responsibilities, and performance, as well as behavioral or conduct-related concerns.

Reference checks serve as a critical layer in assessing an individual’s suitability for a given role, particularly where access to sensitive systems, data, or personnel is involved. When conducted thoroughly, this process can help identify discrepancies in a candidate’s reported history, uncover patterns of misconduct, or reveal concerns related to trustworthiness, reliability, or alignment with organizational values.

Employment reference checks are particularly relevant to insider threat prevention when evaluating candidates for positions involving privileged access, managerial authority, or handling of confidential information. These checks may also uncover warning signs such as unexplained departures, disciplinary actions, or documented integrity issues that elevate the risk profile of the individual.

Organizations may perform this function internally or engage trusted third-party screening providers who specialize in pre-employment due diligence. When combined with other vetting measures—such as criminal background checks and social media screening—reference checks contribute to a layered approach to workforce risk management and help mitigate the likelihood of malicious insiders gaining access through misrepresentation or concealment.

Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) is a critical component of a comprehensive security strategy, providing an additional layer of defense by requiring more than just a password for system access. This multi-layered approach significantly reduces the risk of unauthorized access, especially in cases where an attacker has obtained or guessed a user’s credentials. MFA is particularly valuable in environments where attackers may have gained access to user credentials via phishing, data breaches, or social engineering.

For organizations, enabling MFA across all critical systems is essential. This includes systems such as Active Directory, VPNs, cloud platforms (e.g., AWS, Azure, Google Cloud), internal applications, and any resources that store sensitive data. MFA ensures that access control is not solely dependent on passwords, which are vulnerable to compromise. Systems that are protected by MFA require users to authenticate via at least two separate factors: something they know (e.g., a password), and something they have (e.g., a hardware token or a mobile device running an authenticator app).

The strength of MFA depends heavily on the factors chosen. Hardware-based authentication devices, such as FIDO2 or U2F security keys (e.g., YubiKey), offer a higher level of security because they are immune to phishing attacks. These keys use public-key cryptography, meaning that authentication tokens are never transmitted over the network, reducing the risk of interception. In contrast, software-based MFA solutions, like Google Authenticator or Microsoft Authenticator, generate one-time passcodes (OTPs) that are time-based and typically expire after a short window (e.g., 30 seconds). While software-based tokens offer a strong level of security, they can be vulnerable to device theft or compromise if not properly secured.

To maximize the effectiveness of MFA, organizations should integrate it with their Identity and Access Management (IAM) system. This ensures that MFA is uniformly enforced across all access points, including local and remote access, as well as access for third-party vendors or contractors. Through integration, organizations can enforce policies such as requiring MFA for privileged accounts (e.g., administrators), as these accounts represent high-value targets for attackers seeking to escalate privileges within the network.

It is equally important to implement adaptive authentication or risk-based MFA, where the system dynamically adjusts its security requirements based on factors such as user behavior, device trustworthiness, or geographic location. For example, if a subject logs in from an unusual location or device, the system can automatically prompt for an additional factor, further reducing the likelihood of unauthorized access.

Regular monitoring and auditing of MFA usage are also critical. Organizations should actively monitor for suspicious activity, such as failed authentication attempts or anomalous login patterns. Logs generated by the Authentication Service Providers (ASPs), such as those from Azure AD or Active Directory, should be reviewed regularly to identify signs of attempted MFA bypass, such as frequent failures or the use of backup codes. In addition, setting up alerts for any irregular MFA activity can provide immediate visibility into potential incidents.

Finally, when a subject no longer requires access, it is critical that MFA access is promptly revoked. This includes deactivating hardware security keys, unlinking software tokens, and ensuring that any backup codes or recovery methods are invalidated. Integration with the organization’s Lifecycle Management system is essential to automate the deactivation of MFA credentials during role changes or when an employee departs.

An individual may be required to present and verify valid government-issued identification prior to their association with the organization. This process serves as a foundational identity assurance mechanism, ensuring that the subject is who they claim to be and enabling further vetting procedures to be accurately applied.

Verification of official identification—such as passports, national ID cards, or driver’s licenses—supports compliance with legal, regulatory, and internal requirements related to employment eligibility, right-to-work verification, security clearance eligibility, and access provisioning. It also helps establish a verifiable link between the individual and other background screening measures, including criminal record checks, reference verification, and credential validation.

In the context of insider threat prevention, government-issued ID verification helps prevent identity fraud and the onboarding of individuals using false or stolen identities to gain unauthorized access to sensitive roles, environments, or data. This is particularly critical in sectors handling classified information, critical infrastructure, or financial assets, where subjects may otherwise attempt to obscure prior conduct or affiliations.

Organizations may perform this verification in-house using secure document validation systems or biometric identity matching, or they may rely on trusted third-party identity verification providers offering digital identity assurance services. As part of a multi-layered personnel screening framework, this control helps reduce the risk of malicious insiders gaining a foothold under false pretenses.

Implement a process whereby HR data and observations, including those from managers and colleagues, can be securely communicated in a timely manner to investigators, triggering proactive monitoring of potential insider threats early in their lifecycle. Collaboration between HR teams, managers, colleagues, and investigators is essential for detecting concerning behaviors or changes in an employee's personal circumstances that could indicate an increased risk of insider threat.

Mental Health and Personal Struggles

• Trigger Event: HR receives reports or observes a significant change in an employee's behavior or performance, which may indicate mental health issues or personal struggles that could elevate the likelihood of an insider threat. This information may come from managers, colleagues, or direct observations within HR.
• Indicator: Multiple reports from managers, direct supervisors, or colleagues highlighting behavior changes such as stress, depression, or erratic actions.
• Response: HR teams should notify investigators of high-risk employees with visible signs of distress or any reported instances that might indicate susceptibility to manipulation or exploitation.

Negative Statements or Discontent with the Company

• Trigger Event: HR identifies instances of employees making negative statements about the company, its leadership, or its operations, potentially through personal social media channels, internal communications, or third-party reports. Additionally, such concerns might be raised by managers or colleagues.
• Indicator: Recorded incidents where employees voice dissatisfaction in forums or interactions that may expose vulnerabilities within the company, which may come from colleagues, managers, or HR’s internal channels.
• Response: Immediate referral to investigators for further investigation, including tracking if such sentiments are coupled with any increase in risky behaviors (e.g., accessing sensitive data or systems without authorization).

Excessive Financial Purchases (Potential Embezzlement or Third-Party Influence)

• Trigger Event: HR or finance teams notice discrepancies in an employee's personal financial behavior—particularly excessive spending patterns that appear inconsistent with their known salary or financial profile. This could indicate embezzlement, financial mismanagement, or payments from third parties. Such concerns may also be raised by managers or colleagues.
• Indicator: Transactions that show a high degree of personal spending or financial behavior inconsistent with the employee’s compensation, possibly flagged by HR, finance, or colleagues who notice unusual behaviors.
• Response: Referral to investigators for correlation with employee access to financial or sensitive company systems, along with further scrutiny of potential illicit financial transactions. Third-party or whistleblower reports, including from colleagues or managers, may also be investigated as part of a broader risk assessment.

Hearsay and Indirect Reports

• Trigger Event: Anonymous or informal reports—such as rumors or gossip circulating in the workplace—that hint at potential insider threat behaviors. These reports, often from colleagues or managers, may be unsubstantiated, but they still warrant an alert if the volume or credibility of the information increases.
• Indicator: Reports or concerns raised by employees, colleagues, or external parties suggesting that an employee may be engaging in unusual behaviors, such as excessive contact with external vendors, financial irregularities, or internal dissatisfaction.
• Response: Investigators work with HR to assess the situation by cross-referencing any concerns, including those from colleagues or managers, with the employee's activity patterns, communication, and access to sensitive systems.

Implementation Considerations

• Collaboration Framework: A clear and secure protocol for HR, managers, colleagues, and investigators to share critical information regarding employees at risk. This should maintain employee privacy and legal protections, while still enabling timely alerts.
• Confidentiality and Privacy: All information related to personal behavior, health, or financial matters must be handled with sensitivity and in accordance with legal and regulatory frameworks, such as GDPR or local privacy laws.
• Continuous Monitoring: Once flagged, employees should be monitored for any other risk indicators, including changes in data access patterns, unapproved system access, or behavior that correlates with identified risks.

Training should equip employees to recognize manipulation tactics, such as social engineering and extortion, that are used to coerce actions and behaviors harmful to the individual and/or the organization. The training should also encourage and guide participants on how to safely report any instances of coercion.

Provide a process for all staff members to report concerning and/or suspicious behaviour to the organization's security team for review. An internal whistleblowing process should take into consideration the privacy of the reporter and the subject(s) of the report, with specific regard to safeguarding against reprisals against reporters.

Access to specific areas of a site should be restricted to only authorized personnel, through the use of controls such as locked doors, mantraps, and gates requiring an ID badge.

Background checks should be conducted to ensure whether the information provided by the candidate during the interview process is truthful. This could include employment and educational reference checks, and a criminal background check. Background checks can highlight specific risks, such as a potential for extortion.

Privileged Access Management (PAM) is a critical security practice designed to control and monitor access to sensitive systems and data. By managing and securing accounts with elevated privileges, PAM helps reduce the risk of insider threats and unauthorized access to critical infrastructure.

Key Prevention Measures:

Least Privilege Access: PAM enforces the principle of least privilege by ensuring users only have access to the systems and data necessary for their role, limiting opportunities for misuse.

• Just-in-Time (JIT) Access: PAM solutions provide temporary, on-demand access to privileged accounts, ensuring users can only access sensitive environments for a defined period, minimizing exposure.
• Centralized Credential Management: PAM centralizes the management of privileged accounts and credentials, automatically rotating passwords and securely storing sensitive information to prevent unauthorized access.
• Monitoring and Auditing: PAM solutions continuously monitor and log privileged user activities, providing a detailed audit trail for detecting suspicious behavior and ensuring accountability.
• Approval Workflows: PAM incorporates approval processes for accessing privileged accounts, ensuring that elevated access is granted only when justified and authorized by relevant stakeholders.

Benefits:

PAM enhances security by reducing the attack surface, improving compliance with regulatory standards, and enabling greater control over privileged access. It provides robust protection for critical systems by limiting unnecessary exposure to high-level access, facilitating auditing and accountability, and minimizing opportunities for both insider and external threats.

CCTV can be used to observe activity within or around a site. This control can help to detect preparation or infringement activities and record it to a video file.

Custom or pre-built detection logic can be used to determine if a user account has authenticated from two geographic locations in a period of time that is not feasible for legitimate travel between the locations.

During the recruitment or onboarding process, the individual’s appearance in in-person or online interviews should be compared with their government-issued photographic identification, which must match the details provided by the applicant before the interview. This helps detect potential fraudulent discrepancies and reduces the risk of one person attending the interview while another carries out the work for the organization.