Pre-Employment Background Checks

A subject joins the organisation with the pre-formed intent to gain access to sensitive data or otherwise contravene internal policies.

A subject makes comments either in-person or online that can damage the organization's brand through association.

A subject intentionally provides system or data access to a third party that is not authorized to access it.

A subject is persuaded against their will to access and exfiltrate or destroy sensitive data, or conduct some other act that harms or undermines the target organization. 

A subject is motivated by their political or philosophical beliefs to access and destroy or exfiltrate sensitive data or otherwise contravene internal policies.

A subject accesses and exfiltrates or destroys sensitive data or otherwise contravenes internal policies with the aim to be caught and penalised.

A subject seeks personal gain from another by accessing and exfiltrating or destroying sensitive data or otherwise contravening internal policies.

Hubris refers to excessive self-confidence, often manifesting as a belief that the subject is above rules, policies, or consequences. The subject sees themselves as indispensable, superior, or uniquely capable—and may rationalize policy violations because they “know better.”
 

The core trait of hubris is a sense of arrogance and superiority, where the subject views themselves as fundamentally above their peers in capability or judgment.

The key driver behind this motive is the belief that "I am the exception"—that normal rules or controls are for others, not for someone of their perceived caliber. This often leads to behavior such as circumventing controls, overriding governance processes, or acting unilaterally without authorization, because the subject sees compliance as an unnecessary constraint on their effectiveness. Their justification typically rests on the idea that "the rules don’t apply to me because I’m smarter, more important, or more experienced than those who created them."

A subject carries out covert actions, such as the collection of confidential or classified information, for the strategic advantage of a nation-state.

A subject, motivated solely by personal curiosity, may take actions that unintentionally cause or risk harm to an organization. For example, they might install unauthorized software to experiment with its features or explore a network-attached storage (NAS) device without proper authorization.

A subject, driven by excessive pride in their nation, country, or region, undertakes actions that harm an organization. These actions are self-initiated and conducted unilaterally, without instruction or influence from legitimate authorities within their nation, country, region, or any other third party. The subject often perceives their actions as acts of loyalty or as benefiting their homeland.

While the subject may believe they are acting in their nation’s best interest, their actions frequently lack strategic foresight and can result in significant damage to the organization.

A subject is motivated by ideology to access, destroy, or exfiltrate data, or otherwise violate internal policies in pursuit of their ideological goals.

Ideology is a structured system of ideas, values, and beliefs that shapes an individual’s understanding of the world and informs their actions. It often encompasses political, economic, and social perspectives, providing a comprehensive and sometimes rigid framework for interpreting events and guiding decision-making.

Individuals driven by ideology often perceive their actions as morally justified within the context of their belief system. Unlike those motivated by personal grievances or personal gain, ideological insiders act in service of a cause they deem greater than themselves.

A subject may be motivated by personal, financial, or professional interests that directly conflict with their duties and obligations to the organization. This inherent conflict of interest can lead the subject to engage in actions that compromise the organization’s values, objectives, or legal standing.

For instance, a subject who serves as a senior procurement officer at a company may have a financial stake in a vendor company that is bidding for a contract. Despite knowing that the vendor's offer is subpar or overpriced, the subject might influence the decision-making process to favor that vendor, as it directly benefits their personal financial interests. This conflict of interest could lead to awarding the contract in a way that harms the organization, such as incurring higher costs, receiving lower-quality goods or services, or violating anti-corruption regulations.

The presence of a conflict of interest can create a situation where the subject makes decisions that intentionally or unintentionally harm the organization, such as promoting anti-competitive actions, distorting market outcomes, or violating regulatory frameworks. While the subject’s actions may be hidden behind professional duties, the conflict itself acts as the driving force behind unethical or illegal behavior. These infringements can have far-reaching consequences, including legal ramifications, financial penalties, and damage to the organization’s reputation.

A subject holds access to both physical and digital assets that can enable insider activity. This includes systems such as databases, cloud platforms, and internal applications, as well as physical environments like secure office spaces, data centers, or research facilities. When a subject has access to sensitive data or systems—especially with broad or elevated privileges—they present an increased risk of unauthorized activity.

Subjects in roles with administrative rights, technical responsibilities, or senior authority often have the ability to bypass controls, retrieve restricted information, or operate in areas with limited oversight. Even standard user access, if misused, can facilitate data exfiltration, manipulation, or operational disruption. Weak access controls—such as excessive permissions, lack of segmentation, shared credentials, or infrequent reviews—further compound this risk by enabling subjects to exploit access paths that should otherwise be limited or monitored.

Furthermore, subjects with privileged or strategic access may be more likely to be targeted for recruitment by external parties to exploit their position. This can include coercion, bribery, or social engineering designed to turn a trusted insider into an active participant in malicious activities.

A subject’s placement within an organization shapes their potential to conduct insider activity. Placement refers to the subject’s formal role, business function, or proximity to sensitive operations, intellectual property, or critical decision-making processes. Subjects embedded in trusted positions—such as those in legal, finance, HR, R&D, or IT—often possess inherent insight into internal workflows, organizational vulnerabilities, or confidential information.

Strategic placement can grant the subject routine access to privileged systems, classified data, or internal controls that, if exploited, may go undetected for extended periods. Roles that involve oversight responsibilities or authority over process approvals can also allow for policy manipulation, the suppression of alerts, or the facilitation of fraudulent actions.

Subjects in these positions may not only have a higher capacity to carry out insider actions but may also be more appealing targets for adversarial recruitment or collusion, given their potential to access and influence high-value organizational assets. The combination of trust, authority, and access tied to their placement makes them uniquely positioned to execute or support malicious activity.

The subject does not have a threatening motive. However, the subject under takes actions without due care and attention to the outcome, which causes an infringement.

The subject deliberately pushes or tests organizational policies, rules, or controls to assess tolerance levels, detect oversight gaps, or gain a sense of impunity. While initial actions may appear minor or exploratory, boundary testing serves as a psychological and operational precursor to more serious misconduct.

Characteristics

• Motivated by curiosity, challenge-seeking, or early-stage dissatisfaction.
• Actions often start small: minor policy violations, unauthorized accesses, or circumvention of procedures.
• Rationalizations include beliefs that policies are overly rigid, outdated, or unfair.
• Boundary testing behavior may escalate if it is unchallenged, normalized, or inadvertently rewarded.
• Subjects often seek to gauge the likelihood and severity of consequences before considering larger or riskier actions.
• Testing may be isolated or gradually evolve into opportunism, retaliation, or deliberate harm.

Example Scenario

A subject repeatedly circumvents minor IT security controls (e.g., bypassing content filters, using personal devices against policy) without immediate consequences. Encouraged by the lack of enforcement, the subject later undertakes unauthorized data transfers, rationalizing the behavior based on perceived inefficiencies and low risk of detection.

The subject deliberately adopts or fabricates an identity—visually, digitally, or procedurally—to gain access, mislead stakeholders, or enable a planned insider event. Impersonation may occur in physical environments (e.g., unauthorized use of uniforms or cloned ID cards), digital platforms (e.g., email aliases or collaboration tools), or human interactions (e.g., job interviews). These behaviors typically precede unauthorized access, credential misuse, sabotage, or data exfiltration, and may allow subjects to operate without attribution or delay detection.

Impersonation is a high-risk preparatory behavior that often precedes direct misuse of trust. By assuming a false identity or misrepresenting role, authority, or affiliation, the subject gains unauthorized access or influence—without triggering traditional insider threat controls.

A third party private organization deploys an individual to a target organization to covertly steal confidential or classified information or gain strategic access for its own benefit.

A subject covertly collects confidential or classified information, or gains access, with the intent to sell it to a third party private organization.

A third party uses threats or intimidation to demand that a subject divulge information, grant access to devices or systems, or otherwise cause harm or undermine a target organization.

A subject facing financial difficulties attempts to resolve their situation by exploiting their access to or knowledge of the organization. This may involve selling access or information to a third party or conspiring with others to cause harm to the organization for financial gain.

A subject’s emotional state is exploited by a malicious third party, particularly during periods of heightened stress, grief, or personal hardship. The third party leverages this vulnerability to manipulate the subject into revealing sensitive information or performing actions that could compromise the organization.

A subject is extorted by a third party threatening to expose sexual or indecent images connected to them, a tactic commonly referred to as sextortion. These images may be real, obtained by a third party, AI-generated ‘deep fake’ images resembling the subject, or entirely fabricated claims. The extortion is typically financially motivated, which can drive the subject to harm the organization for personal gain. Alternatively, the third party may coerce the subject into compromising the organization by revealing sensitive information or granting unauthorized access.

A subject misappropriates, discloses, or exploits proprietary information, trade secrets, creative works, or internally developed knowledge obtained through their role within the organization. This form of data loss typically involves the unauthorized transfer or use of intellectual assets—such as source code, engineering designs, research data, algorithms, product roadmaps, marketing strategies, or proprietary business processes—without the organization's consent.

Intellectual property theft can occur during employment or around the time of offboarding, and may involve methods such as unauthorized file transfers, use of personal storage devices, cloud synchronization, or improper sharing with third parties. The consequences can include competitive disadvantage, breach of contractual obligations, and significant legal and reputational harm.

PII (Personally Identifiable Information) leakage refers to the unauthorized disclosure, exposure, or mishandling of information that can be used to identify an individual, such as names, addresses, phone numbers, national identification numbers, financial data, or biometric records. In the context of insider threat, PII leakage may occur through negligence, misconfiguration, policy violations, or malicious intent.

Insiders may leak PII by sending unencrypted spreadsheets via email, exporting user records from customer databases, misusing access to HR systems, or storing sensitive personal data in unsecured locations (e.g., shared drives or cloud storage without proper access controls). In some cases, PII may be leaked unintentionally through logs, collaboration platforms, or default settings that fail to mask sensitive fields.

The consequences of PII leakage can be severe—impacting individuals through identity theft or financial fraud, and exposing organizations to legal penalties, reputational harm, and regulatory sanctions under frameworks such as GDPR, CCPA, or HIPAA.

Examples of Infringement:

• An employee downloads and shares a list of customer contact details without authorization.
• PII is inadvertently exposed in error logs or email footers shared externally.
• HR data containing employee National Insurance or Social Security numbers is copied to a personal cloud storage account.

Export violations occur when a subject engages in the unauthorized transfer of controlled goods, software, technology, or technical data to foreign persons or destinations, in breach of applicable export control laws and regulations. These laws are designed to protect national security, economic interests, and international agreements by restricting the dissemination of sensitive materials and know-how.

Such violations often involve the failure to obtain the necessary export licenses, misclassification of export-controlled items, or the improper handling of technical data subject to regulatory oversight. The relevant legal frameworks may include the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), Export Administration Regulations (EAR), and similar export control regimes in other jurisdictions.

Insiders may contribute to export violations by sending restricted files abroad, sharing controlled technical specifications with foreign nationals (even within the same organization), or circumventing export controls through the use of unauthorized communication channels or cloud services. These actions are considered violations regardless of the recipient’s sanction status and may occur entirely within legal jurisdictions if export-controlled information is shared with unauthorized individuals.

Export violations are distinct from sanction violations in that they pertain specifically to the nature of the goods, data, or services exported, and the mechanism of transfer, rather than the status of the recipient.

Failure to comply with export control laws can result in civil and criminal penalties, loss of export privileges, and reputational damage to the organization.

Anti-trust or anti-competition violations occur when a subject engages in practices that unfairly restrict or distort market competition, violating laws designed to protect free market competition. These violations can involve a range of prohibited actions, such as price-fixing, market division, bid-rigging, or the abuse of dominant market position. Such behavior typically aims to reduce competition, manipulate pricing, or create unfair advantages for certain businesses or individuals.

Anti-competition violations may involve insiders leveraging their position to engage in anti-competitive practices, often for personal or corporate gain. These violations can result in significant legal and financial penalties, including fines and sanctions, as well as severe reputational damage to the organization involved.

Examples of Anti-Trust or Anti-Competition Violations:

• A subject shares sensitive pricing or bidding information between competing companies, enabling coordinated pricing or market manipulation.
• An insider with knowledge of a merger or acquisition shares details with competitors, leading to coordinated actions that suppress competition.
• An employee uses confidential market data to form agreements with competitors on market control, stifling competition and violating anti-trust laws.

Regulatory Framework:

Anti-trust or anti-competition laws are enforced globally by various regulatory bodies. In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) regulate anti-competitive behavior under the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and the Federal Trade Commission Act. In the European Union, the European Commission enforces anti-trust laws under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and the Competition Act.

Subjects with access to production and pre-production environments—whether as users, developers, or administrators—hold the potential to exploit or compromise highly sensitive organizational assets. Production environments, which host live applications and databases, are critical to business operations and often contain real-time data, including proprietary business information and personally identifiable information (PII). A subject with access to these systems can manipulate operational processes, exfiltrate sensitive data, introduce malicious code, or degrade system performance.

Pre-production environments, used for testing, staging, and development, often replicate production systems, though they may contain anonymized or less protected data. Despite this, pre-production environments can still house sensitive configurations, APIs, and testing data that can be exploited. A subject with access to these environments may uncover system vulnerabilities, access sensitive credentials, or introduce code that could be escalated into the production environment.

In both environments, privileged access provides a direct pathway to the underlying infrastructure, system configurations, logs, and application code. For example, administrative access allows manipulation of security policies, user permissions, and system-level access controls. Similarly, access to development environments can provide insights into source code, configuration management, and test data—all of which could be leveraged to further insider activity.

Subjects with privileged access to critical environments are positioned not only to exploit system vulnerabilities or bypass security controls but also to become targets for recruitment by external actors seeking unauthorized access to sensitive information. These individuals may be approached or coerced to intentionally compromise the environment, escalate privileges, or exfiltrate data on behalf of malicious third parties.

Given the sensitivity of these environments, subjects with privileged access represent a significant insider threat to the integrity of the organization's systems and data. Their position allows them to manipulate or exfiltrate sensitive information, either independently or in collaboration with external actors. The risk is further amplified as these individuals may be vulnerable to recruitment or coercion, making them potential participants in malicious activities that compromise organizational security. As insiders, their knowledge and access make them a critical point of concern for both data protection and operational security.

Subjects with authorized access to sensitive physical spaces—such as secure offices, executive areas, data centers, SCIFs (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities), R&D labs, or restricted zones in critical infrastructure—pose an increased insider threat due to their physical proximity to sensitive assets, systems, and information.

Such spaces often contain high-value materials or information, including printed sensitive documents, whiteboard plans, authentication devices (e.g., smartcards or tokens), and unattended workstations. A subject with physical presence in these locations may observe confidential conversations, access sensitive output, or physically interact with devices outside of typical security monitoring.

This type of access can be leveraged to:

• Obtain unattended or discarded sensitive information, such as printouts, notes, or credentials left on desks.
• Observe operational activity or decision-making, gaining insight into projects, personnel, or internal dynamics.
• Access unlocked devices or improperly secured terminals, allowing direct system interaction or credential harvesting.
• Bypass digital controls via physical means, such as tailgating into secure spaces or using misappropriated access cards.
• Covertly install or remove equipment, such as data exfiltration tools, recording devices, or physical implants.
• Eavesdrop on confidential conversations, either directly or through concealed recording equipment, enabling the collection of sensitive verbal disclosures, strategic discussions, or authentication procedures.

Subjects in roles that involve frequent presence in sensitive locations—such as cleaning staff, security personnel, on-site engineers, or facility contractors—may operate outside the scope of standard digital access control and may not be fully visible to security teams focused on network activity.

Importantly, individuals with this kind of access are also potential targets for recruitment or coercion by external threat actors seeking insider assistance. The ability to physically access secure environments and passively gather high-value information makes them attractive assets in coordinated attempts to obtain or compromise protected information.

The risk is magnified in organizations lacking comprehensive physical access policies, surveillance, or cross-referencing of physical and digital access activity. When unmonitored, physical access can provide a silent pathway to support insider operations without leaving traditional digital footprints.

A subject with a people management role holds significant influence over their direct reports, which can be leveraged to conduct insider activities. As a leader, the subject is in a unique position to shape team dynamics, direct tasks, and control the flow of information within their team. This authority presents several risks, as the subject may:

• Influence team members to inadvertently or deliberately carry out tasks that contribute to the subject’s insider objectives. For instance, a manager might ask a subordinate to access or move sensitive data under the guise of a legitimate business need or direct them to work on projects that will inadvertently support a malicious agenda.
• Exert pressure on employees to bypass security protocols, disregard organizational policies, or perform actions that could compromise the organization’s integrity. For example, a manager might encourage their team to take shortcuts in security or compliance checks to meet deadlines or targets.
• Control access to sensitive information, either by virtue of the manager’s role or through the information shared within their team. A people manager may have direct visibility into highly sensitive internal communications, strategic plans, and confidential projects, which can be leveraged for malicious purposes.
• Isolate team members or limit their exposure to security training, potentially creating vulnerabilities within the team that could be exploited. By controlling the flow of information or limiting access to security awareness resources, a manager can enable an environment conducive to insider threats.
• Recruit or hire individuals within their team or external candidates who are susceptible to manipulation or willing to participate in insider activities. A subject in a management role could use their hiring influence to bring in new team members who align with or are manipulated into assisting in the subject's illicit plans, increasing the risk of coordinated insider actions.

In addition to these immediate risks, subjects in people management roles may also have the ability to recruit individuals from their team for insider activities, subtly influencing them to support illicit actions or help cover up their activities. By fostering a sense of loyalty or manipulating interpersonal relationships, the subject may encourage compliance with unethical actions, making it more difficult for others to detect or challenge the behavior.

Given the central role that managers play in shaping team culture and operational practices, the risks posed by a subject in a management position are compounded by their ability to both directly influence the behavior of others and manipulate processes for personal or malicious gain.

A subject with access to payment environments or transactional data may deliberately or inadvertently leak sensitive payment card information. Payment Card Data Leakage refers to the unauthorized exposure, transmission, or exfiltration of data governed by the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS). This includes both Cardholder Data (CHD)—such as the Primary Account Number (PAN), cardholder name, expiration date, and service code—and Sensitive Authentication Data (SAD), which encompasses full track data, card verification values (e.g., CVV2, CVC2, CID), and PIN-related information.

Subjects with privileged, technical, or unsupervised access to point-of-sale systems, payment gateways, backend databases, or log repositories may mishandle or deliberately exfiltrate CHD or SAD. In some scenarios, insiders may exploit access to system-level data stores, intercept transactional payloads, or scrape logs that improperly store SAD in violation of PCI DSS mandates. This may include exporting payment data in plaintext, capturing full card data from logs, or replicating data to unmonitored environments for later retrieval.

Weak controls, such as the absence of data encryption, improper tokenization of PANs, misconfigured retention policies, or lack of field-level access restrictions, can facilitate misuse by insiders. In some cases, access may be shared or escalated informally, bypassing formal entitlement reviews or just-in-time provisioning protocols. These gaps in security can be manipulated by a subject seeking to leak or profit from payment card data.

Insiders may also use legitimate business tools—such as reporting platforms or data exports—to intentionally bypass obfuscation mechanisms or deliver raw payment data to unauthorized recipients. Additionally, compromised service accounts or insider-created backdoors can provide long-term persistence for continued exfiltration of sensitive data.

Data loss involving CHD or SAD often trigger mandatory breach disclosures, regulatory scrutiny, and severe financial penalties. They also pose reputational risks, particularly when data loss undermines consumer trust or payment processing agreements. In high-volume environments, even small-scale leaks can result in widespread exposure of customer data and fraud.

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.

The intentional or negligent disclosure of internal data, documents, or communications to members of the press or external media outlets—resulting in the loss of confidentiality, reputational harm, or operational compromise.

Media leaks represent a unique form of data loss. Unlike data exfiltration for financial gain or competitive advantage, this form of loss often involves symbolic targeting, reputational damage, or pressure tactics. Subjects may seek to embarrass the organization, expose internal misconduct, or spark public or political consequences. Leaks may be anonymous, pseudonymous, or openly attributed.

This behavior is sometimes rationalized by the subject as whistleblowing, though it often occurs outside authorized internal reporting channels and in violation of confidentiality agreements, regulatory constraints, or national security laws.

Media leaks blur the line between insider threat and whistleblowing. While some disclosures may raise legitimate ethical concerns, organizations must distinguish between protected disclosures under law (e.g., protected whistle-blower status) and unauthorized leaks that expose sensitive, regulated, or classified information.

These events often generate external investigative pressure (from regulators, media, or lawmakers) and may undermine internal trust—requiring not just forensic containment, but narrative and reputational management.