ProfCheck LTD

𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗮𝗻 𝗘𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗲 𝗖𝗮𝗻 𝗕𝗲 𝗮𝗻 𝗔𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘁 𝗼𝗿 𝗮 𝗟𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 – 𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗼 𝗦𝗽𝗼𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗗𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 In 2024, the annual report by the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) on business fraud was published. The data is alarming – companies lose an average of 5% of their revenues each year due to employee-originated fraud, with the average loss per fraud case reaching $1.7 million. And here’s the striking part: 22% of cases involve losses exceeding $1 million, highlighting a real need to understand and protect against internal threats. 𝗧𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗱𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗶𝗲𝗹𝗱: 1. Asset Misappropriation – a widespread phenomenon (89% of cases), involving a range of theft methods, from fake payroll records to expense fraud. 2. Corruption – about a quarter of the cases involve unhealthy relationships with suppliers and customers, sometimes amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars. 3. Financial Statement Fraud – although relatively rare (5% of cases), this type of fraud carries an average economic damage of $766,000 per case. How are these frauds uncovered? 𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙙𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙢𝙚𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙙 𝙞𝙨 𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝙖𝙣𝙤𝙣𝙮𝙢𝙤𝙪𝙨 𝙧𝙚𝙥𝙤𝙧𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙚𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙤𝙮𝙚𝙚𝙨 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙚𝙭𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙨𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙘𝙚𝙨. In fact, 43% of cases were uncovered through such reports, underscoring the importance of establishing reliable and transparent reporting channels, both for employees and for suppliers and customers. Another critical factor is system monitoring – tracking processes, internal audits, and IT controls help identify cases quickly and minimize damages. The bottom line is that every organization needs to invest in proactive prevention and detection methods, ensuring that each employee understands their responsibility and commitment to the organization’s integrity. #InternalThreats #EmployeeTrust For further reading – link in the comments.

𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗙𝗮𝗿 𝗪𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗕𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗚𝗼 𝘁𝗼 𝗪𝗶𝗻? 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗘𝘀𝗽𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲 – 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗦𝘂𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗗𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝘆 𝗜𝘁 𝗔𝗹𝗹! The competitive world of business has, more than once, led companies to use tactics that seem straight out of a spy movie. Some of these examples have caused massive damages, hurt reputations, and even landed people in prison. So how does it happen, and what could have been done differently? 𝗔 𝗳𝗲𝘄 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲𝘀: 𝙂𝙤𝙤𝙜𝙡𝙚 𝙫𝙨. 𝙐𝙗𝙚𝙧 – When a former engineer downloaded thousands of confidential files before moving to Uber, it triggered a costly and complex legal battle. Uber ended up paying $245 million to settle the case. 𝘿𝙪𝙋𝙤𝙣𝙩 𝙫𝙨. 𝙆𝙤𝙡𝙤𝙣 – Secret information about Kevlar landed in the wrong hands. Kolon paid nearly a billion dollars for this costly lesson. 𝙏𝙚𝙨𝙡𝙖 𝙫𝙨. 𝙕𝙤𝙤𝙭 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙍𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙖𝙣 – When former employees transferred confidential data, Tesla had no choice but to sue. Zoox paid an undisclosed amount, and the case against Rivian is still ongoing. 𝙄𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙡 𝙫𝙨. 𝘼𝙈𝘿 – From an employee who carried sensitive chip documents to penalties and prison time, this case shook the chip industry. 𝙂𝙡𝙖𝙭𝙤𝙎𝙢𝙞𝙩𝙝𝙆𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙚 𝙫𝙨. 𝘾𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙖 – Valuable information about rare disease treatments cost the company millions and left a lasting impact. 𝘽𝙤𝙚𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙫𝙨. 𝙇𝙤𝙘𝙠𝙝𝙚𝙚𝙙 𝙈𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙞𝙣 – 25,000 stolen documents gave Boeing an unfair edge in bidding for military contracts. So how can scenarios like this be prevented? A good start is internal monitoring of employees in sensitive positions, thorough background checks, and setting clear access rules. Most of the time, those involved leave traces; with proper oversight, it’s possible to spot threats early and prevent damage. #CorporateEspionage #BusinessEthics Link to the full article in the comments 👇

"𝗗𝗼 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂’𝗿𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵?" When it comes to identifying internal threats, the truth is that not all information is visible on the surface. In OSINT-based background checks, the real challenge is to look beyond the outer profile and recognize subtle signs that could indicate hidden intentions. This might be a candidate with a personal agenda, a frustrated employee, or a business partner with interests that could lead to conflicts down the line. We live in a time where standard resumes or interviews alone just don’t cut it. This is where sentiment and behavior analysis come into play – a powerful tool that provides deeper insights into the character and intentions of the subject. By combining advanced tools with skilled analysts who understand the language, culture, and local nuances, we can uncover key details: does the individual have a tendency to engage in conflicts? Are there nuances suggesting dissatisfaction in their current role? Every piece of this puzzle can be crucial. Of course, this analysis requires not only technological capabilities but also a deep human understanding. The key is to detect subtleties between the lines – to pick up on those small cues that could indicate a potential problem. This blend of technology and human analysis enables reliable insights that help prevent internal threats. #InternalThreats #HumanBehavior

𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗖𝗮𝗻 𝗪𝗲 𝗨𝗻𝗺𝗮𝘀𝗸 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗟𝗶𝗲? 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗘𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗲 𝗙𝗿𝗮𝘂𝗱 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗺𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗧𝗲𝗰𝗵𝗻𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗦𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 In recent years, employee fraud has become an increasingly significant problem for organizations. As fraud tactics grow more sophisticated, so must our detection methods. We’re not just talking about forged documents or hiding basic facts – today, we see full-blown fabrication of skills, fake certificates, and even entire false identities, all aimed at landing a coveted position. Three main factors enable this surge: First, the ease with which logos and signatures can be replicated convincingly. Second, the rapid digital transformation post-COVID-19, which has, in some cases, loosened verification processes. Finally, the pressure on hiring managers to fill roles quickly, which can sometimes lead to compromises on in-depth checks. How can we counteract this? Technological tools are essential – biometric recognition, OCR for document verification, and even AI for identifying fakes – but I believe that combining human insight adds significant value. Algorithms can spot anomalies, but only an experienced examiner can ask the right questions to reveal if a candidate truly possesses the claimed knowledge and experience. So, the solution doesn’t stop with technology. There’s immense importance in building an organizational culture that prioritizes honesty and integrity. When employees know that the truth cannot be hidden, it helps prevent fraud from happening in the first place. Perhaps it’s time we focus less on “smart tools” and more on fostering values and ethics within our organizations. #EmployeeFraud #BackgroundChecks

𝗜𝘀 𝗘𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗲 𝗠𝗼𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗡𝗲𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗼𝗿 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲? When companies aim to ensure employee reliability, monitoring is often seen as a valuable tool to protect the organization. However, as U.S. regulators warn, there's a fine line between what is permissible and what crosses into employee privacy infringement. Recently, the CFPB (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) clarified that monitoring without the employee's knowledge can be problematic and even illegal, especially when using apps or algorithms to predict resignations, monitor union activity, or influence promotion decisions. We all understand that organizations need to balance safety and privacy—so the question is, how do we do this without crossing the line? Ultimately, it’s possible to operate within legal frameworks by providing transparency to employees, benefiting both the employee and the company. Additionally, it’s crucial to remember that employee consent for such monitoring is essential, and invasive tools on personal phones should be avoided. At the end of the day, it’s not just a legal matter—it's about maintaining trust. After all, how can we keep a positive work environment if employees feel someone is tracking every move, and without their clear consent? #EmployeeMonitoring #PrivacyRights (Full article in the comments)

𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗕𝗼𝘀𝘀 𝗦𝗵𝗼𝘄𝘀 𝗛𝗶𝘀 𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗿𝘀: 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗟𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗘𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗲 𝗟𝗲𝗳𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗥𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗧𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝘀 In this case, the company didn’t just lose a dedicated employee – it lost a vital part of its operational stability. This employee wasn’t just “another worker” – she was the one who sourced the equipment, provided the technical knowledge, and maintained a close connection with the team. She even covered for management’s gaps by bringing in equipment from home and taking on extra responsibilities out of personal commitment. When she left, the company found itself without these tools and without crucial support for the team. The loss was actually twofold: the company didn’t just lose a skilled worker but also lost all her personal investments in equipment, her internal knowledge, and her professional relationships. These were all elements under her full control – and when she left, they disappeared with her. This situation proves once again the importance of handover processes and documentation, and that an employer should ensure that critical knowledge and resources remain within the organization. When employees go above and beyond what's expected, especially by using personal funds to "support the team," this creates an internal risk that can gradually develop over time. Just as happened here, when such an employee leaves, the company is left without the tools and infrastructure it should have provided. It's a reminder that every employee who contributes value to an organization is an asset, and a wise manager won’t place all critical resources in the hands of one individual but will ensure proper backup and genuine appreciation for their contributions. #RiskManagement #EmployeeRetention Link to the full article in the comments.

𝗛𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗵𝘆 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗲𝘁𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗿 𝗖𝗼𝗿𝗽𝗼𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗘𝘀𝗽𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲? 𝗡𝗲𝘄 𝗥𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗻 𝗔𝗺𝗮𝘇𝗼𝗻’𝘀 𝗦𝗲𝗰𝗿𝗲𝘁 𝗢𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀! A recent case highlights just how serious a “human Trojan horse” threat can be. Reports on Amazon’s Project Curiosity reveal how Big River Services International, operating in secrecy, collected information on competitors under the guise of regular business. Amazon didn’t settle for general market insights – it went directly to platforms like Walmart and eBay to get a firsthand understanding of its rivals’ operations. This case raises critical points about ethics and corporate espionage. How far is a competitor allowed to investigate a rival and use the collected information? Does using such information truly enhance Amazon’s operations, or is it creating an unfair competitive edge? For companies today, this is a huge warning sign. While outsmarting competitors might seem tempting, it comes with its own risks. The lesson is clear: building competition based on values isn’t just about integrity – it creates a stable environment that avoids legal and reputational issues. The solution? Invest in robust data protection and adhere to strict security policies, especially for employees with access to sensitive information. Not every path to competition is worth taking, and understanding this can lead to a more stable and trustworthy business. #BusinessIntelligence #InternalThreats Link to the full article in the comments.

𝗔 𝗦𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗠𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮 𝗙𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗱𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝗼𝗿 𝗮 𝗦𝗲𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗧𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁? What are the chances that an innocent online conversation could turn into a national security risk? In this case, a temporary worker at Porbandar port connected on Facebook with someone presenting herself as an "Indian Navy officer" named Riya, stationed in Mumbai. For eight months, they exchanged messages, and gradually, this seemingly harmless connection transformed into something far more dangerous. She gained his trust, even sent small payments, persuading him to share sensitive information about the Coast Guard and ship locations. Just a few compliments and attention were enough to lure him into handing over classified information – to agents in Pakistan. This case reminds us how essential it is to brief even temporary employees on security protocols and keep an eye on those exposed to sensitive information. Prevention, background checks, and vigilance are the key to avoiding situations like this. #InternalThreat #SocialEngineering > Link to the full article in the comments

"𝗜 𝗪𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗧𝗿𝗼𝗷𝗮𝗻 𝗛𝗼𝗿𝘀𝗲" : 𝗔 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗮𝗻 𝗜𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗧𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁 When I read the confession of Jesse McGraw, who worked as an "insider" infiltrating organizations like Lockheed Martin, local police departments, and major corporations to breach their networks, it became clear how dangerous an internal threat can be. He wasn’t a sophisticated hacker operating from afar—he was a regular person with a polished resume and charm, hired just like any other employee. But in reality, he used the access he was given to steal data, disrupt systems, and damage companies from the inside. This confession holds up a mirror for us—how prepared are we to deal with threats that come from within our own organizations? McGraw boasted about infiltrating networks, stealing credentials, remotely activating microphones and cameras, and even selling confidential information—all while being someone who was fully trusted by his employers. The statistics are alarming: since 2018, there’s been a 47% increase in insider threat incidents, with a 31% rise in the financial damage to affected companies. Industries like professional services, manufacturing, and financial services are some of the most vulnerable to these types of threats. What’s surprising is how often these threats can arise from simple lapses in physical security. Just like McGraw took advantage of unrestricted access, any employee with unchecked permissions could pose a potential threat. Internal threats aren't limited to malicious individuals. Human error, excessive access to sensitive information, or even basic negligence can expose critical systems to risk. Often, we see cases of social engineering, where employees are unknowingly manipulated into granting access to sensitive data. McGraw's confession should remind all of us to rethink how we manage internal access within our organizations. When we trust employees, we also need to ensure that trust is reinforced by the right security measures—because the biggest threat could very well come from the person we least expect. #InsiderThreat #CyberSecurity Link to the full article in the comments.

𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗬𝗼𝘂 𝗛𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗹𝗲 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗧𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝗜 𝗘𝗿𝗮 The story of ByteDance firing an intern who decided to sabotage their AI models serves as a stark reminder of how crucial it is to safeguard both our infrastructure and our teams, especially when dealing with high-stakes projects like AI model development. The intern managed to insert malicious code into the system, which disrupted model training processes and led to a waste of valuable time and resources. No matter how ByteDance tried to downplay the damage, it's clear that this incident could have resulted in significant financial losses. So, how should they have handled this? 𝙎𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙘𝙩 𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙚𝙨𝙨 𝘾𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙤𝙡: An intern is part of the team, but they shouldn’t have access to such sensitive processes. Implementing robust security layers that prevent inexperienced staff from directly accessing critical information is essential. 𝙈𝙤𝙣𝙞𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝘾𝙤𝙙𝙚 𝘾𝙝𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙚𝙨: There are plenty of tools today that allow for real-time tracking of any code changes. Proper use of such tools could have detected abnormal behavior in real-time. 𝙊𝙧𝙜𝙖𝙣𝙞𝙯𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝘾𝙪𝙡𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙚: Incidents like these highlight the importance of organizational culture. Teams that feel connected to the company’s goals and understand the impact of their work on the larger system are more likely to be committed and less likely to act against the organization. In the end, it's not just about the technology – it's about people, trust, and having the right procedures in place. Neglecting these elements can lead to irreversible damage. #InternalThreats #AICyberSecurity (Link to the full article in the comments)