Imagine receiving an urgent video call from what appears to be your CEO, instructing a large fund transfer. The face, the voice, the mannerisms – all are spot-on. Yet it’s not your CEO at all, but an AI-generated imposter. Scenarios like this are no longer science fiction; they are part of today’s global cybersecurity landscape. In fact, recent reports show deepfake attacks occurring with alarming frequency – on the order of one every five minutes in 2024. Deepfakes – hyper-realistic AI-generated media – have rapidly evolved from internet curiosities to potent weapons in the hands of threat actors. This first section provides a deep dive into the deepfakes dilemma facing security professionals: the technologies behind these fabrications, the vulnerabilities they exploit, the threat actors leveraging them, and how we can fight back through detection and defense.

The Global Rise of Deepfake Threats

Once a niche toy for visual effects artists and hobbyists, deepfakes have exploded into a global cybersecurity threat. The term deepfake (a portmanteau of “deep learning” and “fake”) refers to synthetic media – whether video, audio, or images – generated or manipulated by AI to convincingly misrepresent someone as doing or saying something they never did . Advances in deep learning, especially Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) and other AI models, have enabled the creation of fake videos and voices that are increasingly difficult to distinguish from reality . In a GAN, two neural networks – a generator and a discriminator – engage in a digital cat-and-mouse game: the generator fabricates content (a face, a voice clip, etc.), while the discriminator evaluates its authenticity. Through many iterations, the generator learns to produce output so realistic that even the AI discriminator is often fooled . The result is synthetic media that can be nearly indistinguishable from authentic media to the human eye and ear .

The rise of deepfakes comes at a time when societies and businesses are already grappling with misinformation and social engineering attacks. Now, the scale and credibility of falsification have leapt forward. Global surveys and reports underscore the magnitude of the threat:

• A 2024 analysis by a cybersecurity institute found deepfake incidents surging dramatically – with a 245% year-over-year increase in detections from Q1 2023 to Q1 2024 . What were once “basic” fraud tricks are giving way to hyper-realistic AI-driven deceptions .
• Nearly half of organizations worldwide (47%) have already encountered a deepfake in the wild . In a global survey of tech decision-makers, 70% believed that AI-generated media attacks would have a high impact on their organization . Tellingly, deepfake threats now rank on par with long-familiar risks like phishing and ransomware. In one 2024 survey, 61% of security leaders cited deepfakes as a top concern, equal to the concern for social engineering and just behind password breaches .
• The financial fallout is real: cybercriminals have already used deepfakes to steal millions. From fraudulent fund transfers to stock manipulation schemes, the economic damage tied to deepfake scams continues to mount . The FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center has warned of a spike in complaints involving deepfakes used for fraud and identity theft .

This global uptick is forcing a collective reckoning. Businesses, governments, and even the general public are becoming more wary that “seeing is no longer believing.” In Deloitte’s 2024 Connected Consumer Study, 59% of respondents admitted they have a hard time distinguishing AI-generated videos or audio from real content . Over two-thirds were concerned about being deceived or scammed by synthetic media threats . In short, deepfakes are eroding trust in digital content on a broad scale .

Why the sudden surge? Key drivers include the democratization of AI tools and the lucrative opportunities for attackers. Powerful generative AI software that used to be confined to research labs is now widely available – sometimes open-source or via “deepfake-as-a-service” platforms on the dark web . Would-be attackers can purchase or commission custom-made deepfakes if they lack the skills to create their own; for example, underground marketplaces already offer services to generate targeted deepfake videos for a price . At the same time, the sheer amount of photos, videos, and voice recordings people post online provides a rich fuel source (training data) to build highly convincing fakes of virtually anyone. High-profile leaders, executives, and public figures are especially at risk since so much footage of them is publicly available – but even regular individuals have images and voice clips online that can be scraped to train an impersonation model.

Equally important is that deepfakes scale. An attacker can deploy many simultaneous fraudulent calls or videos (bots posing as humans), or reuse a convincing fake across multiple victims, vastly amplifying the reach of social engineering. A recent identity fraud report flagged AI-assisted deepfakes and synthetic identities as the fastest-growing global threat, noting that conventional scams that were “easy to discern” are being eclipsed by these AI fabricationsthat can fool even vigilant users . In summary, the deepfake threat has moved from theoretical to immediate. We are witnessing a global “arms race” between deepfake creators and those trying to defend against them.

The Technology Behind Deepfakes

To effectively recognise and counter deepfakes, it’s crucial to understand how they are made. Modern deepfakes are the product of advanced artificial intelligence models that synthesize realistic media. The most common methods involve deep neural networks trained on large datasets of real recordings. Key technologies include:

• Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) – As introduced above, GANs consist of a generator model that creates fake images/video frames and a discriminator model that judges them. Through continuous training, GANs can produce remarkably authentic-looking outputs, whether it’s a human face or a voice clip . Many deepfake video tools use GAN variants or autoencoder networks to swap faces in video footage. For instance, to create a video of Person A saying something they never said, a deepfake algorithm may train on many images of Person A and Person B. The trained generator can then blend Person A’s face seamlessly onto Person B’s speaking body in each frame, matching expressions and lip movements. The result is a face-swap video where Person A appears to speak with Person B’s voice (or an AI-cloned voice).
• Voice Cloning and Audio Synthesis – Deepfake audio is generated using AI models that learn someone’s voice characteristics. Techniques range from text-to-speech engines mimicking a voice, to voice conversion models that transform one person’s speech into the voice of another. Modern AI voice models (sometimes based on architectures like WaveNet or Transformer networks) can capture subtleties of tone, accent, and cadence. With as little as a few minutes of sample audio of a target person, attackers can train models to clone a voice and produce arbitrary phrases that person never actually spoke .
• Reenactment and Conditional Generation – Another technique is using one video to drive the expressions of a target face. For example, an attacker might use a realtime face capture of themselves (or an actor) and have an AI model map those facial movements onto a target video of the victim. This can create a live puppet deepfake, enabling things like a person appearing to speak on a video call in real time with someone else’s face. Similar technology can enable one to puppet a voice in real time, or combine elements (this is how some deepfake lip-sync videos are made, by driving a mouth in a target video using an audio clip).

The process of making a deepfake is computationally intensive but increasingly accessible. It typically involves: collecting a large dataset of the target (and possibly a source), training a deep learning model (which could take hours to days on high-end GPUs), and then generating the output media by feeding the model new input (e.g. the desired phrases or videos). Today’s deepfake creators have user-friendly tools at their disposal – some open-source projects and even smartphone apps can produce basic face-swaps or voice clones. While high-quality deepfakes still require skill and resources to create, the barrier to entry is lowering steadily. “Deepfake-as-a-service” offerings mean even non-technical criminals can pay to have custom fakes made . And with the continued advance of generative AI, the realism of deepfakes is only expected to improve. What used to produce glitchy or obvious forgeries (e.g. artifacts like flickering around the face, unnatural eye blinking) can now generate video where the lighting and facial movements are almost perfectly natural. Cutting-edge models and longer training on high-quality data result in fakes that even experts sometimes struggle to identify without specialized tools .

It’s worth noting that not all doctored media are deepfakes in the strict sense. Simpler manipulations or “cheap fakes” (like speeding up a video to alter context or using face morph cut-and-paste in Photoshop) can also cause harm, but those don’t involve the sophisticated AI that deepfakes do. Deepfakes, by definition, harness deep learning to fabricate or alter content. The danger lies in the believability: a well-made deepfake can bypass our natural skepticism because it lacks the tell-tale signs of crude editing. In the next sections, we explore how threat actors exploit that believability and which weaknesses they target.

Exploited Vulnerabilities and Impacts

Deepfakes represent a new kind of cyber threat vector – one that exploits human trust and technical gaps rather than software vulnerabilities. The “attack surface” here is the faith we place in audio-visual media as evidence. By hacking the perceptions of users and systems, deepfakes can undermine security in various ways. Key vulnerabilities and impacts include:

• Human Trust and the Credibility of Media: Perhaps the greatest vulnerability is psychological. People tend to trust what they can see or hear with their own eyes and ears. Attackers leverage this trust by presenting a fake video or audio that confirms the target’s expectations. For example, an employee who receives a voicemail from their CEO with a familiar voice and correct personal details will likely trust it. Deepfakes exploit this implicit trust, tricking victims into harmful actions (transferring money, divulging secrets, etc.) under false pretenses. Unlike a suspicious email with typos, a deepfake call or video carries the weight of authenticity, making social engineering far more convincing . In essence, deepfakes are an evolution of phishing/vishing – they are supercharged social engineering. Security frameworks like MITRE ATT&CK map such tactics under techniques like T1566 Phishing and T1204 User Execution, since the deepfake is often used to get a user to execute some action based on false pretenses . The effectiveness of these ploys is much higher because the usual cues of fraud (strange email domains, broken English, etc.) are absent when a deepfake impersonation looks and sounds legitimate.
• Authentication & Identity Verification Weaknesses: Deepfakes also target the weaknesses of biometric and identity verification systems. Many organizations use voice verification (“say a passphrase”) or video-based identity proofing (like matching a selfie to photo ID). A sophisticated deepfake can bypass biometric authentication by mimicking the required voice or face . In one FBI report, criminals used stolen personal data in combination with deepfake video during remote job interviews – the lip movements on camera didn’t perfectly match the audio, but it was close enough to fool some interviewers . Such tactics show deepfakes exploiting gaps in remote onboarding and verification processes. Similarly, researchers and law enforcement have flagged the risk of “face morphing” attacks on passport or ID systems, where two identities are digitally merged so that a single photo can match multiple people – effectively fooling facial recognition checks . These synthetic identities and morphs are hard for humans or machines to detect, potentially allowing fraudsters to obtain legitimate IDs or access.
• Impersonation of Authority Figures: By exploiting the authority bias (we’re inclined to obey figures of authority), deepfakes of CEOs, government officials, or other leaders are especially dangerous. An urgent command from “the boss” or a fake video of a politician can prompt actions without the usual verification. This was the case in voice phishing incidents like the 2019 CEO fraud: attackers cloned the voice of a company’s chief executive and successfully convinced a subordinate to wire $243,000 based on the phone call . The deepfake bypassed normal suspicion by sounding exactly like the CEO – down to his German accent and speech melody . Here, the attackers exploited not a technical hole in a firewall, but a human protocol – the assumption that if the boss calls, you do what you’re asked. In another incident, a group of criminals in Singapore combined deepfake video and audio to impersonate a company’s executives in a Zoom meeting, thoroughly fooling the real chief financial officer. The fake executives (really just AI avatars) “met” with the CFO and convinced him to transfer about $500,000 to a bogus account . This elaborate con used publicly available footage to create digital puppets of the CEO and others, exploiting the CFO’s trust in seeing familiar faces on screen. By the time anyone realized those faces were forgeries, the money was gone.
• Misinformation and Public Manipulation: At a societal level, deepfakes exploit the vulnerability of the public to disinformation. State-aligned actors and propagandists can use deepfakes to spread false narratives, incite unrest, or undermine trust in institutions. A notorious example occurred in March 2022, amid the Russia-Ukraine war: a deepfake video emerged that appeared to show Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announcing a surrender. The video was poorly done (viewers quickly noticed mismatched skin tone on the neck and an odd accent) and was swiftly debunked . Facebook and other platforms removed it, and Zelenskyy himself denounced it as a “childish provocation” . While that particular deepfake failed, it served as a proof of concept of how potent a more convincing fake could be in the wrong hands – for instance, a believable deepfake of a world leader could momentarily sow chaos in financial markets or provoke conflict before it’s proven false. Even domestically, a deepfake of a CEO or public official engaging in scandalous behavior could tank a company’s stock or ruin reputations (brand sabotage). Malicious actors have created deepfake pornography of journalists and activists to intimidate or discredit them – a form of harassment and blackmail. One Europol report noted that certain deepfake porn videos of celebrities amassed over 100 million views online , illustrating the massive audience and impact such fabricated content can have. These exploits prey on both the target’s reputation and the public’s gullibility or bias, with potentially far-reaching consequences (from personal trauma to influencing election outcomes).

In summary, deepfakes target a broad range of vulnerabilities: from the individual level (tricking someone’s eyes, ears, and judgment) to the systemic level (slipping past biometric gatekeepers or tainting the information ecosystem). The common thread is deception – bypassing traditional security checks by presenting false information that appears legitimate. This makes deepfake incidents a unique challenge for cybersecurity: they blend technical prowess with social engineering in a way that can be difficult to detect before damage is done. Next, we will examine who is behind these attacks and what their motives are, which further illuminates the risks at hand.

Threat Actors: From Cybercriminals to State Operatives

Multiple categories of threat actors are driving the proliferation of deepfake attacks, each with different motives and targets. Understanding who is using deepfakes helps in anticipating the types of attacks and the context in which they occur:

• Financially Motivated Cybercriminals: Perhaps the most active adopters of deepfake technology in recent years are organized cybercrime groups and fraudsters out for profit. These criminals view deepfakes as the latest tool to facilitate traditional crimes – fraud, theft, extortion – with a new level of cunning. They use deepfakes to impersonate company executives, wealthy clients, or business partners in order to trick employees and bank officials. A classic ploy is the CEO fraud scenario described earlier: imposter audio or video instructions from the boss to authorize a wire transfer (a sophisticated twist on the old business email compromise scams) . Cybercriminals have also used AI-cloned voices to impersonate a CEO in phone calls with finance staff multiple times, attempting repeat heists . Beyond direct theft, criminals deploy deepfakes in investment scams – for example, faking an endorsement video from a famous billionaire to lure victims into a cryptocurrency scheme. Another emerging trend is using deepfake voices in call-center scams (so the “customer support” scammer sounds exactly like a legitimate representative or uses a trusted public figure’s voice). Ransom and extortionschemes can involve deepfakes too: a criminal might send a CEO a deepfake compromising video of them (which is fake) and threaten to release it unless paid off. Corporate espionage is another motive; adversaries may use deepfakes to infiltrate meetings or calls (as with the fake board member in a 2022 virtual meeting attempt ) to gather sensitive information or sway decisions under false pretenses. The common denominator is financial gain. These actors are often well-organized, adapt quickly to new tech, and even share “best practices” for using AI on criminal forums . As deepfake creation services become available, one doesn’t even need technical expertise – just money and malice – to carry out such attacks, which is why we’re seeing a sharp uptick in AI-assisted fraud globally .
• Nation-State and State-Sponsored Groups: At the geopolitical level, some nation-state actors (or aligned propaganda groups) leverage deepfakes as instruments of information warfare. Their goals are typically to sow confusion, influence public opinion, or undermine adversaries. We have already touched on the Zelenskyy incident, widely suspected to be the work of pro-Russian propagandists . Similarly, intelligence agencies have warned that foreign actors could deploy deepfakes during elections – imagine a deepfake of a candidate making inflammatory statements right before voting day. Even if debunked, such a video could go viral long enough to sway some voters. State actors might also use deepfakes to impersonate diplomats or military leaders in private communications as a form of espionage or sabotage. For instance, there have been reports of deepfake “video calls” or holograms of officials used to trick politicians into conversations, though not all are confirmed . A noteworthy case: in 2022, the mayor of Berlin was targeted by scammers who used a deepfake video call impersonating a famous Russian dissident, in an attempt to engage in dialogue – highlighting that even government officials can be duped by realistic real-time deepfakes. State-aligned threat actors often have significant resources, meaning they can produce high-quality fakes. Their motivations range from political disinformation (to erode trust in news and sow division) to psychological operations (to intimidate or confuse an enemy) to strategic deception (to impersonate someone and glean intel). The MITRE ATT&CK framework doesn’t have a dedicated technique for “deepfake propaganda,” but these activities tie into tactics like Influence Operations and Social Engineering, often outside the scope of typical enterprise security but very much a national security concern.
• Insider Threats and Hacktivists: While less reported, insiders or hacktivist groups could also turn to deepfakes. An unethical employee might use deepfake audio to spoof their boss’s approval in an internal system, or to embarrass a rival coworker. Disgruntled employees or activist hackers might create a fake video of a company executive engaging in wrongdoing (e.g. making offensive remarks) and leak it to damage the company’s reputation. In 2020, for example, a deepfake was circulated of a political leader making racist comments – not for financial gain, but to tarnish their image. Hacktivists might see deepfakes as a means to an end in social causes, such as exposing what they perceive as truths via fake “recordings” of opponents. The reliability of audio/visual evidence becomes shaky in such cases, complicating incident response – was that leaked video real or an AI hoax? Insiders with access to company media (photos, footage, voice samples) could create very convincing fakes, essentially an abuse of trust from within. While these cases are rarer than criminal or state uses, they illustrate that deepfake capabilities can empower a lone individual to have an outsized impact through deception.

It’s important to note that these categories can overlap. For instance, state-sponsored hackers can pursue financial crime to fund operations (as seen with some North Korean groups) and might use deepfakes in that context too. Or criminals might carry out politically motivated deepfake attacks if paid to do so. There’s also a thriving underground economy – specialists who craft deepfakes may sell their services to any buyer, whether a criminal gang or a government agent . Recorded Future (a threat intelligence firm) even reported cases of threat actors willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars for bespoke deepfake services , indicating a mature marketplace.

From the defender’s perspective, the involvement of these threat actors means deepfake incidents could range from targeted corporate fraud to wide-scale disinformation campaigns. Security teams must therefore be prepared for a gamut of scenarios: an urgent voicemail from a CEO that might be fake, a fake job applicant in a Zoom interview, a phony “news video” targeting your stock price, or bogus audio “evidence” surfacing in a legal dispute. In all cases, the impact can be severe – financial losses, reputational damage, erosion of trust, and even national security implications. Next, we turn to how the cybersecurity community is responding, and what defensive measures can be employed to detect and mitigate deepfake threats.

Detecting and Defending Against Deepfakes

Confronted with the deepfake dilemma, researchers and security professionals are developing a multi-pronged defense strategy. No single silver bullet exists – the approach must combine technical detection tools, process controls, user education, and even legal and policy measures. Below, we outline key defensive methodologies for deepfakes:

1. Deepfake Detection Algorithms and Tools

A considerable amount of research is focused on deepfake detection – using AI to fight AI. These are algorithms trained to analyze media and flag signs of manipulation. Early deepfake detectors looked for visual anomalies: for example, inconsistencies in blinking patterns (some early deepfake videos made people who never blink, since training data often had eyes open) or image artifacts on facial edges. Modern detectors have gotten more sophisticated, examining artifacts in lighting, shadows, or reflections in a subject’s eyes, as well as subtle audio quirks. They may analyze video frame by frame or the metadata of an audio waveform to spot unnatural artefacts that wouldn’t occur in genuine recordings . For instance, an algorithm might detect that the skin tone on a face doesn’t match the neck, or that the lip movements don’t perfectly align with the speech (indicating a potential lip-sync deepfake) . Some detectors use biometric cues – comparing the mannerisms or physiological signals (heart rate inferred from video) to what’s known about the real person.

These detection systems often leverage deep learning themselves. In fact, large datasets of known deepfakes are used to train neural networks to recognize the “fingerprint” of synthesized media. Interestingly, just as GANs try to fool discriminators, detectors act as discriminators trying not to be fooled. There is an arms race here: as detection improves, deepfake creators tweak their methods to evade automated detection. For example, once it was publicized that “lack of blinking” could give away a deepfake, newer generation methods corrected that flaw. This cat-and-mouse dynamic means organizations can’t rely on any static detection tool – they must continually update their detection capabilities as deepfakes get more realistic . Tech companies and academia have hosted deepfake detection challenges (Facebook and others did so in 2020) spurring the development of new techniques. Even government bodies are stepping in – in 2025, the U.S. NIST launched a Content Authenticity initiative to evaluate and improve deepfake detection algorithms .

Some available tools (to mention a few without endorsement) include Microsoft’s Video Authenticator and open-source frameworks like Sensity’s detector or DeepFake-o-meter . These use AI to output a probability that a given media is real or fake. For audio, tools analyze spectrograms of speech to find AI-generated peculiarities. In practice, a security team might integrate such detectors into workflows: for example, scanning incoming video messages or doing an extra check on any audio that triggers a high-risk action (like a funds transfer request). However, as one industry CEO noted, “it’s now impossible for the naked eye to detect quality deepfakes” and even organizations themselves often miss them . Automated detectors are essential, but they are not foolproof – they tend to lag slightly behind the latest deepfake generation methods. Therefore, detection tools are one layer of defense, to be combined with the human judgment and other measures described next.

2. Digital Watermarking and Content Authentication

A promising proactive defense is digital watermarking and provenance tracking for media. Instead of only reacting to fake content, this approach involves tagging authentic content at the point of creation so that fakes can be more readily identified. For example, a camera or a video recording app could cryptographically sign each video it captures. Later, anyone can verify the signature to ensure the footage wasn’t tampered with and is the original camera output. If a video lacks a valid signature or watermark, it’s treated with suspicion. Industry coalitions (like the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity, C2PA) are working on standards to make this feasible across devices and platforms. Likewise, some social media companies are exploring attaching provenance metadata to images and videos uploaded on their platforms.

For watermarking specifically, researchers have suggested embedding hidden patterns into AI-generated content to mark it as AI-made. Some generative model developers propose that AI outputs should include an invisible watermark indicating they’re synthetic, which robustly survives if someone tries to tamper or remove it. This is challenging (as attackers could try to remove watermarks), but if done well, it could allow automated filters to catch known AI-generated media. On the flip side, watermarking can help trace the source of deepfakes. Forensic watermarking techniques can implant identifiers into videos such that if a deepfake is found, investigators might extract the watermark to find which tool or account created it . Some companies are implementing watermarks in their deepfake generation software (for instance, requiring an identifier in outputs) – though of course illicit actors could use tools without those restrictions.

In summary, watermarking and authenticity frameworks aim to rebuild trust by verifying real media rather than only spotting fakes. In the future, we might routinely check a video’s “certificate” much like we check a website’s HTTPS padlock today. This approach is still emerging, but it’s a vital piece of the long-term solution to deepfakes. Governments are also starting to legislate in this area (e.g. laws requiring deepfake political ads to be labeled in some jurisdictions ), which could bolster adoption of watermarking for accountability.

3. Forensic Analysis and Human Verification Processes

Even with AI detectors and watermarks, a robust defense includes old-fashioned forensic analysis and verification protocols. Security teams should develop procedures for manual review of suspicious or high-impact communications. For example, if a wire transfer request comes via voice message or video, a policy might require a callback or face-to-face verification through a known channel. This kind of two-factor verification for human communications can stop deepfake fraud in its tracks – in one of the CEO voice scam attempts, the fraud was halted when the target became suspicious and chose to double-check via a different phone number, exposing the deception . User awareness trainingis key here: employees should be trained that techniques like voice phishing and “video spear-phishing” are real. They must feel empowered to question even communications that appear authentic if they arrive through unofficial or unexpected channels. Training can include showing examples of deepfakes and the subtle things to look for (though they are getting harder to spot, sometimes slight lip-sync issues, robotic intonation, or unnatural eye movement might give clues ). A healthy skepticism of urgent, high-stakes requests delivered via media is a good trait to instill.

From a digital forensics standpoint, analysts can examine suspect media frame by frame, check file metadata for signs of tampering, or use multimodal analysis (comparing audio and visual together). There are often inconsistencies in deepfakes – e.g., if you pause a video you might find a frame where the teeth look blurry, or the lighting around the edges of the face is fuzzy. Audio might have odd background artifacts or lack the natural variability of a human recording . Analysts also compare against known genuine samples: does this video’s voice frequency spectrum match a known real recording of the person? If not, it could be synthesized. Organizations should retain some verified reference recordings of their key executives’ voices and mannerisms, which can aid in comparison during an incident (almost like having a known-good hash of a file, but for a voice/video).

Additionally, organizations can use technical controls to reduce exposure. For instance, implementing strict verification steps for financial transactions (so that no single voice/video instruction can authorize a transfer) will mitigate the risk. Some firms have turned to biometric liveness testing for remote verification – e.g., requiring a person to perform random actions on camera (move your head, blink twice) to prove they are a live person and not a pre-recorded deepfake. Even these methods aren’t foolproof (advanced real-time deepfakes are trying to mimic liveness), but they raise the bar for attackers.

4. Cybersecurity Frameworks and Response Planning

Defenders should incorporate deepfake scenarios into their broader security frameworks and incident response plans. For example, the popular MITRE ATT&CK framework can help map how deepfakes might fit into an adversary’s playbook. As noted, deepfakes often come into play in the Initial Access or Execution phases – a deepfake phishing call (MITRE technique T1566) is a means to get the victim to execute a malicious action or divulge credentials . Deepfakes might also assist in Privilege Escalation or Defense Evasion in certain cases (for instance, using a fake voice to bypass a voice biometric lock – related to MITRE technique T1589 for credential access via biometric data). By mapping these, an organization can update its threat modeling: e.g., “What if our CEO’s voice is used in a social engineering attack? Do we have controls to address that?” The same preparation given to phishing simulations could be extended to deepfake scenarios. Some companies are now running drill exercises where, say, a deepfake “email with an audio attachment from the CFO” is sent to see if employees verify it through proper channels.

Incident response plans should specifically address deepfakes: how to quickly investigate a suspected deepfake (perhaps involve both the security team and corporate communications, since public misinformation might need a PR response), how to preserve evidence, and how to publicly refute a deepfake if one is being used against the organization. This is a new facet – responding to a hack now might include convincingly proving “that video is fake” to an audience or regulators. The faster an organization can do this (backed by forensic evidence), the less damage a deepfake attack can cause. In one real case, when a deepfake video of a company’s board member was used in an attempted scam, the company identified it in time and alerted stakeholders, preventing further harm . Such success comes from awareness and readiness.

On an industry level, sharing information is important too. Threat intelligence feeds can update on the latest deepfake tactics observed (for example, if a certain executive’s likeness is being circulated on the dark web as a deepfake model, a company can be alerted). Collaborative frameworks like the Cyber Threat Alliance or FS-ISAC (for financial sector) are beginning to discuss deepfake incidents, which helps everyone prepare better.

5. Policy and Legal Deterrents

While more pertinent to government than the individual CISO, it’s worth noting that legal frameworks are being developed to deter malicious deepfakes. Several countries and U.S. states have passed laws criminalizing certain uses of deepfakes, especially in election interference or pornography. For example, Texas and California have laws against deepfakes intended to harm candidates in elections . China implemented rules requiring clearly labeling AI-generated media and banning unapproved deepfakes. These legal tools may, over time, discourage some misuse and provide avenues to prosecute offenders. For organizations, knowing the legal landscape means they can potentially use law enforcement when a deepfake attack occurs (e.g., reporting to authorities if someone uses a deepfake to attempt fraud or harass employees). Law enforcement agencies are also ramping up expertise – Europol and the FBI have dedicated efforts to tackle deepfakes . The FBI’s 2022 public service announcement about deepfakes in remote work applications is one example of raising awareness and urging reporting of such cases .

Ultimately, defending against deepfakes requires an adaptive, layered approach. Just as we defend networks with layered security (firewalls, IDS, endpoint security, etc.), we must defend our organizations’ trust and communications. This includes preventative measures (watermarks, policies that make scams harder), detective measures (AI detectors, manual verification, employee vigilance), and responsive measures (incident plans, legal action, PR rebuttal strategies).

Real-World Cases: Lessons Learned from Deepfake Incidents

To ground the discussion, let’s examine a few real-world examples of deepfake attacks and what we can learn from them:

• The 2019 CEO Voice Heist: In what is considered one of the first major deepfake frauds, criminals targeted a UK energy firm by impersonating the voice of its German parent company’s CEO. The deepfake audio was so convincing – complete with the CEO’s slight accent and speech mannerisms – that the British CEO was duped into transferring €220,000 (~$243,000) to the scammers’ account . The attackers even followed up with additional calls, trying to get more money until suspicions finally arose . Lesson: Voice alone can no longer be treated as verification of identity for high-risk requests. This case prompted many companies to implement verification callbacks or secondary confirmations for large fund transfers. It also illustrated that deepfakes had arrived as a tool for organized crime, not just playful internet videos. Notably, the company’s insurer publicly discussed the incident, which helped raise awareness globally about deepfake voice scams .
• The 2022 Zelenskyy Deepfake Video: Mentioned earlier, this incident involved a cheap-looking deepfake of Ukraine’s president surrendering. While it failed to fool people, it was broadcast briefly on a hacked TV station and posted online by the attackers . This represents the first known instance of a deepfake being used in an ongoing war to try to manipulate troop and public morale . Lesson: Even crude deepfakes can cause a stir, and adversaries (in this case likely a state propaganda machine) will use the technology opportunistically. Rapid response – the real Zelenskyy quickly released a real video refuting the fake – is critical. In a broader sense, this was a wake-up call to have mechanisms in place to debunk fake videos and inform the public promptly before they spread. Platforms like Facebook also learned to react fast in removing harmful deepfakes. Future attempts might not be so clumsy, so the incident spurred NATO and other governments to invest more in deepfake detection and media literacy for information warfare.
• The 2023 Crypto Executive Deepfake Scam: In the cryptocurrency world, deepfakes have been employed to impersonate high-profile executives in order to scam startup projects and investors. One notable case saw scammers create a deepfake video call of Binance’s Chief Communications Officer to trick representatives of crypto projects. The deepfake was a “hologram” of the executive, complete with real-time responses, used in Zoom meetings. Several projects reported being approached by this fake persona regarding listing opportunities – essentially a con to make them pay fees to list on Binance, which in reality was not involved . Similarly, a deepfake of Binance’s CEO “CZ” was circulated in 2022 in an attempt to scam people in the crypto community . Lesson: Video calls are not inherently trustworthy. Just because you see someone’s face on a webcam and they sound right doesn’t guarantee they are who they claim. This has huge implications in a post-Covid world where remote work and virtual meetings are routine. Organizations should treat unexpected approaches via video with the same zero-trust mindset as unsolicited emails. This case also underscores the need for public awareness – several victims admitted they weren’t even aware such real-time deepfake video was possible. Now, tech firms are exploring verification measures for video conferencing platforms (for example, a way to digitally sign video streams) to prevent imposters.
• Multi-Executive Deepfake Fraud (Singapore, 2023): A sophisticated crime in Singapore combined various elements we’ve discussed. Scammers deepfaked not just one person but an entire group of executives of a company, including the CEO, to conduct a fake Zoom meeting with the company’s CFO. Using what the report called “digital twins” of the execs, the attackers convincingly simulated a routine management call . During the call, they instructed the CFO to make a wire transfer (~$500k USD). The CFO, seeing and hearing his colleagues, complied. When the attackers pushed for a second, larger transfer, the CFO grew suspicious and contacted authorities, who managed to intervene and recover the first transfer . Lesson: This incident is like a full-dress rehearsal of the nightmare scenario for any security team. It teaches the importance of layered protection – the fraud succeeded until it hit a procedural control (the CFO’s caution on a second big transfer). It also shows that attackers may combine deepfakes with other tactics (hacking messaging apps to send invites, etc.). Organizations must ensure that internal processes cannot be bypassed even if an attacker impersonates multiple trusted people at once. For example, requiring dual approval through independent channels for significant transactions might have stopped even the first transfer. This case is a strong argument for robust incident reporting and cross-border cooperation, since law enforcement was able to act when alerted in time . It also highlights the psychological aspect – the CFO noted the “internal trust fabric” was exploited . Post-incident, that company likely had to rebuild confidence and institute verification protocols for virtual meetings.
• Deepfake Job Applicants: The FBI’s 2022 warning revealed that threat actors have used deepfake video and audio to apply for remote IT jobs. Why would they do this? Likely to get inside companies for insider access or to steal data. In these cases, the applicant would join a video interview with a stolen identity (someone else’s name and credentials) and a computer-generated face synced to their talking. Some signs noticed were lip movements not perfectly matching speech and odd behaviors (like not reacting naturally to sneezes) . Lesson:The remote work boom opened a door for deepfake exploitation. HR and recruiting teams need to be vigilant about identity verification. Many companies now require new hires to eventually present themselves on a verified video or in-person at least once before onboarding is complete, specifically because a deepfake “employee” could potentially bypass background checks. It’s a reminder that deepfakes aren’t just targeting the C-suite; any part of an organization that relies on video calls or digital media for trust can be targeted.

These examples barely scratch the surface, but they reinforce a few takeaways. First, timing and detection matter – catching a deepfake early (during the call, or before money is gone, or before a fake video goes viral) is critical. Second, secondary validation channels are often the hero (the skeptical callback, the in-person confirm, the bank’s fraud flag) – having those channels open and encouraged can save the day. Third, attacks will evolve – from simple voice calls to orchestrated multi-person fakes, the adversaries continuously up their game, meaning we too must continuously update defenses. Finally, awareness is the best vaccine: many of these incidents succeeded because victims were unaware such technology was even possible, whereas organizations that had educated their staff on deepfakes were more likely to sniff out something “off” and halt the scheme.

Frequently Asked Questions