Espionage

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.

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.

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.

A subject’s publicly accessible online presence may be examined prior to, or during, their association with the organization through the application of Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) techniques. This form of screening involves the systematic analysis of publicly available digital content—such as social media profiles, posts, comments, blogs, forums, and shared media—to assess potential risks associated with an individual.

Social media screening is typically conducted to identify indicators of reputational risk, conflicting motives, or behavioral patterns that may suggest the potential for insider threat activity. Content of concern may include public expressions of hostility toward the organization, affiliation with extremist or high-risk groups, or engagement with topics unrelated to the subject's role that could indicate potential misuse of access.

Trusted service providers specializing in OSINT and digital risk intelligence may be engaged to perform this screening on behalf of the organization. These providers use automated tools and analyst-driven review processes to ensure consistent, legally compliant, and policy-aligned assessments of online behavior.

When implemented as part of pre-employment screening or ongoing risk monitoring, social media screening can serve as a proactive measure to detect insider threat indicators early. To be effective and ethical, such programs must follow applicable privacy laws, data protection regulations, and internal governance standards. When responsibly executed, social media screening enhances the organization's ability to identify individuals who may present an elevated risk to information security, personnel safety, or corporate reputation.

A Data Loss Prevention (DLP) solution refers to policies, technologies, and controls that prevent the accidental and/or deliberate loss, misuse, or theft of data by members of an organization. Typically, DLP technology would take the form of a software agent installed on organization endpoints (such as laptops and servers).

Typical DLP technology will alert on the potential loss of data, or activity which might indicate the potential for data loss. A DLP technology may also provide automated responses to prevent data loss on a device.

Microsoft Information Protection (MIP) sensitivity labels are metadata-based security attributes applied to files, emails, and other content within Microsoft 365 environments. MIP sensitivity labels act as a form of document-centric access control, embedding security policies directly into files and emails. By tagging content with persistent metadata that enforces encryption, access restrictions, and visual markings, MIP labels ensure that data protection travels with the document—regardless of where it's stored or shared—providing consistent security across organizational and cloud boundaries. 

MIP labels are centrally defined through the Microsoft Purview compliance portal and persist within the content itself—stored in metadata streams such as Office document custom properties or XML parts. Labels can be applied manually by users or automatically via content inspection rules, data classification policies, or machine learning models. Once applied, labels can enforce a range of protections, including Azure Information Protection (AIP)-based encryption, visual markings (e.g., headers, footers, watermarks), and access restrictions.

Because MIP labels are integrated with Microsoft 365 applications and services, they serve as a powerful mechanism for monitoring and auditing sensitive data handling. Labeling events generate detailed telemetry that can help identify suspicious or non-compliant user behavior, such as:

• Downgrading a file from a more restrictive label (e.g., "Highly Confidential") to a less restrictive one (e.g., "Public") before exfiltration.
• Applying inconsistent labels to similar types of content.
• Bypassing automatic labeling recommendations or ignoring mandatory labeling prompts.
• Accessing or modifying labeled content outside normal working hours or from anomalous locations.

Detection can be implemented across various Microsoft platforms:

• Microsoft Purview (formerly Microsoft 365 Compliance Center) provides audit logs and activity explorer views for label application, modification, and removal.
• Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps (MCAS) enables near real-time monitoring of MIP label usage across Microsoft 365 and integrated third-party services.
• Microsoft Sentinel can ingest logs from Microsoft Purview, Azure AD, and Microsoft Defender to correlate labeling activity with other insider threat signals.
• Microsoft Defender for Endpoint monitors endpoint behavior, which can be used to identify lateral movement, data access anomalies, or unauthorized label downgrades.
•  

Detection rules can be enriched with user and entity behavior analytics (UEBA), data loss prevention (DLP) events, and identity-based risk signals (e.g., unusual sign-ins or privilege escalations) to increase fidelity and reduce false positives.

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.

Implement User Behavior Analytics (UBA) tools to continuously monitor and analyze user (human) activities, detecting anomalies that may signal security risks. UBA can track and flag unusual behavior, such as excessive data downloads, accessing a higher-than-usual number of resources, or large-scale transfers inconsistent with a user’s typical patterns. UBA can also provide real-time alerts when users engage in behavior that deviates from established baselines, such as accessing sensitive data during off-hours or from unfamiliar locations. By identifying such anomalies, UBA enhances the detection of insider events.