Boundary Testing

Establish and maintain processes where all policy violations, including those perceived as minor or low-impact, are addressed consistently, proportionately, and promptly. By reinforcing that even small infractions matter, organizations deter boundary testing behaviors and reduce the risk of escalation into more serious incidents.

Implementation Approaches

• Develop clear disciplinary guidelines that outline expected consequences for different categories of violations, ensuring minor infractions are not overlooked.
• Empower first-line supervisors and managers with authority and tools to address minor violations at the earliest opportunity through corrective conversations, formal warnings, or minor sanctions as appropriate.
• Track policy violations centrally, including minor incidents, to identify repeat offenders or emerging behavioral patterns across time.
• Communicate the rationale for enforcement to the workforce, framing minor violation enforcement as a measure to protect operational integrity rather than bureaucratic punishment.
• Conduct periodic reviews of enforcement actions to ensure consistency across departments, teams, and levels of seniority, minimizing perceptions of favoritism or uneven discipline.

Operational Principles

• Proportionality: Responses to minor violations should be appropriate to the severity but still reinforce the boundary.
• Visibility: Enforcement actions should be visible enough to deter others, without unnecessarily shaming or alienating individuals.
• Predictability: Personnel should understand that violations will predictably result in consequences, eliminating ambiguity or assumptions of tolerance.
• Escalation Readiness: Organizations should be prepared to escalate interventions for individuals who demonstrate patterns of repeated minor violations.

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.

Offering mental health support and conflict resolution programs to
help employees identify and report manipulative behavior in the
workplace

A structured program, including a helpline or other reporting mechanism, designed to assist employees who feel vulnerable, whether due to personal issues, coercion, or extortion. This process allows employees to confidentially raise concerns with trusted teams, such as Human Resources or other qualified professionals. In some cases, it may be appropriate to discreetly share this information with trusted individuals within the Insider Risk Management Program to help prevent and detect insider threats while also providing necessary support to the employee.

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.

Mandatory security awareness training for employees can help them to recognize a range of cyber attacks that they can play a part in preventing or detecting. This can include topics such as phishing, social engineering, and data classification, amongst others.

An Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) is a set of rules outlining acceptable and unacceptable uses of an organization's computer systems and network resources. It acts as a deterrent to prevent employees from conducting illegitimate activities by clearly defining expectations, reinforcing legal and ethical standards, establishing accountability, specifying consequences for violations, and promoting education and awareness about security risks.

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

Mental Health and Personal Struggles

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

Negative Statements or Discontent with the Company

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

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

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

Hearsay and Indirect Reports

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

Implementation Considerations

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

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

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

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.

An agent capable of Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) is a software agent installed on organization endpoints (such as laptops and servers) that (at a minimum) records the Operating System, application, and network activity on an endpoint.

Typically EDR operates in an agent/server model, where agents automatically send logs to a server, where the server correlates those logs based on a rule set. This rule set is then used to surface potential security-related events, that can then be analyzed.

An EDR agent typically also has some form of remote shell capability, where a user of the EDR platform can gain a remote shell session on a target endpoint, for incident response purposes. An EDR agent will typically have the ability to remotely isolate an endpoint, where all network activity is blocked on the target endpoint (other than the network activity required for the EDR platform to operate).

An agent capable of User Activity Monitoring (UAM) is a software agent installed on organization endpoints (such as laptops); typically, User Activity Monitoring agents are only deployed on endpoints where a human user Is expected to conduct the activity.

The User Activity Monitoring agent will typically record Operating System, application, and network activity occurring on an endpoint, with a focus on activity that is or can be conducted by a human user. The purpose of this monitoring is to identify undesirable and/or malicious activity being conducted by a human user (in this context, an Insider Threat).

Typical User Activity Monitoring platforms operate in an agent/server model where activity logs are sent to a server for automatic correlation against a rule set. This rule set is used to surface activity that may represent Insider Threat related activity such as capturing screenshots, copying data, compressing files or installing risky software.

Other platforms providing related functionality are frequently referred to as User Behaviour Analytics (UBA) platforms.

An agent capable of User Behaviour Analytics (UBA) is a software agent installed on organizational endpoints (such as laptops). Typically, User Activity Monitoring agents are only deployed on endpoints where a human user is expected to conduct the activity.

The User Behaviour Analytics agent will typically record Operating System, application, and network activity occurring on an endpoint, focusing on activity that is or can be conducted by a human user. Typically, User Behaviour Analytics platforms operate in an agent/server model where activity logs are sent to a server for automatic analysis. In the case of User Behaviour Analytics, this analysis will typically be conducted against a baseline that has previously been established.

A User Behaviour Analytic platform will typically conduct a period of ‘baselining’ when the platform is first installed. This baselining period establishes the normal behavior parameters for an organization’s users, which are used to train a Machine Learning (ML) model. This ML model can then be later used to automatically identify activity that is predicted to be an anomaly, which is hoped to surface user behavior that is undesirable, risky, or malicious.

Other platforms providing related functionality are frequently referred to as User Activity Monitoring (UAM) platforms.

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.

Monitor and analyze minor policy violations over time to detect emerging behavioral patterns that may indicate boundary testing, behavioural drift, or preparation for more serious misconduct. Isolated minor infringements may appear benign, but repeated or clustered incidents can signal a developing threat trajectory.

Detection Methods

• Maintain centralized logging of all recorded policy violations, including low-severity infractions, within case management, HR, or security systems.
• Implement analytical tools or workflows that flag individuals with multiple minor violations within defined timeframes (e.g., repeated unauthorized device use, bypassing security protocols, small unauthorized disclosures).
• Correlate minor violation data with other risk indicators such as unauthorized access attempts, changes in behavioral baselines, or indicators of disgruntlement.
• Analyze patterns across teams, units, or operational areas to detect systemic issues or cultural tolerance of rule-breaking behaviors.
• Conduct periodic behavioral risk reviews that explicitly include minor infractions as part of insider threat monitoring programs.
•  

Indicators

• Subjects accumulating multiple low-level infractions without corresponding corrective action or behavioral improvement.
• Increased frequency or severity of minor violations over time, suggesting desensitization or emboldenment.
• Violations spanning multiple domains (e.g., IT security, operational protocols, HR policy), indicating generalized disregard for rules.
• Evidence that minor violations are clustered around operational pressures, major organizational changes, or periods of reduced oversight.