Unauthorized Access to Unassigned Hardware

The subject accesses a corporate hardware asset, most commonly a laptop or corporate mobile device, after their employment has formally ended. This typically occurs due to gaps in deprovisioning, delayed hardware recovery, or the subject physically retaining the device despite offboarding procedures. Post-termination access may be opportunistic or intentional, and may precede or coincide with data exfiltration, sabotage, or unauthorized continuation of internal access.

This sub-section is relevant in cases where the hardware asset is no longer linked to an active identity in HR systems but remains technically functional and capable of network, VPN, or service access. Such access undermines the assumption that termination alone revokes operational capability and may point to procedural drift in IT, HR, or facilities handover workflows.

The subject purchases a laptop (or similar endpoint) using a corporate payment method but does so outside established procurement and provisioning processes. By bypassing IT and asset management workflows, the subject introduces a corporate-funded but unmanaged device into the environment.

Such devices often lack standard security controls—such as endpoint detection and response (EDR), encryption, configuration baselines, or patching—and may not be tracked in asset inventory systems. While the subject may rationalize the purchase as operationally necessary (e.g., urgency, convenience, or perceived lack of IT responsiveness), the result is a sanctioned but invisible device with the potential to bypass monitoring and governance controls.

This behavior undermines organizational asset control, complicates investigative attribution, and introduces unmanaged endpoints capable of accessing sensitive networks and data.

Routine reviews of user accounts and their associated privileges and permissions should be conducted to identify overly-permissive accounts, or accounts that are no longer required to be active.

Full Disk Encryption (FDE) involves encrypting all data on a device's hard disk or solid-state drive (SSD), including the Operating System (OS), third party applications and user data. This helps to ensure that data on the disk remains inaccessible if the laptop is lost or stolen, as the data cannot be accessed without the correct decryption key.

Typically a user decrypts a FDE disk during the boot process. The user is prompted to enter a password or provide a hardware token to unlock the encryption key. Only after successful authentication can the disk be decrypted and subsequently the Operating System loaded and the data accessed.

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.

Access to specific areas of a site should be restricted to only authorized personnel, through the use of controls such as locked doors, mantraps, and gates requiring an ID badge.

Establish and maintain formal, well-communicated pathways for personnel to request resources, report deficiencies, or propose operational improvements. By providing structured mechanisms to meet legitimate needs, organizations reduce the likelihood that subjects will bypass policy controls through opportunistic or unauthorized actions.

Implementation Approaches

• Create clear, accessible request processes for technology needs, system enhancements, and operational support requirements.
• Ensure personnel understand how to escalate unmet needs when standard processes are insufficient, including rapid escalation pathways for operational environments.
• Maintain service-level agreements (SLAs) or expected response times to requests, ensuring perceived barriers or delays do not incentivize unofficial action.
• Integrate feedback mechanisms that allow users to suggest improvements or report resource shortfalls anonymously or through designated representatives.
• Publicize successful examples where formal channels resulted in legitimate needs being met, reinforcing the effectiveness and trustworthiness of the system.

Operational Principles

• Responsiveness: Requests must be acknowledged and processed promptly to prevent frustration and informal workarounds.
• Transparency: Personnel should be informed about request status and outcomes to maintain trust in the process.
• Accountability: Ownership for handling requests must be clearly assigned to responsible teams or individuals.
• Cultural Integration: Leaders and supervisors should reinforce the use of formal channels and discourage unsanctioned self-remediation efforts.

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 scheduled, systematic audit of organizational assets to verify that all hardware, software, and network infrastructure aligns with approved inventories and configuration baselines. The audit is designed to detect unauthorized, unapproved, or misconfigured assets that may have been introduced opportunistically by subjects circumventing standard processes.

Detection Methods

• Conduct periodic formal asset discovery audits using network scanning tools, endpoint management platforms, and manual verification processes.
• Reconcile discovered assets against authoritative asset management databases (e.g., CMDB, inventory systems).
• Inspect critical operational areas physically to identify unauthorized devices such as rogue wireless access points, unsanctioned satellite terminals, or personally procured IT hardware.
• Require supporting documentation (e.g., procurement records, change approvals) for all assets found during audits.
• Audit virtual infrastructure and cloud accounts to detect unapproved services, instances, or network configurations introduced outside formal governance.

Indicators

• Assets detected during the audit that are absent from official asset registries.
• Devices operating without appropriate configuration management, endpoint security tooling, or monitoring integration.
• Physical or virtual infrastructure deployed without associated change control, procurement, or authorization records.
• Wireless networks or external connections operating without approved designations or safeguards.

Leverage the corporate asset register to correlate device ownership, user assignment, and provisioning status. This enables investigators to quickly determine:

• Which subject(s) are assigned to a given device
• Which devices are officially assigned to a given subject
• Whether a device exists in inventory without an assigned owner (unprovisioned)
• Whether a subject is using a device not present in the official register

By maintaining this cross-referenced view, investigators can detect orphaned assets, unauthorized re-use, and unmanaged endpoints that bypass provisioning controls. The asset register becomes both a baseline for enforcement and a forensic source of truth during insider threat investigations.

What an Asset Register Is

An asset register is a centralized, authoritative database that records all corporate hardware assets—most critically laptops, desktops, and other endpoints. Each record includes:

• Unique asset identifier (serial number, asset tag, or hardware UUID)
• Current assigned subject (mapped to Human Resources Information System (HRIS) identity)
• Device state (active, decommissioned, loaner, in repair, unassigned)
• Provisioning details (date issued, baseline configuration, security tooling enrollment)
• Custodial history (who previously held the device and when it was reassigned)

The asset register provides a single point of truth that investigators and defenders can use to validate whether a device is legitimately in use and under control.

Implementation Approaches

• Dedicated Asset Management Systems: Deploy enterprise-grade IT asset management platforms (e.g., ServiceNow, Lansweeper, Jamf, SCCM) with integrations to HRIS and Identity and Access Management (IAM).
• MDM/EDR Integration: Ensure that mobile device management (MDM) and endpoint detection and response (EDR) solutions feed device enrollment status into the asset register.
• HRIS Linkage: Automate assignment by linking HR onboarding/offboarding events directly to device provisioning and revocation workflows.
• Physical Asset Tagging: Label each device with a unique asset tag or barcode tied to the register to prevent informal reallocation.
• Audit and Recertification: Conduct periodic reconciliation (monthly or quarterly) to ensure the register reflects reality — identifying missing devices, duplicates, or ghost entries.

In relevant security tooling (such as a SIEM or EDR), a watchlist (also known as a reference set) should be used to monitor for any activity generated by accounts belonging to employees who have left the organization, as this is unexpected. This can help to ensure that the security team readily detects any unrevoked access or account usage.

This process must be in partnership with the Human Resources team, which should inform the security team when an individual leaves the organization (during an Employee Off-Boarding Process, see PV024), including their full and user account names. Ideally, this process should be automated to prevent any gaps in monitoring between the information being sent and the security team adding the name(s) to the watchlist. All format variations should be considered as individual entries in the watchlist to ensure accounts using different naming conventions will generate alerts, such as john.smith, john smith, john.smith@company.com, and jsmith.

False positives could occur if there is a legitimate reason for interaction with the account(s), such as actions conducted by IT staff.

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.