We use essential cookies to keep the site working. If you accept, we also load the LinkedIn Insight Tag to measure our October campaign. Cookie Policy
MANAGE
CASE DEBRIEF
The Supplier Switch
PART 01
WHAT HAPPENED

The attacker impersonated a supplier and requested a payment detail change. They used urgency, discouraged phone verification, and exploited internal deadline pressure to make an unsafe decision feel reasonable.

PART 02
THE ENTRY POINT

The attack started with a spoofed supplier email. The sender domain (supplierco-invoices.net) was not the real supplier domain (supplierco.com) - a one-word difference that was not noticed under time pressure.

PART 03
THE HUMAN BEHAVIOUR

The key behaviour was trusting urgency and bypassing payment verification. The policy was clear. The trusted contact number was available. The pressure of a deadline made the unsafe choice feel like the only option.

PART 04
MISSED SIGNALS
⚠ Unusual sender domain
⚠ Request not to call
⚠ Urgency language
⚠ Policy required phone verification
⚠ Verified contact number available but unused
PART 05
WHAT GOOD LOOKED LIKE

Pause the request. Use the supplier's known contact number - not the one in the email. Verify outside the email chain. Report the suspicious request regardless of outcome.

PART 06
TEAM INSIGHT

Some signals found, but the attacker's use of urgency, authority, and trust caused key clues to be missed - a completely normal response under pressure.

PART 07
TEAM DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION PROMPT

"Where do we see urgency causing people to skip checks in our own team?"

PART 08
RECOMMENDED NEXT ACTION

Run another Incident Room case focused on MFA fatigue, executive impersonation or data exposure. Or speak to BehaviourOps about a scenario tailored to your sector.

SPEAK TO BEHAVIOUROPS →EXPLORE MORE GAMES →PURCHASE INCIDENT ROOM →