The Next Big Fraud Threat Starts With One Bad Click

The most damaging threat vectors of the cybersecurity landscape are presumed to be technological ones.

We can thank Hollywood for that.

But while enterprise security budgets increasingly favor defenses reliant on advances like automation, zero-trust architectures and artificial intelligence (AI)-driven detection, a stubborn truth persists. The human element may be becoming the most exploitable vulnerability in the system.

After all, unlike software, humans cannot be updated with a security patch. They operate under fluctuating conditions like fatigue, urgency and distraction that attackers are becoming adept at exploiting.

A March report from Google Threat Intelligence highlighted the growing scale of the problem, noting how adversaries tailor their tactics to these conditions, crafting messages that mimic internal communications, exploit authority hierarchies or create artificial time pressure.

Among the biggest paradoxes for CISOs, CFOs and other security leaders to manage is that, frequently, the more robust the technical perimeter becomes, the more attractive human targets ultimately are.

For CFOs in particular, this translates into a different kind of risk exposure. Financial workflows such as invoice approvals, wire transfers and vendor onboarding are particularly susceptible to social engineering.

A single compromised decision can result in material loss, often with limited recourse.

See also: Middle East Conflict Raises Cyber Risk for Businesses

Attackers Optimizing for Efficiency Strain the Limits of Perimeter Thinking

Zero-day vulnerabilities, which is the industry term for flaws unknown to vendors and therefore unpatched, have traditionally represented the dangers of cyber risk.

But while the volume of these vulnerabilities remains significant, the nature of their exploitation is evolving. Attackers are no longer relying solely on deep technical prowess to weaponize obscure bugs. Instead, they are integrating zero-days into broader campaigns that depend on user interaction.

After all, exploiting a zero-day in isolation is costly, complex and often short-lived. Pairing it with social engineering dramatically increases its effectiveness and reach. A phishing email that convinces a user to click a malicious link can serve as the delivery mechanism for even the most advanced exploit.

One of the more subtle insights from the threat intelligence report is the increasing efficiency of attackers. Rather than pursuing broad, indiscriminate campaigns, many are focusing on high-value targets with tailored approaches. This includes spear-phishing executives, compromising trusted third-party vendors and leveraging insider knowledge to craft believable narratives.

Even highly trained employees can make errors when confronted with well-crafted deception at the wrong moment. The problem is not a lack of awareness; it is the inherent limits of human attention and judgment.

And as organizations adopt cloud services, remote work and distributed architectures, the notion of a fixed boundary has become increasingly obsolete. In this context, the human user is both inside and outside the perimeter simultaneously.

This is where the paradox becomes most apparent. The more sophisticated the technical controls, the more they depend on correct human behavior. Multi-factor authentication, for example, is highly effective until a user is tricked into approving a fraudulent request.

Read more: Supply Chain Cyberattack Puts Enterprise Trade Secrets at Risk

Rethinking Security as a Behavioral System

Technical defenses remain essential, but they must be complemented by strategies that address how people actually work.

For CFOs, this may involve reexamining financial controls through a behavioral lens. Are approval processes designed to catch anomalies, or do they rely on routine compliance? Are employees incentivized to prioritize speed over scrutiny? Small design choices can have outsized effects on risk.

The nature of the enterprise cybersecurity challenge, at the end of the day, has entirely changed. As systems become more secure, attackers will continue to look for the path of least resistance. Increasingly, that path runs through people.

The answer could lie in bridging the gap between technical and human systems, creating defenses that are as dynamic and adaptive as the threats they are designed to counter. After all, it’s not just human adversaries that are conducting behavioral engineering campaigns. Malicious AI agents and other automated bots are, too.

“If a human can do it, we are now at a stage where the machines can do it in plausible ways,” Adam Hiatt, vice president of fraud strategy at Spreedly, told PYMNTS this month.

Findings in “Identity at Scale: Where KYC/KYB Touchpoints Create (or Contain) Agent Risk,” a new report from PYMNTS Intelligence and Trulioo, underscore the impact that continuous lifecycle management can have in defending against AI-powered fraud.

For CISOs, the challenge may be to integrate behavioral insights into security architecture. This might mean deploying tools that detect anomalous user behavior, implementing just-in-time access controls, or using AI to flag high-risk interactions. The emphasis can shift from preventing all errors to identifying and mitigating the most dangerous ones.