When “Looks Real” Isn’t Real: Misinformation, Targeted Disinformation, and Deepfakes as the New Mass‑Disruption Weapon — and How Zero Trust Contains It

An Expanded Analysis of the Emerging Synthetic Media Threat Landscape and Zero Trust Countermeasures

Expanded Analysis Based on DrZeroTrust Research – Version 1.1 – September 19, 2025

Executive Summary

The democratization of generative artificial intelligence has fundamentally transformed the threat landscape, collapsing the traditional barriers that once required sophisticated resources and expertise to create convincing forgeries. This technological shift has empowered both criminal enterprises and state-sponsored threat actors to manufacture plausible synthetic media—encompassing text, audio, video, and imagery—at industrial scale and with minimal investment.^[1]

The consequences of this transformation are already manifesting in high-profile incidents that underscore the severity of the threat. In 2024, a Hong Kong-based finance employee at the global engineering firm Arup was deceived into transferring approximately US$25 million during what appeared to be a legitimate video conference call with the CFO and colleagues. Unbeknownst to the employee, all participants in the video call were sophisticated deepfake avatars created using AI technology. Similarly, during the 2024 U.S. election cycle, AI-generated robocalls mimicking President Biden’s voice were deployed to suppress voter turnout in New Hampshire, prompting the Federal Communications Commission to declare AI voices in robocalls illegal under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and subsequently impose a $6 million penalty against the operative responsible.^{[2][3][4][5][1]}

Perhaps most concerning from a market stability perspective was the incident in May 2023 when a single AI-generated image purporting to show an explosion near the Pentagon briefly caused significant volatility in U.S. equity markets. This demonstrated how synthetic content can rapidly couple into both automated trading systems and human decision-making processes, creating cascading effects across financial infrastructure.^[6]

The U.S. Intelligence Community’s 2025 Annual Threat Assessment explicitly identifies AI as an amplifying factor in fraud and influence operations, noting that these technologies are accelerating both the speed and scale of deceptive campaigns. Concurrent research reveals the fundamental limitations of human detection capabilities: comprehensive meta-analyses and large-scale user studies consistently demonstrate that average human deepfake detection performance hovers near chance levels when confronted with high-quality synthetic samples, with audio deepfakes proving particularly deceptive.^{[7][8][9][10]}

The solution framework proposed centers on extending Zero Trust architecture principles beyond their traditional application to people and devices, encompassing information itself as an untrusted entity. This expanded Zero Trust model treats every message, meeting, and media object as inherently untrusted until it can earn credibility through cryptographic provenance verification, robust identity binding, and comprehensive contextual corroboration. Critical to this approach is the implementation of decision friction mechanisms around high-risk actions such as financial transfers, policy modifications, and market-moving communications, coupled with comprehensive response rehearsal protocols for scenarios where synthetic media successfully evades initial containment measures.^[11][12]

1. Background and Framing: Understanding the Synthetic Media Ecosystem

1.1 Comprehensive Terminology Framework

The landscape of deceptive digital content encompasses several distinct but interconnected categories that require precise definition to enable effective countermeasures:

Misinformation represents false or inaccurate content that is shared without malicious intent to deceive. This category often includes well-meaning individuals sharing unverified information, honest mistakes in reporting, or the inadvertent amplification of incorrect data. While the intent is not malicious, the impact can still be significant, particularly when such content achieves viral distribution across social media platforms.

Disinformation constitutes deliberately fabricated or manipulated content shared with explicit intent to deceive, influence, or cause harm. This category encompasses state-sponsored influence operations, corporate disinformation campaigns, and individual bad actors seeking to manipulate public opinion or achieve specific outcomes through the deliberate spread of false information.

Deepfakes and Synthetic Media represent AI-generated or manipulated audio, images, or video content that presents events, statements, or identities that never actually occurred. This technology has evolved from requiring specialized expertise and significant computational resources to being accessible through consumer-grade applications and cloud-based services.

The Liar’s Dividend describes the phenomenon whereby malicious actors exploit the general awareness and ubiquity of synthetic media to dismiss legitimate evidence as potentially “fake.” This concept, originally developed by legal scholars Bobby Chesney and Danielle Citron, has gained particular relevance in political contexts where authentic evidence can be dismissed by invoking the possibility of deepfake manipulation. Recent research demonstrates that politicians can successfully maintain voter support by falsely claiming that damaging stories about them are misinformation, with this strategy proving more effective than remaining silent or offering apologies.^{[13][10][14][15][16]}

1.2 The Fundamental Shift in Risk Profile (2024-2025)

The risk landscape has undergone a dramatic transformation driven by several converging factors that have collectively lowered barriers to entry while amplifying potential impact:

Cost Collapse and Democratization: The creation of high-fidelity synthetic content has transitioned from requiring significant technical expertise and computational resources to being accessible to low-skill actors through user-friendly applications and cloud-based services. The U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence has specifically flagged AI-amplified fraud and influence operations as priority risks in their threat assessment framework. Research indicates that convincing deepfakes can now be created for as little as $20 using readily available tools, with some services requiring only minutes of training data.^[17][7]

Human Detection Limitations: Extensive controlled studies across multiple demographics and content types consistently demonstrate that human performance in detecting high-quality synthetic media barely exceeds chance levels. Audio deepfakes present particular challenges, with detection rates showing significant inconsistency and often falling below 60% accuracy even among trained evaluators. A comprehensive study conducted by the University of Florida involving 1,200 participants found that while humans claimed a 73% accuracy rate in detecting audio deepfakes, they were frequently deceived by machine-generated details such as artificial accents and background noise.^[8][9][10]

Real-World Impact Manifestation: The theoretical risks associated with synthetic media have materialized into concrete incidents affecting financial systems, market stability, and democratic processes. Beyond the previously mentioned Arup case and election-related incidents, the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center reported that Business Email Compromise attacks, increasingly enhanced by AI-generated content, resulted in $2.77 billion in losses across 21,442 incidents in 2024 alone. The financial services sector has been particularly impacted, with Deloitte projecting that generative AI email fraud losses could reach $11.5 billion by 2027 in an aggressive adoption scenario.^[18][19][20]

Ecosystem Signals and Standards Evolution: The emergence of technical standards and industry initiatives signals both the maturation of the threat and the development of defensive capabilities. The Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA) released version 2.2 of their Content Credentials specification in May 2025, providing a framework for cryptographically signing digital content to establish provenance. Major platforms have begun implementing content labeling systems: TikTok now automatically applies Content Credentials to certain content, YouTube requires disclosure of synthetic content in videos, and Meta applies “AI info” labels to detected artificial content. Hardware manufacturers have also begun integrating authentication capabilities, with cameras such as the Leica M11-P now capable of cryptographically signing content at the point of capture.^{[21][22][23][18][17]}

2. Threat Landscape: The Evolution of Synthetic Media Attack Methodologies

2.1 The Synthetic Influence Kill Chain: A Detailed Analysis

The deployment of synthetic media in malicious campaigns follows a systematic approach that can be analyzed through a structured kill chain model:

Phase 1: Reconnaissance and Asset Collection: Adversaries conduct extensive open-source intelligence (OSINT) gathering to collect audio and video samples of target individuals, typically focusing on executives, public figures, or key decision-makers within target organizations. This phase includes mapping organizational structures, vendor relationships, communication patterns, and identifying high-value targets for impersonation. Social media platforms, corporate websites, conference presentations, and media interviews provide rich sources of voice and visual data that can be harvested with minimal risk of detection.^[24]

Phase 2: Model Training and Rehearsal: Collected audio and visual assets are processed through AI models to create synthetic representations capable of real-time generation during attack execution. This phase involves tuning language models to replicate specific jargon, communication styles, and organizational terminology. The U.S. Intelligence Community’s threat assessments specifically highlight the increasing sophistication of AI-assisted fraud and influence operations during this preparatory phase.^[7]

Phase 3: Pretext Development and Social Proof: Adversaries establish supporting infrastructure including look-alike domains, forged documentation, and fabricated urgency scenarios. This phase often involves creating artificial time pressure and establishing plausible reasons why normal verification procedures cannot be followed. Research indicates that scammers increasingly use AI to generate supporting documentation and create entire fabricated scenarios to support their primary deceptive narrative.^[24]

Phase 4: Direct Engagement: The actual deployment phase involves real-time use of synthetic media during voice or video calls to direct specific actions such as financial transfers or policy changes. The Arup case exemplifies this phase, where multiple synthetic participants maintained a coherent conversation while directing the transfer of $25 million. The sophistication of current technology allows for real-time voice modulation and video synthesis during live interactions.^[1][2]

Phase 5: Amplification and Distribution: For influence operations targeting broader audiences, synthetic content is distributed across social media platforms, messaging applications, or through automated robocall systems. The legal framework around such distribution continues to evolve, with AI-generated voices in robocalls now illegal under U.S. federal law.^[3]

Phase 6: Exfiltration and Attribution Obfuscation: Following successful attacks, adversaries employ money laundering techniques, cryptocurrency mixers, and coordinated bot networks to obscure the source of the attack while simultaneously deploying the liar’s dividend strategy to undermine the credibility of authentic evidence that might expose their activities.^[10][13]

2.2 The Audio Vector: Why Voice Leads the Threat Landscape

Audio deepfakes represent the most immediate and scalable threat within the synthetic media ecosystem for several convergent reasons:

Technical Accessibility and Cost Effectiveness: Voice cloning technology requires significantly less training data compared to video deepfakes, with some systems capable of producing convincing results from as little as three seconds of source audio. This low barrier to entry has made voice cloning accessible to a broader range of threat actors, including those without sophisticated technical capabilities.^[25]

Cognitive Processing Vulnerabilities: Human auditory processing is particularly susceptible to deception when presented with familiar voices under stress or time pressure. Research by Starling Bank found that over 25% of surveyed adults reported being targeted by voice cloning scams within the previous year, while nearly half were unaware that such technology existed. The psychological impact of hearing a familiar voice in distress can override rational skepticism and security training.^[25]

Limited Visual Verification Cues: Unlike video deepfakes, which may contain visual artifacts that trained observers can identify, audio deepfakes provide fewer contextual cues for verification. The absence of visual information forces recipients to rely primarily on voice recognition and conversational content, both of which can be effectively synthesized by current AI systems.^[10]

Platform and Infrastructure Penetration: Voice-based attacks can leverage existing telecommunications infrastructure without requiring specialized applications or platforms. This ubiquity means that potential victims cannot avoid the threat vector by avoiding specific applications or services, as telephone calls remain a universal communication method across all demographics and technical sophistication levels.

2.3 Cognitive Warfare: The Strategic Context

The deployment of synthetic media as a tool of deception operates within the broader framework that NATO’s Allied Command Transformation defines as cognitive warfare: the systematic use of technological tools to alter perceptions and decision-making processes of targeted individuals or groups, often without their awareness of the manipulation attempt. This conceptual framework recognizes that modern conflict extends beyond physical and cyber domains to encompass direct attacks on human cognition and decision-making processes.^[26][27][28]

Cognitive Domain Targeting: Unlike traditional information warfare that primarily seeks to control information dissemination, cognitive warfare directly targets the mental processes through which individuals interpret, analyze, and act upon information. Synthetic media represents a particularly potent tool within this domain because it exploits fundamental trust assumptions about sensory evidence.^[27][28]

Multi-Domain Integration: Cognitive warfare campaigns increasingly integrate synthetic media with other influence vectors, including social media manipulation, coordinated inauthentic behavior, and traditional disinformation techniques. This multi-modal approach amplifies the impact of individual synthetic media artifacts by embedding them within broader narrative frameworks.^[27]

Attribution Challenges: The cognitive warfare framework recognizes that synthetic media operations often involve ambiguous attribution, making it difficult for defenders to identify the source of attacks and respond appropriately. This attribution complexity is intentionally cultivated by sophisticated adversaries to maintain plausible deniability while achieving strategic objectives.^[29][27]

3. Case Studies and Lessons: Learning from Real-World Incidents

Use Case A: Multi-Avatar Executive Impersonation (Arup, 2024)

The Arup incident represents a watershed moment in synthetic media fraud, demonstrating the capability of current technology to sustain extended deception during interactive communication. A finance employee participated in what appeared to be a routine video conference call with the company’s CFO and several colleagues, ultimately authorizing the transfer of approximately US$25 million based on instructions received during the call.^[2][1]

Technical Sophistication Analysis: The attack demonstrated several advanced capabilities including real-time video synthesis of multiple distinct individuals, coordination of conversational flow among synthetic participants, and the ability to respond appropriately to questions and comments from the human participant. The level of sophistication suggests significant preparation and potentially state-level or organized criminal resources.

Organizational Vulnerability Factors: The success of this attack highlighted several organizational vulnerabilities including insufficient verification protocols for high-value financial transactions, over-reliance on visual confirmation through video calls, and inadequate out-of-band verification procedures for unusual requests.

Recommended Control Implementation: Organizations should implement Identity Provider (IdP)-anchored callback procedures requiring verification through pre-registered contact information for all high-risk directives. Additionally, two-person integrity requirements and “no video authorization” policies for financial transactions above specified thresholds can significantly reduce attack surface. Payment cooling-off periods that introduce mandatory delays between authorization and execution provide additional opportunities for verification and fraud detection.^[1][2]

Use Case B: AI-Voiced Robocalls (New Hampshire, 2024)

The deployment of a deepfake voice mimicking President Biden to discourage voter participation in New Hampshire’s primary election demonstrated how synthetic media can be weaponized against democratic processes. The incident resulted in the FCC declaring AI-generated voices in robocalls illegal under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, with subsequent enforcement action culminating in a $6 million fine against the responsible party.^[4][5][3]

Regulatory Response Evolution: This incident triggered rapid regulatory adaptation, with the FCC moving from initial declaratory ruling to enforcement action within months. The case established important precedent for treating AI-generated voice calls as inherently deceptive under existing telecommunications law, providing a framework for future enforcement actions.

Technical Detection Challenges: The incident highlighted the limitations of current caller ID authentication systems and the need for enhanced verification mechanisms. STIR/SHAKEN caller ID authentication protocols provide some protection against spoofing but do not address the content of calls themselves.^[30]

Recommended Control Implementation: Organizations and institutions should surface STIR/SHAKEN attestation information to call recipients, implement carrier analytics to identify suspicious calling patterns, and develop rapid response capabilities for deploying signed counter-messaging when synthetic media is detected in critical communications.^[30]

Use Case C: Market-Moving AI Imagery (Pentagon, 2023)

A single AI-generated image purporting to show an explosion near the Pentagon briefly caused significant movement in U.S. equity markets before being debunked by official sources. This incident demonstrated the potential for synthetic media to couple directly into automated trading systems and create cascading effects across financial infrastructure.^[6]

Systemic Risk Implications: The incident revealed the vulnerability of algorithmic trading systems to synthetic media, particularly when such content appears on platforms monitored by automated sentiment analysis and news parsing systems. The speed at which false information can propagate through interconnected financial systems creates systemic risk that extends beyond the initial deceptive content.

Market Structure Vulnerabilities: High-frequency trading algorithms and automated news parsing systems lack sophisticated media authentication capabilities, making them vulnerable to manipulation through strategically deployed synthetic content. The incident highlighted the need for provenance verification within financial information pipelines.

Recommended Control Implementation: Financial news vendors and market data providers should integrate C2PA Content Credentials verification into their content ingestion processes. Additionally, exchanges should implement enhanced safeguards for content-driven trading suspensions and establish protocols for rapid editorial verification of market-moving information.^[18][6]

Use Case D: Election-Period Deepfakes (Slovakia, 2023)

During Slovakia’s parliamentary election campaign, viral audio recordings allegedly featuring political candidates discussing vote manipulation and media corruption were released during a legally mandated media silence period, complicating efforts to provide timely fact-checking and debunking. While the ultimate impact on voting behavior remains subject to scholarly debate, the incident highlighted the challenges of addressing synthetic media during critical time periods.^[31][32]

Temporal Vulnerability Windows: The timing of the content release during a period when traditional media was restricted from political coverage created a verification gap that amplified the potential impact of synthetic content. This tactical choice demonstrated sophisticated understanding of the information environment and regulatory constraints.

Platform Response Limitations: Social media platforms struggled to rapidly assess the authenticity of the content and implement appropriate content labeling or removal actions within the compressed timeframe available before voting commenced.

Recommended Control Implementation: Election authorities should establish provenance requirements for political media content, implement platform friction mechanisms during legally mandated silence periods, and prepare signed statement protocols that allow rapid authentication of official responses to synthetic media incidents.^[32][31]

Historical Precursor Analysis: CEO Voice Deepfake (2019)

The 2019 incident involving a CEO voice deepfake that resulted in approximately €220,000 (US$243,000) in fraudulent transfers represents an early indicator of the threat trajectory that has since materialized at scale. This case demonstrated that voice-only attacks could successfully trigger high-value financial transfers even without visual confirmation.^[27]

Evolutionary Trajectory: Comparison between the 2019 incident and more recent cases like Arup reveals significant advancement in both technical capability and attack sophistication. The progression from single-voice audio deception to multi-participant video conferencing demonstrates rapid technological advancement and increasing attacker sophistication.

4. Human Detection Limitations: Research Evidence

Comprehensive Performance Analysis

A 2024 meta-analysis synthesizing results from dozens of independent studies estimates overall human deepfake detection performance at approximately 55-60% accuracy, with significant variation based on content type, quality, and presentation duration. This performance level, while slightly above random chance, is insufficient for high-stakes security applications where false negatives can result in significant financial or operational consequences.^[8][11][2]

Audio Detection Challenges: Audio deepfakes present particular detection challenges, with human performance showing greater inconsistency compared to visual media. Large-scale studies consistently demonstrate that short audio clips, especially those featuring familiar voices, are particularly difficult for human evaluators to assess accurately.^[9][8][10]

Demographic and Training Variations: Research indicates that detection performance varies significantly across demographic groups, with younger participants generally showing better performance on visual deepfakes but similar limitations on audio content. Specialized training can improve detection rates, but the improvement is often modest and may not transfer effectively to new manipulation techniques.^[2][10]

Contextual Factors: Detection performance is significantly influenced by presentation context, time pressure, emotional state, and familiarity with the purported speaker or subject. These factors are often deliberately manipulated by attackers to create conditions that maximize the likelihood of successful deception.^[10][2]

Automated Detection Limitations

Automated detection systems, while potentially more consistent than human evaluation, face significant challenges in generalizing new manipulation techniques and maintaining effectiveness as synthesis technology advances. Current commercial detection systems show significant performance degradation when evaluating synthetic media created using techniques do not present in their training datasets.^[33][8]

Adversarial Evasion: Research demonstrates that determined adversaries can implement specific countermeasures designed to evade detection systems, including post-processing techniques that remove artifacts commonly used by detection algorithms. The adversarial nature of this technological race suggests that detection-only approaches will face inherent limitations.^[34][35]

False Positive Management: In operational environments, detection systems must balance sensitivity against false positive rates to maintain usability. High false positive rates can lead to alert fatigue and reduced trust in the detection system, while conservative settings may allow sophisticated attacks to evade detection.^[35][34]

Implications for Organizational Defense

The research evidence clearly demonstrates that neither human evaluation nor automated detection systems can provide sufficient reliability for high-stakes security applications. This finding necessitates a fundamental shift toward process-based controls and verification protocols that do not rely primarily on the ability to distinguish authentic from synthetic media.^[9][34][8]

Process Integration Requirements: Effective defense must integrate multiple verification mechanisms including out-of-band confirmation, multi-person approval processes, and temporal controls that provide opportunities for verification independent of media authenticity assessment.

Training Limitations: While security awareness training remains important, organizations should avoid over-relying on human detection capabilities as a primary defense mechanism. Training should focus more on verification procedures and protocol adherence than on developing detection skills.^[34][35]

5. Zero Trust for Information: Comprehensive Framework Extension

Fundamental Principles Adaptation

The extension of Zero Trust principles to information and media content requires adapting the core tenet of “never trust, always verify” to encompass every message, media object, and communication as an untrusted input that must earn credibility through verifiable proof rather than assumed authenticity.^[12][11]

Trust Establishment Mechanisms: Unlike traditional Zero Trust models that focus on identity and device verification, information centric Zero Trust requires establishing trust through cryptographic provenance, multi-source corroboration, and contextual validation that extends beyond technical verification to include business process validation.

Dynamic Risk Assessment: Information trust levels must be dynamically assessed based on content risk, source reliability, verification availability, and potential impact. This requires sophisticated policy engines capable of evaluating multiple factors simultaneously to determine appropriate handling procedures.

Temporal Considerations: Information trust may degrade over time or change based on external validation, requiring systems that can re-evaluate and adjust trust levels as new information becomes available or verification status changes.

Mapping to Zero Trust Architecture Pillars

Identity Integration: Identity Provider (IdP)-anchored callback directories ensure that high-risk directives such as wire transfers, vendor bank account changes, or operational shutdowns require out-of-band verification to pre-registered contact information. Official communications should be cryptographically signed using organization-controlled keys to establish authenticity independent of delivery channel.^[11][12]

Device Security: Conferencing endpoints requires hardening with virtual camera restrictions except for approved roles and use cases. Internal recordings should include watermarking to establish provenance, and device integrity verification should extend to media capture and transmission capabilities.^[12]

Network Controls: Conditional access policies for collaboration tools should implement step-up verification for sessions attempting to authorize high-risk actions. Network-level filtering can provide initial screening but should not be relied upon as the primary defense mechanism.^[12]

Application and Workload Integration: Content Integrity Gateways deployed at email, chat, web, and meeting ingress points should verify C2PA Content Credentials, extract digital signatures, and attach risk scores based on provenance verification results. These systems should integrate with existing security orchestration platforms to provide comprehensive threat intelligence.^[18]

Data Protection: Golden records for critical directives and decisions should maintain non-repudiable approval artifacts including signed requests, verified callback transcripts, and multi-person authorization evidence. Data integrity verification should extend beyond traditional file integrity to include provenance and authenticity validation.^[12]

Cross-Cutting Visibility and Analytics: Comprehensive correlation capabilities should integrate identity verification, device posture, network context, provenance signals (C2PA, DKIM, STIR/SHAKEN), and business context to provide holistic risk assessment for information and communication authenticity.^[30]

Signal Integration Framework

Content Provenance Integration: Organizations should adopt C2PA version 2.2 standards and prioritize camera and workflow tooling capable of signing content at the point of capture. End-to-end credential preservation requires careful attention to content processing pipelines that may inadvertently strip or invalidate provenance information.^[23][18]

Platform Label Consumption: TikTok Content Credentials, YouTube synthetic-content disclosures, and Meta “AI info” labels should be ingested into Security Operations Center (SOC) and Trust & Safety tooling. While helpful for initial screening, platform-generated labels should be considered supplementary rather than definitive indicators of content authenticity.^[22][21][17]

Telephony Authentication: STIR/SHAKEN implementation should surface attestation levels to end users and security systems, with low-attestation calls treated as elevated risk for any authorization or verification steps. Integration with existing call management systems can provide additional context for risk assessment.^[30]

Multi-Source Corroboration: Verification frameworks should incorporate multiple independent sources of confirmation rather than relying on single authentication mechanisms. This may include social media verification, public record confirmation, and direct contact through multiple communication channels.

6. Implementation Blueprint: A Comprehensive 90-Day Framework

Phase 1: Days 0-30 – Policy Foundation and Immediate Controls

High-Risk Directive Classification: Organizations must clearly define categories of actions requiring enhanced verification, typically including financial transfers above specified thresholds, vendor bank account modifications, public statements or press releases, privileged access grants, and operational changes affecting critical systems. All such directives should mandate two-person integrity verification and IdP-anchored callback confirmation regardless of the apparent source or urgency.^[11][12]

Communication Channel Hardening: STIR/SHAKEN attestation information should be surfaced to approvers and decision-makers, while SMS and consumer-grade chat applications should be prohibited for authorization workflows. Email security should be enhanced with DKIM verification and sender authentication protocols.^[30]

Content Integrity Gateway Deployment: Initial pilot deployment of Content Integrity Gateway capabilities should focus on email and file sharing ingress points, with C2PA verification for inbound assets, provenance risk scoring, and comprehensive logging of all content authentication activities. This pilot should establish baselines for false positive rates and processing latency.^[18]

Authenticity Policy Publication: Organizations should publish clear statements of their authenticity practices, including how official media is cryptographically signed, verification procedures for stakeholders, and contact information for authenticity verification. This public commitment establishes expectation frameworks that make impersonation more difficult.^[18]

Phase 2: Days 31-60 – Technology Integration and Training

Collaboration Tool Instrumentation: Default policies should block virtual cameras except for specifically approved roles and use cases, while internal recordings should include watermarking for provenance verification. Financial systems should implement alerting for new payee registrations combined with same-day large transfer requests.^[12]

Red Team Exercise Program: Tabletop exercises should simulate synthetic media scenarios including deepfake CEO wire transfer requests, fabricated “breaking news” videos affecting the organization, and AI-voiced robocalls targeting employees. These exercises should include participation from Security, Finance, Public Relations, and Legal teams to ensure coordinated response capabilities.

Response Playbook Development: “Rumor Response” and “Synthetic Impersonator” playbooks should provide pre-approved language, escalation procedures, and contact information for rapid deployment during incidents. These playbooks should include templates for public statements, internal communications, and stakeholder notifications.

Technical Training Implementation: Employee training should focus on verification procedures and protocol adherence rather than attempting to improve deepfake detection capabilities. Training should emphasize the limitations of human detection and the importance of following verification protocols regardless of how authentic content appears.

Phase 3: Days 61-90 – External Integration and Crisis Preparedness

Content Creation Provenance: Organizations should implement C2PA Content Credentials for owned photo and video content, with end-to-end verification testing on websites and social media platforms. This requires coordination with content management systems and publication workflows to ensure credential preservation.^{[21][22][17][23][18]}

Partner and Vendor Alignment: Agencies, payment processors, and public relations vendors should be required to support C2PA standards and organizational callback verification policies. Service level agreements should specify requirements for authenticity verification and response times for verification requests.

Crisis Response Validation: Organizations should conduct exercises involving the publication of signed mock statements, measuring time-to-verification performance and stakeholder reach effectiveness. These exercises should identify bottlenecks in verification processes and opportunities for improvement.

Stakeholder Communication Protocols: Clear communication channels should be established for rapid authenticity verification, including dedicated contact information, verification websites, and social media accounts specifically designated for crisis communication and authenticity confirmation.

7. Comprehensive Controls Framework

The following control framework provides specific implementation guidance organized by security objective and operational ownership:

Identity and Access Controls

IdP-Anchored Callback for High-Risk Directives

• Objective: Prevent synthetic media-driven fraud through mandatory out-of-band verification
• Owner: Security Operations and Finance teams
• Evidence: Callback logs with timestamps, approval artifacts with digital signatures, verification outcome documentation
• Implementation: Integration with identity management systems to maintain verified contact information, automated callback initiation for transactions exceeding defined thresholds, mandatory cooling-off periods for verification completion

Two-Person Integrity (TPI) Requirements

• Objective: Eliminate single points of failure in critical decision-making processes
• Owner: Finance and Information Technology teams
• Evidence: Dual-approval records with individual authentication, segregation of duties documentation, exception handling logs
• Implementation: Workflow management systems requiring independent verification from two authorized individuals, role-based access controls preventing single-person authorization, audit trails for all approval activities

Technical Infrastructure Controls

Content Integrity Gateway

• Objective: Add provenance verification and risk assessment to content at network ingress points
• Owner: Security Operations teams
• Evidence: Gateway policy configurations, content verification logs, risk scoring analytics, false positive/negative tracking
• Implementation: C2PA signature verification, metadata extraction and analysis, integration with security information and event management (SIEM) systems, automated risk scoring based on provenance verification results

C2PA Implementation at Content Creation

• Objective: Make organizational truth verifiable through cryptographic provenance
• Owner: Communications and Creative teams
• Evidence: C2PA manifests for published content, validation page functionality, signature verification logs
• Implementation: Camera and software tooling capable of content signing, workflow integration to preserve credentials through editing processes, public verification infrastructure for stakeholder use

Communication Security Controls

STIR/SHAKEN Integration

• Objective: Bind telephony communications to verify identity information
• Owner: Information Technology and Telecommunications teams
• Evidence: Carrier attestation displays, call authentication logs, verification failure reporting
• Implementation: Telecommunications provider integration for attestation information, user interface modifications to display verification status, policy enforcement based on attestation levels

Virtual Camera Management

• Objective: Reduce real-time video impersonation opportunities
• Owner: Information Technology and Endpoint Management teams
• Evidence: Mobile Device Management (MDM) configurations, except approval registers, policy compliance reporting
• Implementation: Default policies blocking virtual camera software, approval workflows for legitimate business use cases, regular compliance auditing and reporting

Financial and Operational Controls

Payment Processing Controls

• Objective: Insert decision friction into high-risk financial transactions
• Owner: Finance teams
• Evidence: Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system rules, alert generation screenshots, transaction delay documentation
• Implementation: Mandatory cooling-off periods for new payees, enhanced verification for large transactions, automated alerting unusual payment patterns

Crisis Response Preparedness

• Objective: Ensure organizational readiness for synthetic media incidents
• Owner: Security Operations, Public Relations, and Legal teams
• Evidence: Exercise reports and lessons learned, playbook accessibility verification, response time metrics
• Implementation: Regular tabletop exercises simulating synthetic media scenarios, pre-approved response templates, escalation procedures with defined roles and responsibilities

8. Metrics and Measurement Framework

Operational Effectiveness Metrics

Mean Time to Verification (MTTV): Organizations should establish baseline measurements for the time required to complete verification processes for high-risk directives, with continuous improvement targets based on operational requirements and threat landscape evolution. Industry benchmarks suggest verification processes should be completed within 15 minutes for urgent requests and 2 hours for standard business requests.^[11][12]

Content Credential Coverage: Tracking the percentage of official organizational assets that include valid C2PA credentials provides insight into provenance verification coverage and identifies gaps in content authentication capabilities. Organizations should target 90% coverage for external-facing content within 12 months of program implementation.^[18]

Callback Completion Rate: Measuring the percentage of high-risk approvals that include completed, IdP-anchored callback verification provides assurance that verification protocols are being followed consistently. Target completion rates should exceed 95% with documented exceptions for genuine emergency scenarios.^[11][12]

Financial Impact Metrics: Organizations should track “cost avoided” through blocked fraudulent transfers, prevented unauthorized disbursements, and interdicted social engineering attempts. While difficult to quantify precisely, these metrics provide valuable justification for program investment and continuous improvement.

Response Time Performance: Measuring the time from rumor or false content identification to official response publication provides insight into crisis communication effectiveness. Target response times should be less than 2 hours during business hours and 4 hours during off-hours for high-impact scenarios.

Technical Performance Indicators

False Positive Management: Content verification systems should maintain false positive rates below 5% to ensure operational usability while minimizing the risk of legitimate content being incorrectly flagged as potentially synthetic or unverified.

System Integration Effectiveness: Measuring the percentage of communication channels covered by verification protocols and the consistency of policy enforcement across different platforms and applications.

Training Effectiveness: Regular assessment of employee compliance with verification protocols and their ability to correctly follow established procedures when confronted with potentially synthetic content.

Strategic Risk Assessment

Threat Landscape Monitoring: Regular assessment of synthetic media capabilities in the threat environment, including emerging attack techniques, new technology capabilities, and evolving adversary sophistication levels.

Third-Party Risk: Evaluation of vendor and partner adoption of authentication standards and their ability to support organizational verification requirements.

Regulatory Compliance: Monitoring of evolving legal and regulatory requirements related to synthetic media, content authentication, and verification obligations.

9. Policy and Regulatory Environment Analysis

U.S. Federal Regulatory Actions

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Initiatives: The FCC’s declaration that AI-generated voices in robocalls are illegal under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act represents a significant regulatory precedent, with the subsequent $6 million fine in the New Hampshire case demonstrating enforcement commitment. The expansion of STIR/SHAKEN caller ID authentication requirements continues to progress, with enhanced attestation requirements for voice service providers.^{[5][3][4][30]}

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Considerations: While not yet formalized into comprehensive regulations, SEC statements regarding AI-generated content and market manipulation suggest increased scrutiny of synthetic media use in financial communications. The Pentagon image incident that briefly affected equity markets has likely contributed to regulatory interest in this area.^[6][9]

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) Guidance: The integration of synthetic media capabilities into financial fraud schemes has prompted increased attention from financial regulators, though specific guidance remains under development. The Arup case and similar incidents demonstrate the potential for significant financial impact that may trigger enhanced reporting requirements.^[1][2]

Content Provenance Standards Evolution

C2PA Technical Specification Maturation: Version 2.2 of the C2PA specification, released in May 2025, includes enhanced security features, improved interoperability requirements, and expanded metadata schemas. However, industry adoption remains uneven, with significant implementation challenges related to workflow integration and infrastructure requirements.^[18]

Platform Implementation Variability: Major social media and content platforms have adopted different approaches to synthetic content labeling and verification. YouTube requires disclosure of synthetic content in video uploads, TikTok has begun implementing Content Credentials for certain content types, and Meta applies “AI info” labels to detect artificial content. This inconsistency across platforms creates challenges for unified verification approaches.^[22][17][21]

Hardware Integration Progress: Camera manufacturers such as Leica have begun integrating Content Credentials capabilities directly into capture devices, but adoption remains limited to premium products. The availability of signing-capable hardware at consumer price points remains a significant barrier to widespread adoption.^[23]

International Regulatory Developments

European Union Digital Services Act: The DSA includes provisions related to synthetic content detection and labeling, though enforcement mechanisms and specific requirements continue to evolve. Organizations operating in EU markets should monitor ongoing guidance development.

United Kingdom Online Safety Act: UK regulations include specific provisions for synthetic content and deepfake materials, with requirements for platform detection and removal capabilities that may impact organizational communication strategies.

NATO Cognitive Warfare Framework: The development of NATO doctrine related to cognitive warfare provides strategic context for understanding synthetic media threats in geopolitical contexts, particularly for organizations with defense sector involvement or critical infrastructure responsibilities.^[28][26][27]

10. Risk Communication in the Era of the Liar’s Dividend

Strategic Communication Framework

The phenomenon of the liar’s dividend—whereby the general awareness of deepfake and synthetic media capabilities allows bad actors to dismiss legitimate evidence as potentially fabricated—requires organizations to fundamentally reconsider their approach to crisis communication and public trust management.^[14][13][10]

Pre-Commitment Strategies: Organizations should establish and publicize cryptographic signing practices for official communications before they are needed during a crisis. This pre-commitment creates a verification framework that stakeholders can rely upon when distinguishing authentic organizational communications from potential impersonations or false claims.

Verification Infrastructure: Public verification capabilities should be established and regularly tested to ensure stakeholders can quickly and reliably confirm the authenticity of organizational statements. This infrastructure should include website-based verification tools, social media verification accounts, and direct contact mechanisms for high-priority stakeholders.

Executive Training and Communication Protocols: Leadership training should emphasize the importance of verification-first communication, with executives trained to avoid making high-risk authorizations based solely on voice, video, or written communications without independent verification through established channels.

Multi-Channel Verification Strategies

Redundant Communication Channels: Critical communications should be delivered through multiple independent channels with consistent messaging and cryptographic verification. This redundancy makes it significantly more difficult for adversaries to successfully impersonate organizational communications across all channels simultaneously.

Stakeholder Education: Regular communication to key stakeholders about verification procedures, expected communication patterns, and red flags for potential impersonation attempts helps create a more resilient information environment around the organization.

Third-Party Validation: Relationships with trusted third parties, including industry associations, regulatory bodies, and verification services, can provide additional authentication mechanisms when organizational credibility is challenged.

11. Future Considerations and Emerging Challenges

Technology Evolution Trajectory

Synthesis Quality Advancement: Current trajectory suggests that synthetic media quality will continue to improve, with generation times decreasing and required training data diminishing. Organizations should plan for scenarios where real-time, high-quality synthesis becomes accessible to a broader range of threat actors.^[36][24]

Detection Technology Arms Race: The ongoing competition between synthesis and detection technologies suggests that detection-only approaches will face inherent limitations. Organizations should prioritize process-based controls that remain effective regardless of detection capability evolution.^[35][34]

Integration with Other AI Capabilities: Synthetic media will likely become integrated with other AI capabilities including natural language processing, automated social media management, and real-time conversation systems, creating more sophisticated and persistent deceptive capabilities.^[24]

Regulatory and Legal Evolution

Liability and Attribution: Legal frameworks for establishing liability and attribution for synthetic media-enabled fraud continue to develop, with potential implications for organizational due diligence requirements and insurance coverage.

International Coordination: Cross-border coordination for synthetic media investigation and prosecution remains challenging, suggesting that organizations should prepare for threats that may be difficult to address through traditional legal mechanisms.

Industry Standards Development: Technical standards for content authentication, verification procedures, and incident response continue to evolve, requiring ongoing attention to ensure organizational practices remain aligned with emerging best practices.

Organizational Adaptation Requirements

Cultural Change Management: The shift to verification-first communication practices requires significant cultural adaptation within organizations, particularly for executives and decision-makers accustomed to rapid, trust-based communication patterns.

Skills and Training Evolution: Security and risk management professionals require new skills related to synthetic media assessment, verification protocol design, and crisis communication in high-uncertainty information environments.

Technology Infrastructure Investment: Organizations will need to continue investing in authentication infrastructure, verification capabilities, and integration technologies to maintain effective defenses against evolving threats.

12. Conclusion and Strategic Recommendations

The emergence of accessible, high-quality synthetic media generation capabilities represents a fundamental shift in the threat landscape that requires comprehensive organizational adaptation beyond traditional cybersecurity measures. The evidence clearly demonstrates that the time has passed when organizations could rely on human intuition or technical detection alone to distinguish authentic from artificial content.^[8][9][10]

Immediate Priority Actions: Organizations should implement Zero Trust principles for information and communications, establishing verification protocols for high-risk decisions that do not depend on the ability to distinguish authentic from synthetic content. This includes mandatory out-of-band verification for financial transactions, two-person integrity requirements for critical decisions, and cryptographic signing of official communications.^[11][12]

Medium-Term Strategic Development: Investment in content authentication infrastructure, including C2PA implementation and Content Integrity Gateway deployment, provides foundation capabilities for more sophisticated verification ecosystems. However, these technical measures must be coupled with process changes and cultural adaptation to ensure effectiveness.^[18]

Long-Term Organizational Resilience: The most resilient organizations will be those that successfully integrate verification protocols into normal business operations without creating excessive friction or operational burden. This requires careful balance between security requirements and operational effectiveness, supported by comprehensive training and cultural change management.^[12][11]

The synthetic media threat represents more than a technical challenge—it requires fundamental reconsideration of how organizations establish and maintain trust with stakeholders. Those organizations that successfully navigate this transition will have significant advantages in an environment where the ability to verify authenticity becomes a critical competitive differentiator. The framework and recommendations provided offer a systematic approach to building these capabilities while maintaining operational effectiveness and stakeholder confidence.

The convergence of accessible AI technology, demonstrated real-world impact, and evolving regulatory frameworks creates both urgent need and practical opportunity for organizations to implement comprehensive synthetic media defense strategies. The cost of inaction—as demonstrated by cases like the Arup $25 million loss and broader market impact significantly exceeds the investment required for effective countermeasures. Organizations that act decisively to implement these frameworks will be better positioned to maintain operational integrity and stakeholder trust in an increasingly complex information environment.

Appendix A: Incident Response Procedures

A1. Suspected Synthetic Media Fraud (Internal Directive)

Immediate Response Protocol:

1. Suspend Action: Immediately halt the requested action regardless of apparent urgency or authority level
2. Initiate IdP-Anchored Verification: Contact the apparent requester through pre-registered contact information maintained in the Identity Provider system, with no exceptions for “emergency” scenarios
3. Engage Second Approver: Require independent verification from a second authorized individual before proceeding with any high-risk action
4. Evidence Preservation: Capture and preserve all artifacts including media files, email headers, call logs, and provenance information for potential investigation
5. Incident Reporting: Immediately notify Security Operations and Finance teams through established incident response channels, providing all available context and evidence

Extended Verification Procedures: For suspected synthetic media incidents, standard verification protocols should be enhanced with additional corroboration steps including verification of recent travel schedules, confirmation through alternative communication channels, and cross-reference with published schedules or known availability.

A2. Viral Rumor or External Synthetic Content

Assessment and Response Framework:

1. Provenance Analysis: Check for available C2PA Content Credentials, examine metadata for inconsistencies, and analyze any available technical indicators of manipulation
2. Multi-Source Corroboration: Cross-reference against operational sensors, facilities management systems, vendor communications, and other independent information sources
3. Official Response Publication: Deploy pre-approved signed counterstatements with clear verification instructions for stakeholders to independently confirm authenticity
4. Stakeholder Communication: Brief critical stakeholders including board members, regulatory contacts, and key customers using established crisis communication protocols
5. Platform Engagement: Request content review and potential removal from relevant platforms based on policy violations, providing evidence and context to support the request

Response Time Targets: Initial assessment should be completed within 30 minutes of identification, with official response published within 2 hours during business hours and 4 hours during off-hours for high-impact scenarios.

References

Arup lost $25mn in Hong Kong deepfake video conference scam. Financial Times (May 17, 2024). https://www.ft.com/content/b977e8d4-664c-4ae4-8a8e-eb93bdf785ea^[1]

Human performance in detecting deepfakes: A systematic review. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (2024). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451958824001714^[2]

FCC makes AI-generated voices in robocalls illegal. Federal Communications Commission (Feb 8, 2024). https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-makes-ai-generated-voices-robocalls-illegal^[3]

FCC finalizes $6 million fine over AI-generated Biden robocalls. Reuters (Sept 26, 2024). https://www.reuters.com/world/us/fcc-finalizes-6-million-fine-over-ai-generated-biden-robocalls-2024-09-26/^[4]

Political consultant behind fake Biden robocalls faces $6 million fine. Associated Press (May 23, 2024). https://apnews.com/article/9e9cc63a71eb9c78b9bb0d1ec2aa6e9c^[5]

Fake image of Pentagon explosion briefly shook the stock market. Associated Press (May 23, 2023). https://apnews.com/article/pentagon-explosion-misinformation-stock-market-ai-96f534c790872fde67012ee81b5ed6a4^[6]

Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community (2025). ODNI (Mar 18, 2025). https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/ATA-2025-Unclassified-Report.pdf^[7]

A Large-Scale Evaluation of Humans as Audio Deepfake Detectors. University of Florida / ACM CCS (2024). https://cise.ufl.edu/~butler/pubs/ccs24-warren-deepfake.pdf^[8]

AI, Deepfakes, and the Future of Financial Deception. SEC.gov (2025). https://www.sec.gov/files/carpenter-sec-statements-march2025.pdf^[9]

Deepfakes, Elections, and Shrinking the Liar’s Dividend. Brennan Center for Justice (Jan 23, 2024). https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/deepfakes-elections-and-shrinking-liars-dividend^[13]

Listen carefully: UF study could lead to better deepfake detection. University of Florida (2024). https://news.ufl.edu/2024/11/deepfakes-audio/^[10]

C2PA Technical Specification v2.2. C2PA (May 2025). https://spec.c2pa.org/specifications/specifications/2.2/specs/_attachments/C2PA_Specification.pdf^[18]

Partnering to advance AI transparency & literacy. TikTok Newsroom (May 9, 2024). https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-us/partnering-with-our-industry-to-advance-ai-transparency-and-literacy^[21]

Disclosing AI-generated content. YouTube Official Blog (Mar 18, 2024). https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/disclosing-ai-generated-content/^[22]

Our approach to labeling AI-generated content. Meta Newsroom (Apr 5, 2024). https://about.fb.com/news/2024/04/metas-approach-to-labeling-ai-generated-content-and-manipulated-media/^[17]

Leica M11-P press release: Content Credentials. Leica Camera AG (Oct 26, 2023). https://leica-camera.com/sites/default/files/2023-10/press_release_leica_m11p_october_2023.pdf^[23]

NIST SP 800-207: Zero Trust Architecture. NIST (Aug 2020). https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/specialpublications/NIST.SP.800-207.pdf^[11]

CISA Zero Trust Maturity Model v2.0. CISA (Apr 2023). https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/2023-04/zero_trust_maturity_model_v2_508.pdf^[12]

The Cognitive Warfare Concept. NATO ACT Innovation Hub (2021). https://innovationhub-act.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/CW-article-Claverie-du-Cluzel-final_0.pdf^[26]

Slovakia’s Election Deepfakes Show AI Is a Danger to Democracy. WIRED (Oct 3, 2023). https://www.wired.com/story/slovakias-election-deepfakes-show-ai-is-a-danger-to-democracy/^[31]

Beyond the deepfake hype: AI, democracy, and the Slovak case. Harvard Kennedy School (Aug 22, 2024). https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/beyond-the-deepfake-hype-ai-democracy-and-the-slovak-case/^[32]

Combating Spoofed Robocalls with Caller ID Authentication. Federal Communications Commission (2024-2025). https://www.fcc.gov/call-authentication^[30]

Cognitive warfare: a conceptual analysis. PMC (2024). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11565700/^[27]

Deepfake-Eval-2024: A Multi-Modal In-the-Wild Benchmark. arXiv (2025). https://arxiv.org/html/2503.02857v4^[33]

⁂

1. docx
2. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4955104
3. https://www.securitymagazine.com/articles/101559-deepfake-enabled-fraud-caused-more-than-200-million-in-losses
4. https://c2pa.org/specifications/specifications/2.2/guidance/Guidance.html
5. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2110013119
6. https://carnegie-production-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/static/files/Bateman_FinCyber_Deepfakes_final.pdf
7. https://aws.amazon.com/solutions/guidance/media-provenance-with-c2pa-on-aws/
8. https://arxiv.org/html/2503.02857v4
9. https://www.sec.gov/files/carpenter-sec-statements-march2025.pdf
10. https://news.ufl.edu/2024/11/deepfakes-audio/
11. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/hbe2/1833228
12. https://www.bostonfed.org/news-and-events/news/2025/04/synthetic-identity-fraud-financial-fraud-expanding-because-of-generative-artificial-intelligence.aspx
13. https://iptc.org/media-provenance/how-do-i-implement/
14. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/liars-dividend-can-politicians-claim-misinformation-to-evade-accountability/687FEE54DBD7ED0C96D72B26606AA073
15. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/watch-out-for-false-claims-of-deepfakes-and-actual-deepfakes-this-election-year/
16. https://www.cla.purdue.edu/news/college/2024/liars-dividend-research.html
17. https://www.eftsure.com/statistics/deepfake-statistics/
18. https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/financial-services/deepfake-banking-fraud-risk-on-the-rise.html
19. https://abnormal.ai/blog/2024-fbi-ic3-report
20. https://www.proofpoint.com/us/blog/email-and-cloud-threats/email-attacks-drive-record-cybercrime-losses-2024
21. https://spec.c2pa.org/specifications/specifications/1.0/guidance/Guidance.html
22. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451958824001714
23. https://www.infosys.com/iki/techcompass/content-provenance-authenticity.html
24. https://www.zerofox.com/intelligence/brief-detecting-and-countering-synthetic-media/
25. https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/18/tech/ai-voice-cloning-scam-warning
26. https://spec.c2pa.org/specifications/specifications/1.3/guidance/_attachments/Guidance.pdf
27. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11565700/
28. https://www.polytechnique-insights.com/en/columns/geopolitics/cognitive-warfare-the-new-battlefield-exploiting-our-brains/
29. https://www.act.nato.int/activities/cognitive-warfare/
30. https://www.zscaler.com/resources/security-terms-glossary/what-is-zero-trust-architecture
31. https://nanyangtechnologicaluniv.demo.elsevierpure.com/en/publications/humans-versus-machines-a-deepfake-detection-faceoff
32. https://www.moodys.com/web/en/us/kyc/resources/insights/uncovering-hidden-fraud-trends-the-rise-of-job-scams-and-data-exploitation.html
33. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STIR/SHAKEN
34. https://www.cjr.org/tow_center/what-journalists-should-know-about-deepfake-detection-technology-in-2025-a-non-technical-guide.php
35. https://partnershiponai.org/manipulated-media-detection-requires-more-than-tools-community-insights-on-whats-needed/
36. https://www.csis.org/analysis/crossing-deepfake-rubicon
37. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_trust_architecture
38. https://transnexus.com/whitepapers/understanding-stir-shaken/
39. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/specialpublications/NIST.SP.800-207.pdf
40. https://www.verizon.com/business/products/contact-center-cx/voice-security/stir-shaken-caller-id-identification/
41. https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/cyberpedia/what-is-a-zero-trust-architecture
42. https://www.act.nato.int/article/cognitive-warfare-strengthening-and-defending-the-mind/
43. https://www.twilio.com/docs/voice/trusted-calling-with-shakenstir
44. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/security/zero-trust/zero-trust-overview
45. https://innovationhub-act.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/CW-article-Claverie-du-Cluzel-final_0.pdf
46. https://ribboncommunications.com/solutions/service-provider-solutions/stirshaken
47. https://www.crowdstrike.com/en-us/cybersecurity-101/zero-trust-security/zero-trust-architecture/
48. https://www.ndu.edu/News/Article-View/Article/3856627/cognitive-warfare-the-fight-for-gray-matter-in-the-digital-gray-zone/
49. https://www.numeracle.com/resources/stir-shaken-center
50. https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/zero-trust
51. https://www.act.nato.int/article/cognitive-warfare-beyond-military-information-support-operations/
52. https://www.darkreading.com/mobile-security/content-credentials-show-promise-but-ecosystem-still-young
53. https://abnormal.ai/blog/bec-vec-attacks
54. https://media.defense.gov/2025/Jan/29/2003634788/-1/-1/0/CSI-CONTENT-CREDENTIALS.PDF
55. https://www.identity.com/deepfake-detection-how-to-spot-and-prevent-synthetic-media/
56. https://security.googleblog.com/2025/09/pixel-android-trusted-images-c2pa-content-credentials.html
57. https://www.valimail.com/blog/essential-guide-to-bec-attacks/
58. https://www.diu.mil/latest/defense-innovation-unit-and-dod-collaborate-to-strengthen-synthetic-media
59. https://www.thephoblographer.com/2025/01/23/are-content-credentials-even-worth-it/
60. https://hoxhunt.com/blog/business-email-compromise-statistics
61. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050925012311
62. https://www.bbc.com/rd/articles/2025-09-news-content-verification-credentials-trust
63. https://www.ic3.gov/PSA/2024/PSA240911
64. https://www.fticonsulting.com/insights/service-sheets/deepfakes-synthetic-media-risk-resilience
65. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/imcrimson_genai-contentcredentials-afirmity-activity-7223290442165972992-1IW3
66. https://www.proofpoint.com/us/threat-reference/business-email-compromise
67. https://cheqd.io/blog/proving-the-truth-shouldnt-be-this-hard-an-insurance-case-for-content-credentials/
68. https://www.becu.org/blog/voice-cloning-ai-scams-are-on-the-rise
69. https://abc7chicago.com/post/scammers-use-voice-cloning-artificial-intelligence-ai-swindle-man-25k-los-angeles-police-talk-how-avoid/15441538/
70. https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/publication/st-digital-forgeries-report-technology-landscape-threat-assessment
71. https://researchexpo.ipat.gatech.edu/liars-dividend-impact-deepfakes-and-fake-news-politician-support-and-trust-media
72. https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/press_release/more-than-75000-consumers-urge-ftc-to-crack-down-on-ai-voice-cloning-fraud/
73. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/deepfakes-elections-and-shrinking-liars-dividend
74. https://consumer.ftc.gov/consumer-alerts/2024/04/fighting-back-against-harmful-voice-cloning
75. https://psyber-labs.com/solutions/
76. https://isps.yale.edu/research/publications/isps24-07
77. https://www.countrybank.com/deepfakes-voice-cloning-how-to-spot-ai-imposter-scams-before-they-cost-you/
78. https://kpmg.com/xx/en/our-insights/risk-and-regulation/deepfake-threats.html
79. https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/x43ph.html

https://incode.com/blog/top-5-cases-of-ai-deepfake-fraud-from-2024-exposed/