Topic starter
19/08/2026 3:43 pm
TL;DR: Basic phishing tests can create a false sense of security because they miss multi-vector attacks, role-specific targeting, and MFA bypass attempts, according to Living Security Human Risk Management Platform. Enterprises need simulations tied to identity, behaviour, and threat data so training reflects real risk, not just click rates.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Living Security Human Risk Management Platform: “Advanced Phishing Simulation for Enterprises: Buyer's Guide”.
Key questions
Q: How should security teams measure phishing risk beyond click rates?
A: Use layered behavioural signals instead of a single click metric.
Q: Why do multi-vector phishing simulations reveal more risk than generic tests?
A: Because attackers rarely rely on one message alone.
Q: What are the signs that a phishing simulation programme is too shallow?
A: The programme is probably too shallow if it only reports click and report rates, uses repeated templates, ignores privileged users, and cannot show how identity or threat data changes the interpretation of results.
Practitioner guidance
- Replace generic templates with scenario-based simulations Build campaigns that reflect current attack patterns, including spear phishing, smishing, QR code abuse, and MFA pressure, so the exercise tests real decision paths instead of recognition of an obvious fake.
- Correlate simulation outcomes with identity data Join phishing results to role, privilege, and access tier so high-impact users receive different treatment from low-risk users and the programme can prioritise where failure matters most.
- Trigger immediate adaptive training from risky actions Use the moment of failure to launch short, targeted remediation content rather than waiting for a quarterly awareness cycle, and track whether the same user pattern repeats across campaigns.
Bottom line: Generic phishing tests can overstate resilience because they measure a narrow interaction instead of the full trust path an attacker uses.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
19/08/2026 4:21 pm
Click-rate-only testing is an incomplete control model: it measures interaction, not exposure, and it therefore misses the real question of whether a user was placed into a believable attack path. In modern phishing, the attacker optimises for context, timing, and follow-on trust, so the control has to evaluate scenario fidelity as well as user response. Practitioners should treat click rate as a weak proxy, not a security outcome.
A few things that frame the scale:
- Roughly 1 in 3 phishing payloads are delivered outside email, through channels such as social media, search ads and messaging apps.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How can human risk programmes support identity governance?
A: They support identity governance when simulation results help decide who needs closer monitoring, additional training, or access-aware intervention. The goal is to connect behaviour to role and privilege so security teams can reduce exposure instead of simply counting mistakes.
👉 Read our full editorial: Advanced phishing simulation shows why click rates are not enough