Notifications
Clear all
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.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Living Security Human Risk Management Platform: Advanced Phishing Simulation for Enterprises: Buyer's Guide
By the numbers:
- Only 5.7% of organisations have full visibility into their service accounts.
- 80% of identity breaches involved compromised non-human identities such as service accounts and API keys.
- 71% of NHIs are not rotated within recommended time frames, increasing the risk of compromise over time.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should security teams measure human risk in phishing simulations?
A: They should measure more than clicks.
Q: Why do basic phishing tests create a false sense of security?
A: Because they usually measure only one user action and ignore the broader context that determines impact.
Q: How do you know if a phishing simulation programme is actually working?
A: Do not stop at click rates.
Practitioner guidance
- Implement role-specific simulation campaigns Build separate phishing scenarios for executives, finance, developers, and administrators so the lure matches the access and pressure points of each role.
- Correlate simulation results with identity data Join click, report, and credential-entry outcomes to access level, privilege, and account type so you can prioritise the users whose compromise would matter most.
- Use immediate adaptive training Trigger short, targeted coaching as soon as a user interacts with a simulated lure, then measure whether repeat-risk behaviour drops in later campaigns.
What's in the full article
Living Security Human Risk Management Platform's full blog covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Scenario design guidance for multi-vector phishing tests across email, SMS, QR, and voice.
- Practical advice on correlating simulation results with identity and threat telemetry.
- Examples of adaptive micro-training workflows that trigger after risky user behaviour.
- Evaluation criteria for choosing a simulation platform for distributed enterprise workforces.
Advanced phishing simulation for enterprises: are your controls keeping up?
Explore further
19/08/2026 4:21 pm
Basic click-rate testing is no longer a credible risk measure. Click rates tell security teams who interacted with a lure, but they do not tell them who is exposed, who is privileged, or who is likely to cause material harm if compromised. That is why advanced phishing simulation should be treated as a governance input, not a training vanity metric. The programme should help identity teams distinguish low-signal behaviour from high-impact exposure, especially where access and privilege expand the consequences of a single mistake. Practitioners should measure risk context, not just participation.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who should own the response when simulation reveals risky employee behaviour?
A: Ownership should sit across security awareness, IAM, and the business line involved, because the fix is partly behavioural and partly access-related. If a user sits in a high-privilege role, the response should include identity review, access validation, and targeted remediation rather than training alone.
👉 Read our full editorial: Advanced phishing simulation shows why click rates are not enough
