Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
19/08/2026 3:33 pm
TL;DR: Phishing simulation software is moving from click-rate testing to predictive human risk management, with Living Security Human Risk Management Platform arguing that behavioral data becomes more useful when correlated with identity, access, and threat signals. That shift matters because phishing programmes only reduce risk when they change behaviour, not when they simply score failure.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Living Security Human Risk Management Platform: Phishing Attack Simulation Software: A CISO's Guide
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 phishing-resistant methods matter more for privileged users?
A: Privileged users create the highest blast radius if their accounts are taken over, so a phishable factor is a bigger governance problem there.
Q: What do organisations get wrong about phishing prevention?
A: They often treat phishing as a training problem instead of an identity control problem.
Practitioner guidance
- Measure more than click rates Track report rate, repeat-offender trends, and time-to-report so you can judge whether behaviour is actually improving across risk cohorts.
- Tie simulation outcomes to identity context Correlate simulation results with access level, role, and privileged entitlements so the riskiest user groups are prioritised first.
- Test the channels your identity workflows really use Include SMS, voice, and QR code scenarios where those channels map to approvals, resets, or account recovery paths in your organisation.
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:
- Campaign design examples for email, SMS, voice, and QR code simulations across different user cohorts
- Micro-training workflows that trigger after a failed simulation and map to specific user behaviours
- Reporting examples for GRC teams that go beyond click rates to show repeat offenders and response trends
- Integration details for identity providers, email gateways, and SOAR workflows
Phishing simulations and HRM: what changes for security teams?
Explore further
19/08/2026 4:15 pm
Phishing simulation data is only useful when it is operationalised into identity decisions. Clicks, report rates, and repeat-offender trends are behavioural indicators, not controls. The governance mistake is treating simulation outputs as awareness artefacts instead of risk inputs that should inform access review, escalation paths, and targeted intervention. In identity programmes, that turns a training metric into a control signal.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How can teams keep phishing simulations from harming trust?
A: Be transparent about the existence of simulations, explain their educational purpose, and avoid public shaming or performance punishment. Employees are more likely to report genuine threats when they see the programme as a safe learning loop rather than a trap. Trust improves detection quality.
👉 Read our full editorial: Phishing simulation software now predicts human risk before clicks
