Dynamic liveness and AI fraud: what changes for financial IAM?

TL;DR: As Vietnam’s State Bank of Vietnam Decision 2345 raises biometric assurance expectations for online transactions, MoMo is deploying Dynamic Liveness to strengthen remote identity verification against deepfakes and digital injection attacks according to iProov research. The core issue is not biometrics alone, but whether verification can still prove a real, present person when AI makes impersonation cheaper and more convincing.

NHIMG editorial — based on content published by iProov: MoMo deploys Dynamic Liveness to counter AI-driven fraud in Vietnam

Questions worth separating out

Q: How should security teams use liveness checks in high-risk identity journeys?

A: Security teams should reserve stronger liveness checks for account opening, recovery, and high-value transactions where impersonation would create material loss.

Q: Why do deepfakes create a different risk than ordinary credential theft?

A: Deepfakes attack the evidence used to grant trust, while credential theft attacks the secret used to get access.

Q: What signals show that biometric verification is not strong enough?

A: Common warning signs include repeated verification success from unusual devices, inconsistent session behaviour, low challenge completion quality, and fraud losses despite passing biometric checks.

Practitioner guidance

• Define assurance tiers for remote verification Map onboarding, recovery, and transaction approval flows to different assurance levels so high-risk actions require stronger proof of presence than low-risk actions.
• Test for injected media and synthetic replay Run fraud tests that simulate deepfakes, replayed video, and digitally injected camera feeds to confirm the verification path detects tampering before approval.
• Align biometric controls to regulatory evidence Document how liveness, transaction risk, and audit evidence satisfy local biometric authentication requirements in regulated payment journeys.

What's in the full analysis

iProov's full product announcement covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:

• The specific Dynamic Liveness capabilities and how Flashmark technology is positioned in the verification flow
• MoMo’s deployment context and how the integration supports remote identity verification in a fintech environment
• The direct statements from MoMo and iProov on trust, fraud resistance, and user experience
• The regulatory backdrop from State Bank of Vietnam Decision 2345 and how the vendor frames compliance alignment

👉 Read iProov's announcement on Dynamic Liveness for MoMo in Vietnam →

Dynamic liveness and AI fraud: what changes for financial IAM?

Explore further

View Full Forum →  |  NHI Foundation Course →