Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
10/06/2026 10:33 pm
TL;DR: A reported 180% rise in sophisticated multi-step attacks across 2024 to 2025 underscores how identity signals, device intelligence, and behaviour monitoring are converging in enterprise fraud controls, according to SumSub. Fraud governance is no longer separate from identity governance, because the same trust decisions now span user onboarding, transaction monitoring, and real-time risk response.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Sumsub: Chartis recognition for Enterprise Fraud Solutions 2026
By the numbers:
- The share of sophisticated multi-step attacks increased by 180% over 2024 to 2025.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should security teams connect fraud monitoring with identity governance?
A: Security teams should treat fraud monitoring as part of the identity control plane, not a separate workflow.
Q: When do static fraud rules stop being enough?
A: Static fraud rules stop being enough when abuse unfolds in stages rather than in one obvious event.
Q: What do teams get wrong about identity-based fraud detection?
A: Teams often assume identity verification at onboarding is the main trust decision.
Practitioner guidance
- Map fraud signals to the identity control plane Inventory which identity, device, and behaviour signals feed onboarding, transaction approval, and escalation decisions.
- Test controls against multi-step attack chains Run scenarios that simulate staged fraud rather than single-event abuse.
- Review auditability across fraud and IAM teams Check whether identity proofing decisions, behavioural alerts, and case outcomes can be traced in one record set.
What's in the full analysis
Sumsub's full article covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Chartis quadrant placement context and the vendor's own framing of why the recognition matters.
- The specific enterprise fraud capabilities behind the recognition, including anomaly detection, device intelligence, and behaviour monitoring.
- Details of the Sumsub Academy Fraud Prevention course and the practitioner knowledge it is meant to support.
- The 2025 to 2026 fraud trend commentary and related report material that sits behind the recognition.
👉 Read Sumsub's Chartis recognition analysis for enterprise fraud solutions →
Fraud identity controls are maturing, but are they ready for AI?
Explore further
11/06/2026 2:38 am
Fraud identity controls are becoming the front line of identity governance. The article shows that enterprises are buying and benchmarking platforms on how well they combine identity signals, device intelligence, and behavioural monitoring. That is no longer just a fraud problem, because the same evidence increasingly governs who is trusted to complete a transaction, open an account, or progress through a workflow. Practitioners should treat fraud tooling as part of the identity control surface, not a separate security lane.
A few things that frame the scale:
- The share of sophisticated multi-step attacks increased by 180% over 2024 to 2025, according to Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- Only 5.7% of organisations have full visibility into their service accounts, according to Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How do you know if fraud controls are actually improving?
A: Fraud controls are improving when teams can correlate fewer false handoffs, faster escalation, and better detection of staged attacks across the full user journey. The best signal is not volume of alerts, but whether the organisation can connect identity, device, and behaviour evidence to a defensible decision. If investigations still rely on manual stitching, the model is not mature.
👉 Read our full editorial: Chartis recognition signals fraud identity controls are maturing
