Cyberpediaby Brain
ENDEFR

The deepfake video call

What the sources say about AI-assisted impersonation of an executive by call or message: what the employee sees, the mechanism, the controls.

In 30 seconds

Where it happens
In a message, a call or an online meeting where a contact presents themselves as an executive or a trusted colleague.
What the attacker wants
To get access3 or information4 from the victim, by posing as a reliable source and creating an impression of urgency3.
The reflex
Before any action requested in a video call, call the person back on a number you already know and have a second person validate the operation.
If it has already happened
Tell the security team and the finance team right away, without waiting to check on your own.

What it is

A video call is often taken as proof: you see the faces, you hear the voices, so the people must be there. This page gathers what the sources say about the impersonation of a trusted contact and about generative AI, which produces text, images or video1. It draws one principle from them: a payment order should never rest on an online meeting alone.

The set of sources gathered for this page does not document the facts of a specific case: none of its pages mentions a deepfake video call case, a victim company or an amount. The page therefore sticks to what these sources establish about the mechanism, and the figures of a particular case do not appear in it.

Straight answers

Can you trust a face and a voice in a video call?

The UK's NCSC defines generative AI as AI able to produce text, images or video1. It assesses that, through 2025, these tools will make it difficult for everyone, whatever their level of cyber security knowledge, to judge whether an email or a password reset request is genuine, or to spot a phishing, spoofing or social engineering attempt1. The sources in the set say nothing about how reliable a face or a voice is in a video call.

Why are phishing messages harder to spot?

The NCSC writes that generative AI already allows convincing exchanges with victims, without the translation, spelling or grammar mistakes that often give phishing away1.

Who can use these techniques?

The NCSC states that all types of threat actors, state and non-state, skilled and less skilled, are already using AI to varying degrees1. It adds that publicly available models largely remove the need to build one's own technology, notably in low-sophistication operations such as spear-phishing1.

What should you do if an "executive" asks for an action during a call?

Do not act during the call. MITRE recommends training users to identify and report social engineering techniques, and to be wary of callers by verifying their identity3.

1Inside the attacker's head1 min

MITRE describes phishing as social engineering delivered by electronic means. When it targets a specific person, company or sector, it is called spear-phishing2. The voice variant uses a call or another form of spoken communication to get the user to give access to systems3.

Spear-phishing often relies on two levers: posing as a trusted source and creating a sense of urgency or alarm in the target3. For information gathering, MITRE also notes the sending of several messages that look urgent4.

The NCSC places the main gain of AI for attackers in social engineering1. It also assesses that AI improves reconnaissance, meaning the search for information about a target to find a way in, and makes this step and social engineering more effective and harder to detect1.

2What you see on screen1 min

The case described here is a scenario without a source. A message arrives, signed by a superior, and proposes an online meeting. On screen, the participants look like colleagues you know and speak like them. The request is pressing and confidential: a payment to start without delay.

MITRE lists urgency among the attacker's levers3. The NCSC warns that language mistakes, long used to recognise a fake, are no longer enough1.

Excerpt
Illustration (fictional message, neutralised):
[A "director" asks you to join a confidential meeting urgently
via hxxps://reunion-exemple[.]invalid/salle-12
and announces that a payment must be processed today.]
3Under the hoodIT teams1 min

The sources make it possible to name the following elements.

  • The first contact is a phishing message. MITRE specifies that it can go through email, through third-party services such as social networks, or through calendar invitations2.
  • Identity spoofing is used to make the sender credible: MITRE cites spoofing of the sender's address, which can fool the person as well as automated security tools2.
  • The reconnaissance phase prepares the target. MITRE classes phishing for information under the reconnaissance tactic, with the aim of collecting data rather than executing malicious code4.
  • Generative AI can produce text, images or video1.
  • MITRE cites, among the levers of spear-phishing, the simulated trusted source and urgency3.

The NCSC assesses that the most sophisticated uses of AI will remain limited to actors with access to quality training data, expertise and resources1. It adds that the spread of these capabilities on criminal markets will put them within reach of anyone willing to pay1.

On the defence side, NIST has published a voluntary AI risk management framework, released on 26 January 2023, then, on 26 July 2024, a profile devoted to generative AI that helps organisations identify the risks specific to generative AI5.

4Case filesReal cases1 min

Scattered Spider: fake IT staff on the phone

MITRE states that, during campaign C0027, the Scattered Spider group posed as legitimate IT staff on the phone. It thereby directed its victims to download a remote administration tool that let it control their machine3. The page gives no date for this campaign. It does, however, show the pattern shared with a faked video call: a trusted voice asking for an action.

Storm-1811: fake tech support

According to MITRE, Storm-1811 made calls posing as IT support, to get users to download and run scripts and other tools3. The page's references include a Microsoft Threat Intelligence report dated 15 May 20243.

The control that matters

MITRE recommends, for this technique, verifying the caller's identity3. For a payment, this amounts to calling the person back on a channel you already know and executing nothing on the strength of an online meeting alone. Dual approval of transfers is an organisational measure that management puts in place. The sources in the set do not describe it.

Fact sheet

Identifier
CP-168
Wing
2. Malware and case files
Brain skill
Detecting Deepfakes & Voice Cloning (deepfake)
Brain reflex
air-032
Diagram
G4 · Incident Timeline & Containment
Languages
de, en, fr
Sources
5 sources checked on 3 November 2026
Sources5 sources
  1. NCSC (UK), “The near-term impact of AI on the cyber threat”, 24 January 2024. https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/report/impact-of-ai-on-cyber-threat (accessed 3 November 2026)
  2. MITRE ATT&CK, “Phishing, Technique T1566 - Enterprise | MITRE ATT&CK®”. https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1566/ (accessed 3 November 2026)
  3. MITRE ATT&CK, “Phishing: Spearphishing Voice, Sub-technique T1566.004 - Enterprise | MITRE ATT&CK®”. https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1566/004/ (accessed 3 November 2026)
  4. MITRE ATT&CK, “Phishing for Information, Technique T1598 - Enterprise | MITRE ATT&CK®”. https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1598/ (accessed 3 November 2026)
  5. NIST, “AI Risk Management Framework”. https://www.nist.gov/itl/ai-risk-management-framework (accessed 3 November 2026)

Cite this article

Brain, “The deepfake video call”, Cyberpedia, 2026. https://startbrain.io/cyberpedia/en/articles/arup-deepfake-video-call/

BibTeX
@misc{brain_cp168_en_2026,
  author = {Brain},
  title = {The deepfake video call},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {Cyberpedia},
  url = {https://startbrain.io/cyberpedia/en/articles/arup-deepfake-video-call/},
  note = {CC BY 4.0}
}