‍

When most people think of cyberattacks, they picture faceless hackers frantically typing to breach a firewall. The truth is often much closer to home and far more personal. Some of the most damaging threats do not come from outside the organisation. 

‍

They operate within your teams, use legitimate credentials, and know exactly where the weak spots are. An insider threat is any risk posed by employees, contractors, partners, or anyone inside an organization who intentionally or accidentally misuses or exposes internal systems and data.

‍

Insider threats are real, costly, and growing. According to IBM’s 2025 Cost of a Data Breach Report, breaches caused by malicious insiders now average 4.4 million dollars, making them the most expensive initial attack vector. More than 80 per cent of organisations reported at least one insider attack in the past year. Because these risks come from trusted individuals, they are usually harder to detect than external attacks. This makes preparation, monitoring, and a security-aware culture essential for any organisation.

In this post, we'll share tips on how to identify insider threats and proactive steps to take to prevent them.

Types of insider threats you need to know

Insider threats generally fall into three major categories, each presenting different risks and behaviours.

1. Malicious insiders

These are individuals who intentionally misuse their access to steal data, sabotage systems, or harm the organisation for personal, financial, or ideological reasons. Because they already understand where valuable information is stored and how systems work, their actions can be particularly damaging.

3. Negligent insiders

These employees pose a risk through carelessness rather than intent. They unintentionally create vulnerabilities by mishandling sensitive information, falling for phishing attempts, using weak passwords, or ignoring security protocols for convenience. Negligence remains one of the most common causes of security incidents.

4. Compromised insiders

These are employees whose credentials or devices have been taken over by attackers. In these situations, outsiders gain the ability to move through the organisation using valid accounts, making their activities appear legitimate and difficult to detect.

‍

Why insider threats are difficult to detect and common behavioural red flags

Insider threats are uniquely challenging because the people behind them already have something that attackers spend months trying to obtain, which is legitimate access. They know the systems, understand the processes, and often blend perfectly into the normal patterns of daily operations. Instead of forcing their way in, they work from within the trust an organisation has already granted them. This makes traditional security tools that focus on blocking external attacks far less effective.

One reason insiders slip through unnoticed is that they rarely trigger obvious alarms. Their activities often appear routine. To spot a threat that uses valid credentials, security teams have to look for subtle anomalies rather than classic indicators of malware or intrusion. This is why User and Entity Behaviour Analytics (UEBA) has become crucial.  It is a type of security software that uses behavioural analytics, machine learning algorithms, and automation to identify abnormal and potentially dangerous user and device behaviour. UEBA gives teams better security insights and enhances zero-trust security programs.

‍

The signs can be behavioural, technical, or cultural. Here are some of the key behavioural indicators of compromise to watch for:

• Privilege escalation
  A user unexpectedly requests access to servers or code repositories that don’t align with their role.
  
  
• Abnormal data patterns: Someone downloads large volumes of data at odd hours or accesses systems that are not part of their job. For example, a marketing manager’s account connecting to a back-end database late at night, or a user sending gigabytes of data during off-hours (say, 3 AM).
  
  
• Bypassing controls: Persistent attempts to disable endpoint protection, transferring sensitive files via USB drives when banned, or asking colleagues for login credentials.
  ‍
• Changes in attitude or circumstances: Unexplained stress, financial pressures, disengagement, or sudden shifts in working hours might precede risky actions. A known example of this happened in 2023, when Tesla suffered a major data breach that was orchestrated by two former employees, who leaked sensitive personal data to a foreign media outlet. The leaked information included names, addresses, phone numbers, employment records, and social security numbers of over 75,000 current and former employees.
  
  
• Excessive curiosity: Repeated probing of systems outside one’s job scope, or constantly poking around in high-privilege areas.
  
  
• Hoarding access: Retaining accounts or privileges long after changing roles or even leaving the organisation.

How to balance trust and monitor effectively

If you spot any of these, respond calmly and professionally. Start with a fact-based inquiry: verify logs, interview involved parties, and apply the principle of least privilege while maintaining discretion. The goal is to confirm whether it’s a mistake, a misunderstanding, or something more serious. Over-monitoring destroys morale while under-monitoring invites risk. Building a balance is a cultural and technical decision.

Build an environment where security is part of the job, not a punishment. Encourage employees to report mistakes without fear of automatic discipline. A swift, supportive response to accidental clicks or lost devices reduces the incentive to hide incidents. Use monitoring to detect anomalies. Alerts for unusual data flows, sudden privilege escalations, or access outside typical hours are useful. Make sure monitoring is transparent: publish policies, carry staff along, and explain why monitoring protects everyone. Balancing trust and oversight means protecting assets while respecting people. 

‍

Essential security controls to mitigate insider threats

Insider threats are challenging because they often come from trusted users with legitimate access. Preventing misuse requires a combination of technical safeguards, strong policies, and attention to human behaviour.

Technical measures

• Zero trust architecture: Move beyond the traditional “trust but verify” mindset. Zero Trust assumes the network is already at risk and requires continuous validation of users and devices before granting access. Being on the corporate network does not automatically allow entry to sensitive resources.

• Role-based access control (RBAC): Limit access to only what employees need for their job. This reduces exposure to sensitive data and makes unusual access attempts easier to detect.
  ‍
• Multi-factor authentication (MFA): Protect accounts with an additional verification step beyond passwords. MFA prevents unauthorised access even if credentials are leaked or shared.
  ‍
• Data loss prevention (DLP) Tools: DLP solutions like Forcepoint, Trellix, etc, monitor how data moves across the organisation. They scan for sensitive information and can block or alert when someone tries to send it outside approved channels, whether through email, USB drives, or cloud uploads.
  ‍
• User and entity behaviour analytics (UEBA): UEBA tools analyse normal behaviour patterns and alert security teams when something unusual happens, such as unexpected late-night access or sudden large file downloads. It helps detect issues early, even when credentials haven’t been breached.
  ‍
• Privileged access management (PAM): Admin accounts carry a lot of power and access. Control and monitor high-level administrative accounts. PAM enforces strict usage policies, requires approvals, issues temporary credentials, and records sessions to prevent misuse.
  ‍
• Secure logging and retention: Maintain tamper-evident logs to track system activity. These records are vital for investigations and for learning how to prevent future incidents.

Policy & process controls

• Clear onboarding and offboarding: New employees should receive only the access they need, and access must be removed immediately when someone changes roles or leaves the organisation. Delays can create openings for misuse.
• Regular access reviews: Conduct periodic checks to identify dormant accounts or unnecessary permissions. This keeps systems clean and reduces hidden risks.
• Separation of duties: No single person should have complete control over a critical process. By splitting responsibilities like approval, execution, and auditing, you reduce the possibility of fraud or unauthorised changes.

Human-focused measures

• Security awareness training: Provide practical, role-specific training to help employees recognise risky actions and attack techniques. Simulations and concise lessons reinforce safe habits.
• Clear reporting channels: Employees should feel safe reporting suspicious activity, whether technical or behavioural. Anonymous reporting options and a no-blame culture encourage early detection before issues escalate.
• Employee well-being programs: Stress, frustration, and financial challenges can influence decision-making. Wellbeing initiatives, open communication, and supportive HR policies help reduce the likelihood of risky behaviour rooted in personal or workplace challenges.
  ‍

Insider threats are as much about people as they are about technology. The best defence is not paranoia but preparation. It is important to design systems that minimise damage, train people to recognise risks, and foster a culture where issues are reported and addressed promptly. With the right combination of smart controls and supportive policies, insiders stop being a weak link and become a powerful first line of defence.

‍