In the intricate world of cybersecurity, overt threats often command the most attention. Malware, ransomware, phishing attacks containing malicious links, and significant data breaches dominate headlines and threat awareness programs. Yet increasingly, attackers are turning to subtler tactics that exploit human psychology over technical vulnerabilities. A particularly insidious method gaining attention involves initiating seemingly harmless conversations to achieve nefarious ends.
At first glance, these conversations seem harmless or even pleasant. They take the guise of a normal, everyday conversation you may have. Crucially, these messages often appear to come from a familiar or trusted source. We've all had those emails that are clearly scams: the ones where the reply address doesn't match the sender name, there's typos, or it's just one line saying "Let's chat", but it's purportedly from your best friend, etc. But that's changing. Now we're getting phone calls, text messages, or even video calls that recreate the voice, face, mannerisms, and whatever else it takes, to utterly convince you that you're talking to the real McCoy. Threat actors commonly impersonate executives, coworkers, known vendors, or even recruiters at well-known companies. This deception makes the message feel legitimate and increases the likelihood of engagement. The initial interaction may not include any direct threat, but it sets the stage for trust-building that leads to exploitation. This is the main idea behind pre-texting: spending time creating a false sense of security before the ask.
Understanding Benign Conversations
These conversations are defined by their absence of immediate threats. Unlike traditional phishing emails, which include malicious attachments or suspicious links designed for instant compromise, benign conversations initially present no obvious danger. They rely entirely on the recipient's willingness to engage, typically through further dialogue, which leads to trust-building and eventual manipulation or exploitation.
Cybersecurity researchers note an increase in such tactics among various threat actors, ranging from cybercriminals pursuing financial gain to state-sponsored espionage operations. These often include messages from CEOs requesting quick tasks or fake job offers that appear legitimate but initially ask for nothing at all. The conversation just seems normal. It's later down the road, once trust is established, that the asks start coming.
A prominent example of this tactic is advanced fee fraud (AFF). While AFF schemes were once typified by crude and easily spotted emails, modern versions are significantly more sophisticated. A common version involves attackers posing as hiring managers or recruiters, often for high-profile companies. They conduct detailed job interviews and provide seemingly legitimate documentation. After building trust, they request payment for supposed work permits, background checks, or onboarding materials, none of which are real. These scams exploit the target's desire for professional advancement and their assumption that the conversation is with a reputable entity. We're moving away from the idea of spray-and-pray and moving more toward targeted, involved campaigns. Essentially, the scammers are putting in a bit more time and effort, but it's actually taking them far less effort thanks to AI.
From Fraud to Espionage: Expanding the Scope
The complexity escalates significantly in espionage contexts, where state-sponsored actors carefully craft their messages. Reports indicate that Iranian and North Korean espionage groups skillfully use benign conversations targeting specific individuals. Typically, attackers pose as journalists or academic researchers, requesting interviews or expert insights. By appealing to the target's professional ego, attackers cultivate trust before introducing malicious actions, such as malware installation or credential theft.
For instance, recent research identified North Korean espionage operations targeting experts in South Korean politics. Attackers convincingly portrayed themselves as journalists interested in current geopolitical dynamics, building trust through sustained, credible dialogue before initiating their primary objectives.
Psychological Manipulation: The Heart of Social Engineering
Benign conversations highlight that effective social engineering exploits fundamental human psychological vulnerabilities rather than technological weaknesses. These vulnerabilities include trust, urgency, fear, and curiosity.
A notable variant involves telephone-oriented attack delivery (TOAD) scams. Typically starting with emails (again, more professional looking and properly spoofed ones, rather than the standard invoice@paaypall123141) referencing invoices or security alerts, recipients are prompted to call a provided number. Upon calling, victims are manipulated into installing malicious remote access software, allowing attackers to access sensitive personal and financial data.
Another disturbing example is "pig butchering," a long-term financial fraud originating from China. This scam involves relationship-building, often romantic or employment-related, to establish deep trust before defrauding victims of substantial financial sums. Such schemes illustrate the alarming depth of social engineering, blending prolonged human manipulation with severe emotional and financial consequences. It should be noted that this form of exploitation isn't new. Honey traps and the like have been used in espionage since time immemorial (artfully portrayed in The Americans, where Philip, a Soviet agent, engages in a long-term relationship with Martha, a secretary at the FBI. Great show, I miss it!). But generative AI and the internet have made it far easier to convince people, frequently without the risk of an in-person relationship.
Emerging Technologies and Future Threats
As attackers refine their psychological strategies, they are also empowered by new tools, particularly those powered by artificial intelligence.
Generative AI (GenAI) now allows attackers to craft more convincing conversations. Language models enable cybercriminals to create linguistically sophisticated and contextually relevant messages, overcoming barriers related to language proficiency or cultural nuance.
Recent research and threat intelligence reports indicate that GenAI is actively being leveraged by attackers to increase the credibility of their communications. The technology helps craft personalized and fluent messages across multiple languages, making them more believable and harder to detect. This capability allows cybercriminals to engage victims more effectively and expand their operations across industries and geographies.
Future technological capabilities, including automated conversational bots and AI-driven voice mimicry, pose even greater risks. Such advancements could enable hyperrealistic and adaptable interactions, further amplifying the effectiveness of benign conversation tactics.
Mitigating the Threat
Building organizational resilience takes more than knowledge. It requires reinforcing secure behaviors through repetition, real-world examples, and visible leadership engagement. Just as wartime messaging once shifted public norms—“loose lips sink ships”—modern security culture asks employees to move from automatic responsiveness to mindful skepticism.
But skepticism alone is not enough. When identity verification is baked directly into communication workflows, it removes the guesswork. My team always sends secure requests through our platform when making an ask, or prompts verification if someone reaches out to them: “Send me a Trace and we’ll get that started.” It takes half a second—and means they don’t have to worry.
Security becomes second nature when tools and culture reinforce one another. Employees must feel safe to question even familiar-looking messages and empowered to pause, escalate, or decline when something feels off.
Technical safeguards help here too. Identity verification at the point of interaction ensures messages come from who they claim. Ephemeral messaging reduces the shelf-life of sensitive data. Limiting forwarding, copying, or persistent access makes it harder for attackers to reuse stolen content. When secure habits meet secure systems, social engineers lose their edge.
Ultimately, the rise of benign conversations reminds us: protecting systems isn’t enough. Psychology is still the weakest link. With the right education, culture, and infrastructure, your people can become the strongest one.