Skip to content
Knowledge base Updated: February 5, 2026

CEO fraud (BEC): How to protect your company's finances from the most expensive cyber attack?

The BEC attack, known as the

Grzegorz Gnych Grzegorz Gnych

Business Email Compromise (BEC) attacks represent one of the most insidious and costly threats in the cyber security landscape. Unlike malware-based attacks, BEC relies almost exclusively on social engineering, precisely targeting an organization’s financial and communications processes. With no infected attachments or malicious links, these attacks easily bypass many traditional defenses. Understanding their mechanics, scenarios and methods of defense is crucial to protecting the financial assets and operational integrity of any company.

Shortcuts

What exactly is a Business Email Compromise (BEC) attack?

Business Email Compromise (BEC) is a form of targeted cyber attack in which a criminal impersonates a trusted individual in order to induce the victim (usually an employee with financial access) to perform an unauthorized financial transaction or disclose confidential information. This attack does not rely on exploiting software vulnerabilities, but on psychological manipulation and abuse of trust within the organization or with business partners.

The basis of the attack is a carefully crafted email message that looks like authentic correspondence from a superior (e.g., CEO, CFO), key manager or trusted contractor. Attackers use email address spoofing techniques or register domains deceptively similar to the real one to lend credibility to their message. The entire operation is designed to create time pressure and a sense of confidentiality, effectively discouraging the victim from verifying the command.

The end goal is almost always a direct financial benefit. Criminals aim to have an accounting, finance or HR employee make a transfer to a bank account controlled by the attackers. Due to their highly targeted and subtle nature, BEC attacks are difficult to detect by automated security systems and require organizations to implement a multi-level defense strategy.

📚 Read the complete guide: SOC: Security Operations Center - czym jest, jak działa, jak wybrać

What is the difference between BEC and traditional phishing?

Although BEC is a form of social engineering attack and is often included in the broad phishing family, there are fundamental differences that make it much more dangerous. Traditional phishing is typically a mass attack that works by casting a wide net. Criminals send thousands or millions of generic messages, hoping that a small percentage of recipients will be fooled and click on a malicious link or enter their information on a fake site.

BEC, on the other hand, is a precise, surgical strike. The attack is always carefully prepared and targets specific, selected individuals within an organization. Instead of a mass mailing, criminals focus on one or a few individuals who have the authority to execute financial transactions. The message in a BEC attack is highly personalized - it refers to real people, projects and the internal language of the company, which dramatically increases its credibility.

The most important difference, however, is in the purpose and method. The goal of phishing is usually to steal credentials (login and password) on a massive scale. The goal of BEC is to extort money immediately by directly manipulating an employee. BEC emails rarely contain links or attachments - it’s pure conversation designed to prompt a specific action in the company’s financial system, making it invisible to many email filtering systems.

What are the financial and operational impacts of a successful BEC attack on an organization?

The immediate and most obvious result of a successful BEC attack is the immediate and often irreversible loss of funds. Amounts defrauded in this way can range from tens of thousands to several million zlotys in a single transaction. Recovering the transferred money is extremely difficult, as it is usually immediately transferred through a network of offshore accounts, effectively obliterating traces.

However, the financial losses do not end with the stolen amount. The organization must incur additional costs associated with responding to the incident, including post-hack analysis, legal services and possible security audits. On top of that, there are operational losses - the staff time that must be spent on clarifying the situation blocks ongoing tasks and can lead to delays in key projects.

In the long run, a successful BEC attack can lead to serious damage to a company’s reputation. Disclosure of the incident undermines the trust of customers, business partners and investors, who may begin to question the company’s competence in security and financial management. In regulated industries, such as the financial or medical sectors, a data leak or breach of procedures can additionally result in hefty fines from regulators.

Stage I attack: How do cybercriminals prepare for a BEC attack?

The success of a BEC attack is directly proportional to the quality of its preparation. The reconnaissance phase is crucial for criminals and can last from a few days to even a few months. The process begins with passive open-source intelligence (OSINT) collection. Attackers carefully analyze the company’s website, social media profiles (especially LinkedIn), press releases and publicly available reports.

The goal of this stage is to build a detailed organizational map. Criminals identify key decision-makers - CEO, CFO, board members - and lower-level employees who have the authority to make transfers or access sensitive data. By analyzing profiles on LinkedIn, they learn the reporting structure, department names and even the jargon used inside the company.

In addition, criminals monitor information about important events in the life of the company, such as mergers and acquisitions, changes in the board of directors, major investment projects or business trips of key managers. Knowledge that the CEO is at a conference abroad and has limited access to communication can be used to lend credence to a request for an urgent transfer, arguing that standard contact channels are unavailable.

Phase II attack: What techniques do they use to infiltrate and manipulate?

Once the preparatory phase is over, criminals move to the active stage of the attack, using a number of techniques to lend credibility to their scam. One of the most common is falsifying the sender’s email address (email spoofing). With this technique, the message in the victim’s email program looks as if it came from a genuine address, such as prezes@nazwafirmy.pl.

A more advanced method is to register a domain confusingly similar to the real one (look-alike domain). The difference may be minimal and difficult to notice, such as replacing the letter “l” with the number “1” (nf1o.pl) or adding a letter (nazwafirmy-pl.com). Messages sent from such a domain often bypass basic spam filters.

In the most advanced scenarios, criminals gain actual access to a key person’s email inbox (Account Takeover - ATO), usually as a result of a previous phishing attack. This gives them unprecedented opportunities: they can observe the correspondence, learn the communication style and even join existing email threads. By sending a message from a real account, they bypass virtually all technical safeguards, and their request is extremely credible.

Scenario 1: CEO Fraud.

The “CEO Fraud” scenario is the most classic and media form of BEC attack. Its mechanism is simple but extremely effective. The attacker, impersonating the chairman, CEO or other high-ranking board member, sends an email to an employee in the finance or accounting department who has transfer authority.

The message is usually short and specific. It emphasizes the urgent nature of the operation and its strict confidentiality. The criminal often cites a sensitive business operation, such as finalizing the acquisition of another company, an urgent investment or a secret project, to justify the need to bypass standard payment authorization procedures. The victim is instructed not to inform anyone else about the transaction.

Psychological pressure is a key element in this scenario. An employee, receiving a direct order from a top supervisor, feels pressure to carry it out quickly and without undue questions. Fear of negative evaluation or the desire to prove oneself in a critical situation often wins out over caution. This abuse of authority and organizational hierarchy is the foundation of the effectiveness of this type of attack.

Scenario 2: Invoice compromise and account number change

This scenario targets the company’s routine accounts payable processes and is one of the most common variants of BEC. The attack can proceed in two ways. In the first, criminals gain access to the email inbox of an employee responsible for invoicing or contacting suppliers. Watching the correspondence, they intercept real invoices and modify the bank account number in them before sending them to the accounting department.

In the second, more common variant, criminals impersonate one of the company’s regular, trusted suppliers. They send a message to the finance department informing them of a supposed change in their bank account due to an “audit,” “changes in the bank’s structure” or “systems integration.” They ask to update their data in the system and process all future payments to the new account.

Since the request comes from a known contractor, and the mere operation of changing data in the system appears to be an administrative action, it often does not arouse suspicion. The company can pay the real invoices for months, directing the funds straight to the fraudsters’ account. The scam only comes to light when the real supplier starts courting overdue payments.

Scenario 3: Lawyer impersonation and confidential transactions

In this scenario, criminals take advantage of the authority and aura of confidentiality associated with the legal profession. Attackers impersonate an outside law firm that purports to represent the company, or an in-house counsel. They contact key decision-makers or finance department employees about an extremely urgent and sensitive matter.

The subject may need to pay a court fee immediately, pay a deposit in a secret tender, or finalize a confidential settlement. As in the case of the “CEO scam,” time pressure and pressure for absolute discretion play a key role. Legal arguments and the alleged risk of serious consequences in case of delay are designed to paralyze control mechanisms.

This variant of the attack is particularly dangerous because employees often do not feel competent to question orders coming from lawyers. The authority of a legal representative, coupled with complex legal language, can effectively intimidate and prompt them to act against standard vetting procedures.

What signals in an email should trigger immediate vigilance?

Identifying an attempted BEC attack requires sharpened attention to details that deviate from the norm in business communications. There are several universal warning signs that should immediately turn on a red light for any employee, especially in the finance department.

The first and most important signal is an unusual request. Any transfer request that is urgent, confidential and bypasses standard procedures is by definition suspicious. Pay special attention to requests to transfer funds to unknown, especially foreign accounts, and to any information about a change in the bank account number of a regular counterparty.

Another element is the analysis of the sender’s address and content. Even subtle changes in the email address (e.g., jan.kowalski@nf1o.pl instead of jan.kowalski@nflo.pl) are a signal of fraud. It is also worth noting the unusual tone or style of the message - the use of formal phrases by a superior who usually communicates informally, or vice versa, should raise suspicions. Grammatical and stylistic errors can also indicate that the message was prepared by a foreigner.

BEC attack warning signals

  • Pressure and confidentiality: The message presses for immediate action and prohibits informing others.

  • Unusual request: referral bypasses standard procedures, applies to payments to a new or foreign account.

  • Change of data: Information about the change of bank account number of a permanent supplier.

  • Subtle changes in the address: The sender’s e-mail address is confusingly similar but not identical to the real one.

  • Style inconsistency: the tone, language or formatting of the message deviates from the style in which the sender normally communicates.

What internal procedures are key to preventing BEC attacks?

Technology is important, but in the fight against BEC, a key line of defense is robust and ruthlessly followed internal procedures. The most important of these is an “out-of-band” (other communication channel) verification procedure for all sensitive financial transactions. Any request for an unusual transfer, change of counterparty data or sharing of confidential information must be confirmed by phone to a previously known number or in person.

It is necessary to implement the principle of dual control for all payments above a certain threshold. This means that the preparation of a transfer by one person must always be approved by a second, independent person. Such a mechanism effectively prevents the implementation of a fraudulent transaction, even if the first employee allows himself to be manipulated.

Clearly defined and communicated handling procedures must be known to all employees. Formal policies must be established for processing payments, vetting contractors and responding to suspicious messages. Employees must feel empowered and even obligated to question unusual instructions, even if they come from top management. Building a culture in which caution is valued more than haste is the foundation of resilience to BEC.

What technical safeguards minimize the risk of a BEC attack?

Although BEC is a socio-technical attack, proper technical safeguards can significantly reduce its effectiveness. The primary mechanism is the implementation and proper configuration of email authentication standards: SPF, DKIM and DMARC. In particular, DMARC allows you to define a policy that instructs recipients’ mail servers what to do with messages that fail verification - such as rejecting them. This is the most effective technical method of protecting against domain forgery.

Next-generation advanced email filtering systems (Secure Email Gateway) offer features beyond simple spam blocking. They use machine learning to analyze context and anomalies in communications, flagging messages that appear suspicious (e.g., first communication with a particular sender in a long time, unusual request). Many systems are also able to automatically add explicit warning labels to messages from the outside.

Securing the email accounts themselves against takeover is also crucial. Implementing multi-factor authentication (MFA) throughout the organization is an absolute necessity. MFA ensures that even if criminals get hold of an employee’s password, they won’t be able to log into their account without a second component, such as a code from a mobile app. This easy-to-implement solution drastically increases security.

What should be done immediately after identifying a BEC attack?

When a successful BEC attack is suspected and funds have overflowed, every minute counts. Speed of response is crucial. An internal incident response plan should be activated immediately. The first and most important step is to immediately contact the operations department of the bank from which the transfer was ordered. Report the fraud and request that the transaction be canceled and attempted to be blocked at the recipient bank.

At the same time, the commission of a crime should be reported as soon as possible to the appropriate law enforcement authorities (police or prosecutor’s office). A formal notification is often a prerequisite for the bank to take further action. It is also worth reporting the incident to the national computer incident response team - CERT Poland.

Internally, the IT team must immediately secure all digital evidence - suspicious emails (including headers), system logs and other data that can help analyze the attack. The attack vector should be identified, accounts should be checked for compromise, and steps should be taken to secure systems, such as mass password changes and verification of access logs.

What role does management play in building an organization’s resilience to BEC?

Resilience to Business Email Compromise attacks is not just a technical or procedural issue, but a strategic one. Therefore, the role of management in this process is absolutely fundamental. Management must view BEC as a serious business risk, not just a problem for the IT department. It is management’s responsibility to allocate adequate resources - financial and human - to build a comprehensive defense system.

Management is tasked with promoting and supporting a culture of safety throughout the organization. This means open communication about threats and creating an environment where employees are not afraid to report suspicious messages and question unusual instructions. If the CEO himself emphasizes that every transfer request must be verified by phone, this sends a clear signal to the entire organization that security is a priority.

Ultimately, management is responsible for the consequences of a successful attack. Investing in regular, hands-on training for employees, implementing robust verification procedures and providing the right technical tools is not a cost, but an investment in the financial stability and reputation of the company. A proactive approach and commitment at the highest level are the most effective guarantee that an organization will not become another victim in the statistics of losses caused by BEC.

Learn key terms related to this article in our cybersecurity glossary:

Learn More

Explore related articles in our knowledge base:

Explore Our Services

Need cybersecurity support? Check out:

Tags:

Cybersecurity Phishing Network Compliance SOC

Share:

Talk to an expert

Have questions about this topic? Get in touch with our specialist.

Product Manager
Grzegorz Gnych

Grzegorz Gnych

Sales Representative

+48 664 003 003grzegorz.gnych@nflo.pl
Response within 24 hours
Free consultation
Individual approach

Providing your phone number will speed up contact.

Want to Reduce IT Risk and Costs?

Book a free consultation - we respond within 24h

Response in 24h Free quote No obligations
Book a Call +48 22 487 86 36

Or download free guide:

Download NIS2 Checklist