Uncovering the Threats in Remote Hiring Practices
Security Breaches: A Real Concern
In July 2024, a startling incident involving a new hire named “Kyle” at KnowBe4, a Florida-based security training company, came to light. Despite appearing to meet all the standard verification processes—including an impressive interview, a valid background check, and proper identification—Kyle was ultimately revealed to be a foreign agent. Brian Jack, KnowBe4’s Chief Information Security Officer, noted, “He interviewed great.” However, when a facilitator attempted to install malware on Kyle’s work computer, the company’s security team swiftly intervened. This event underscores serious vulnerabilities in employee vetting processes.
The Impact of Misinformation
Across the Atlantic in London, Simon Wijckmans found himself grappling with similar concerns. After learning about the KnowBe4 incident, he embarked on his own investigation into potential candidates, conducting background checks that revealed some applicants were using stolen identities. Disturbingly, a few were linked to North Korean operations. Wijckmans decided to undertake a counter-exercise, inviting observers to help evaluate the situation.
The Interview Process: Signs of Deception
During an intentionally scheduled Google Meet at 3 AM Pacific time, Wijckmans began interviewing a candidate named “Harry.” Claiming to be from Miami, Harry’s appearance and demeanor raised immediate red flags. His unremarkable attire—a plain black sweater—and heavily accented English were not convincing, especially given his claim of being a Brooklyn native. Technical questions revealed further inconsistencies. Harry’s slow internet connection and reliance on the default virtual background heightened suspicions. At one point, he requested to rejoin the call, claiming microphone issues, which could have been an excuse to regroup with unseen aides.
Identifying False Identities
The next candidate, “Nic,” presented additional challenges. On his résumé, he linked to a personal website that did not align with his appearance during the interview. Notably, this was his second interview with Wijckmans, yet he was unaware that he had failed a prior background check. Inconsistent language use further indicated potential fabrication; when asked about the time, he first stated, “six and past,” only to correct himself to “quarter to seven.” His excitement over minor correct answers was suggestive of deeper familiarity issues.