Secure Behavior Management
Simulate the attack. Measure the behavior. Improve what broke.
Gartner named Secure Behavior Management the 2026 successor to human risk management. The shift is from tracking who clicked to managing how an organization behaves when it is attacked. The OSES™ platform runs all three stages on one dataset: orchestrated simulation across email, SMS, chat, cloned voice, and deepfake video, a behavior index built from what those simulations returned, and training generated from the processes that actually failed.
Built for security and GRC teams in regulated industries. Reporting is organizational, always.
What Secure Behavior Management changes
Three shifts separate it from the awareness programs it replaces.
Behavior, not attendance
Completion rates tell you people sat through a module. They do not tell you what finance did when a cloned executive voice called with an urgent payment change. Secure Behavior Management measures the decision, the verification step, and whether anyone reported it.
Process, not people
An approval path that accepts a voice on a phone call is a process failure, and individual scoring will never fix it. Findings are written against the process that broke, which is also why reporting carries no named individuals and no leaderboards.
Continuous, not annual
A once-a-year exercise produces a number nobody can act on by the time it lands. Simulation, measurement, and training run as a loop, so movement on the index is visible quarter to quarter against the same processes.
Simulate, measure, improve
OSES™ stands for Orchestrated Social Engineering Simulation. Three stages, run in sequence, writing to a single record. Most organizations buy these as three separate products from three vendors and spend the rest of the year trying to reconcile the outputs.
All three stages read and write the same dataset. The module someone is assigned comes from the scenario their process failed, and the re-run is scored on the same index as the baseline, which is what turns a training record into evidence. See the simulation platform for how the engine runs.
What runs at each stage
Nine capabilities across three stages. Everything below writes to the same record.
Multi-stage scenarios that move between channels the way a real operator does. An email opens the pretext, a phone call applies pressure, a video call closes it. Scored end to end as one attempt, not five disconnected tests.
The channels where most programs have no measurement at all. Synthetic executives on video calls and cloned voiceprints on the phone, generated with current tooling and run inside the same scenario as everything else.
Pretexts built from what is publicly discoverable about your organization: reporting lines, vendors, filings, events, and public voice and video. Template phishing measures template phishing. This measures your exposure.
Decisions taken, verification steps skipped or completed, reporting behavior, and time to recognition, combined into a single figure that can be tracked across quarters and defended in a board pack.
Findings written against processes and control paths, not people. No named individuals, no department leaderboards, which keeps reporting behavior intact instead of teaching people to stay quiet.
Your index positioned against comparable organizations in your sector, so the number means something to an executive who has never seen a simulation report before.
Awareness training generated from your own simulation data rather than pulled off a shelf. The scenario people work through is the one their process failed, with the same pretext and the same channel.
Short, single-issue modules aimed at the specific step that broke: the callback that was skipped, the payment change that went unverified, the video call nobody questioned. Minutes, not hours.
The same processes and channels tested again after training, scored on the same index. Movement between the two runs is the evidence, and it is written so an auditor or regulator can read it without a rewrite.
Five programs, or one platform
The programs most organizations run separately are the same loop, split across vendors that cannot see each other's data.
Where the behavior gets measured
A single scenario can move across all of these. Attackers do, so the measurement should too.
Pretexts built from OSINT rather than a template library, with landing pages and credential capture flows that match the story the email is telling.
Text-based pressure applied to the same target inside the same scenario, usually as the escalation step after an email lands and before the phone rings.
Voiceprints cloned from publicly available audio and used against callback procedures, payment approvals, and helpdesk verification. The channel most finance and IT processes were never designed to doubt.
A synthetic executive on a live video call who responds, turns on request, and holds a conversation. This is the channel Breacher.ai is best known for, and the one almost no program currently measures.
Approaches inside the tools people trust by default, where the sender name carries authority the message never earned and the usual scrutiny does not apply.
The account recovery and credential reset routes that sit behind every other control. Tested as part of the scenario, usually as the step that turns a failed approach into a successful one.
What lands on the desk
Three views of the same dataset, written for three different readers.
The board view
One index, movement since the last measurement, and position against sector.
- Behavior index, current and prior period
- Sector benchmark position
- Channels covered and channels not yet tested
- Where the remaining exposure sits
The security team view
Which processes broke, at which step, and under which pretext.
- Findings written against process, not people
- Step-level breakdown of each scenario
- Reporting and time to recognition
- Prioritized remediation with owners
The audit view
Evidence that a control was tested, a gap was found, and the gap was closed.
- Scope, authorization, and approvers on record
- Baseline and re-measurement on one index
- Training assigned and traced to a finding
- No named individuals anywhere in the output
Regulated, distributed, and worth attacking
Organizations where a single successful social engineering attempt is a loss event, a disclosure event, and a regulatory one.
Real threats, real testing, real findings
A cloned voiceprint run against verbal verification controls, and what it revealed about the step-up path behind them.
Read the case study Agentic AIAutonomous agents driving synthetic media generation and delivery end to end, with no human operator in the loop.
Read the case studyCommon questions
What is Secure Behavior Management?
Secure Behavior Management is the discipline of measuring how an organization actually behaves when it is attacked, changing that behavior with targeted training, and measuring again to confirm the change held. Gartner named it the 2026 successor to human risk management. The distinction is that behavior is observed under realistic attack conditions rather than inferred from course completion.
How is this different from security awareness training?
Awareness training measures attendance and comprehension. Secure Behavior Management measures decisions: whether a wire request from a cloned executive voice was verified, whether an out of band check happened, whether anyone reported it. Training is still part of the platform, but it is generated from what the simulation found rather than assigned on a calendar.
How is it different from human risk management?
Human risk management scored people. Secure Behavior Management scores behavior and the processes that produce it. That difference matters in practice: a finance approval path that accepts a voice on a phone call is a process failure, and no amount of individual scoring fixes it. Our reporting is organizational for exactly this reason.
What does the behavior index measure?
The index combines what happened during a simulation across every channel it ran on: the decisions taken, the verification steps skipped or completed, the reporting behavior, and the time it took the organization to recognize the attack. It is expressed at the organization and process level so it can be tracked across quarters and compared to sector benchmarks.
Are individual employees named in reporting?
No. Reporting is organizational. There are no named individuals and no department leaderboards. This is a deliberate design choice: naming people suppresses reporting behavior, which is the single most valuable signal a program can have.
Where do deepfakes fit into this?
Deepfake video and cloned voice are simulation channels alongside email, SMS, and chat, and they are where most programs have no measurement at all. A campaign can start with an email, escalate to a cloned voice on a phone call, and finish on a video call with a synthetic executive, all inside one orchestrated scenario scored on the same index.
How long before we see a measurable change?
The first simulation establishes a baseline. Training generated from that baseline is assigned immediately, and the second measurement is typically run one quarter later against the same processes and channels. Change is reported as movement on the index, not as course completion.
What does deployment involve?
The platform runs externally with no agent installed on endpoints. Scoping covers the processes in scope, the channels in play, named approvers, and abort conditions. A managed delivery mode is available where our team runs the campaigns and reviews the findings with you.
Find out how your organization actually behaves
Thirty minutes. We will walk through the processes worth simulating first and what a baseline measurement would look like.
Or see how the deepfake channel runs on its own: deepfake simulation.
support@breacher.ai
