Deepfake Red Team
94% of the organizations we test fail.
We run real AI voice clones and live deepfake video calls against your actual business workflows: the wire approval, the password reset, the vendor bank change. Then we train on exactly what broke, within seconds of it breaking. Custom scenarios built from reconnaissance on your organization, never a template.
"I think the entire company is already talking about voice cloning and the risks. It's been a huge win for us already, without even seeing any of the actual results."
CISO, Bank (North America)
Trusted by security leaders across
The workflows where money moves and access is granted
We do not test inboxes. We test decision points, the moments where a payment is released, a credential is reset, or a detail is changed. Nine surfaces below. Run the full set, or scope down to the ones that keep you up at night.
A cloned voice authorizes an urgent payment, a video call confirms it. Does the approval threshold hold when the person on screen outranks the person enforcing it?
An inbound call in a familiar voice asks for a reset. Does identity verification survive a caller who sounds exactly right and is clearly in a hurry?
A known supplier contact requests updated remittance details across email and voice. Does anyone dial the number on file rather than the number in the message?
A short-notice request from leadership, out of hours, with a plausible reason not to verify. Is there an escalation path that does not depend on catching the fake?
A new starter or a payroll redirect, delivered over video by someone nobody has met. What actually confirms identity before the first payment run?
When someone does get suspicious, how fast does it reach the SOC, and does anything happen when it lands?
An impersonated counterparty or regulator asks for privileged material mid-transaction. Does the confidentiality control hold under time pressure?
A vendor contact requests access, credentials, or a system change. How much of your perimeter is granted on the strength of a familiar voice?
A contractor or executive assistant calls ahead to arrange site access. Does the front desk verify, or defer to authority?
What we bring to the engagement
Twelve capabilities across reconnaissance, delivery, orchestration, and training. Deploy the full chain for an unannounced assessment, or a single vector to pressure-test one control.
Reconnaissance & impersonation
How we become someone your organization trustsYour org chart, reporting lines, executive footprint, vendor relationships, and published processes mapped the way an attacker would map them. Every pretext is built from this, never a template.
Executive, vendor, and help desk voices cloned from publicly available audio. Clone time under five minutes. Indistinguishable on a phone line, which is where verbal verification actually happens.
The agent places the call, holds a live conversation, leaves a voicemail with a callback number, then answers that number when it rings. No human operator on our side at any point.
Interactive, conversational avatars on Teams, Zoom, and Google Meet with synced expression and lip movement. The target can ask questions and get answers. A pre-recorded clip cannot do that.
AI-generated multi-stage email that adapts to how the target responds, sequenced against earlier contact so it lands already carrying credibility.
Follow-up delivered on the channels your email security never inspects. Smishing, Teams messages, and Slack DMs as part of one coordinated chain.
Delivery, orchestration & outcome
How the attack lands and what you get backWeaponized meeting invites that bypass email filtering entirely. Roughly three times the click rate of standard phishing in our engagements, and almost nobody tests this vector.
Sign-on pages that establish whether a target complied. We prove the control failed and deliberately never retain the credential material.
Anyone diligent enough to ring back to verify reaches the attacker again. This is the control most organizations believe they have and almost none actually test.
Voice, then video, then messaging, sequenced under OSES™ so credibility compounds across touchpoints exactly as a real campaign does.
Anyone who engages moves into role-specific training within seconds, while the experience is still live in their head. Every failure becomes the teachable moment.
Susceptibility by function, where the workflow bent, comparison against comparable engagements, and independent documentation your auditors and underwriters can use.
Every engagement runs on OSES™
OSES™, Orchestrated Social Engineering Simulations, is our framework for multi-vector red teaming. A real adversary does not send one message and wait. They build credibility across several touchpoints, and only then ask for something. That contextual layer is what single-channel testing leaves out entirely, and it is the part that actually works. Every capability above plugs into a stage of it.
OSES™ is a trademark of Breacher.ai. It was built for orchestrated, multi-channel synthetic media attacks from the ground up, not adapted from an email phishing playbook. Run the full chain for an unannounced assessment, or a single stage to pressure-test one control.
Attack. Identify. Train. Repeat.
Offensive assessment and targeted training as one loop. Recognition is built by experiencing the attack under controlled conditions, then being taught immediately afterwards.
Deepfake Red Team
Real AI-powered attacks against your organization, sequenced the way an adversary would sequence them. Nothing announced, nothing generic.
Custom Training
Once we know which workflow bent and under what pressure, training addresses that exact gap. Generated from the engagement, not pulled off a shelf.
From exposed to prepared in eight weeks
Fully managed throughout. No integration, no agents, nothing installed.
Reconnaissance
Open-source intelligence on your organization, then scenario design built from it. Your security team reviews and signs off before anything runs.
Attack
Controlled multi-channel deployment against the agreed scope. Voice, video, and follow-up sequenced to build credibility before anything is asked for.
Report
Susceptibility by function, which workflow failed and under what pressure, benchmark comparison, and prioritized remediation. Board-ready and audit-ready.
Train and re-test
Targeted training to the functions that need it, then a re-assessment against the same baseline so the improvement is measured rather than assumed.
A voicemail, a text, and a callback trap
A financial services organization asked us to measure susceptibility to voice cloning. We used their chief executive's voice, sourced entirely from public video.
No email was involved. The chain ran voicemail to SMS to a sign-on page, with a callback trap waiting for anyone diligent enough to try to verify. The most instructive number is the last one: not a single person reported it.
Common questions
What exactly do you attack?
Workflows, not inboxes. We target the decision points where money moves and access is granted: wire approvals, password resets, vendor bank detail changes, onboarding, and executive requests. The attack is only the delivery mechanism. The finding is which step in your process bent.
How is this different from a phishing simulation?
A phishing simulation ends at the click and reports a rate. This continues into the process behind the click: the callback to a spoofed number, the help desk approving a reset, the finance approval that releases a payment. That is where losses actually happen, and a click rate cannot see any of it.
Are the simulations custom or from a library?
Custom, every time. Scenarios are built from open-source reconnaissance on your own organization: your leadership, your vendors, your published processes, your tooling. Attackers do not use a template library and neither do we.
Do you name individuals in the report?
No. We report at the organizational level: the likelihood of an action occurring across a population, which function is most exposed, and where the process failed. Naming individuals rarely improves people, process, or technology, and it makes the next round of reporting worse.
What does the training look like?
It fires at the moment of engagement, within seconds of the interaction, and it is specific to what just happened and why it worked. Role-based modules, custom video, and conversational bots, all generated from the engagement rather than pulled off a shelf.
Will this disrupt operations?
No. The engagement runs externally and fully managed, with no software installation, no agents, and no integration. Execution windows are agreed in advance and an escalation contact stays reachable throughout.
How long does it take?
Roughly eight weeks end to end: reconnaissance, execution, reporting, then training and re-assessment. The attack window itself is usually a few days.
How often should we run it?
Quarterly. Scenarios change every cycle so recognition is genuine rather than pattern-matching to our particular tells, which is a real failure mode in programmes that reuse templates.
Find out if your team would wire the money.
Most organizations do not know they are exposed until after the transfer clears. We show you the gap first.
Or see deepfake awareness training and deepfake penetration testing.
support@breacher.ai
