Scaut

Tag: HR & Recruitment

  • The Contractor in Your Network: Why Third-Party IT Risk Starts with the Person, Not the Software

    The Contractor in Your Network: Why Third-Party IT Risk Starts with the Person, Not the Software

    In May 2021, a Serbian cryptocurrency company hired a developer named “Bryan Cho”, a stolen identity used by Jong Pong Ju, a North Korean state operative. He passed the company’s hiring checks because those checks confirmed the name was clean, not that the person was real. Once inside with trusted developer access, he and his co-conspirators stole $915,000 in cryptocurrency directly from the company’s holdings, laundering it through mixers and shell accounts before the fraud was uncovered, not by the company, but by a US federal grand jury indictment four years later in June 2025. A background check that verified the authenticity of the identity document and confirmed the person presenting it matched that document biometrically would have rejected the application before the operative ever gained access. The Serbian case is one data point in a pattern that CrowdStrike now tracks across the UK, Poland, Romania, and other European countries, with infiltrations of this kind growing 220% in the past twelve months alone.

    The cost of the check that was not done: a fraction of a percent of $915,000.

    ‍

    The scale of third-party IT dependency

    European organisations have never been more reliant on external IT talent. The Eurostat ICT workforce survey consistently shows that the majority of medium and large enterprises outsource at least a portion of their IT function, whether through managed service providers, nearshore development teams, IT staffing agencies, or independent contractors. In the Czech Republic, Germany, and Poland, three of the fastest-growing technology markets in the CEE region, IT outsourcing accounts for a significant share of total IT spending.

    This dependency creates a structural risk that most organisations systematically underestimate. A contractor does not appear on a company’s HRIS. They are often onboarded through procurement rather than HR. Their access credentials are frequently provisioned at short notice. Their right-to-work and identity is verified, if at all, by the agency or intermediary that placed them, not by the organisation whose network they are entering.

    IBM’s Cost of a Data Breach Report 2023 found that breaches involving third parties cost an average of 11.8% more than those originating internally, and took significantly longer to detect. The Ponemon Institute has separately reported that 51% of organisations have experienced a data breach caused by a third party. In Europe, where GDPR fines for insufficiently secured personal data can reach 4% of global annual turnover, the financial exposure is amplified considerably.

    ‍

    Who are these contractors, exactly?

    The IT contractor population is diverse, and so is the risk profile. At the lower end of the risk spectrum sits the web developer brought in for a three-month project, who is given access to a staging environment and a Slack workspace. At the higher end sits the infrastructure engineer who has been granted administrator-level access to production servers, cloud environments, or financial systems, and who may be working simultaneously for several other clients.

    Between these poles lies a large population of IT professionals whose access is significant and whose vetting is minimal. Database administrators, DevOps engineers, network technicians, support desk staff, and software developers working under staff augmentation contracts frequently hold access to systems that would, if compromised, constitute a serious regulatory and reputational event.

    The 2023 breach at a major German logistics company, attributed to a contractor account that had not been deprovisioned following the end of an engagement, illustrates the operational reality. Access had been granted. The work had concluded. The account remained active. The attacker who eventually discovered and exploited it did not need to be sophisticated, they simply needed to find an open door.

    ‍

    What NIS2 and ZKI require

    The NIS2 Directive, which entered transposition across EU member states from October 2024, places explicit supply chain security obligations on operators of essential and important entities. Article 21 requires organisations to implement measures that address the security of supply chains, including the security practices of direct suppliers and service providers. This is not limited to software and hardware, it extends to the human elements of those supply chains.

    In the Czech Republic specifically, the Zákon o kybernetické bezpečnosti, the national cybersecurity act implementing NIS2, imposes personnel security requirements on regulated entities that include obligations to assess the trustworthiness of individuals with access to critical systems. This is a meaningful legal development. It shifts background screening from a discretionary HR practice to a regulated security obligation.

    For organisations that rely on external IT contractors, compliance with these requirements demands a structured approach to pre-engagement vetting that mirrors, at minimum, the standard applied to permanent employees in equivalent roles.

    ‍

    What does effective contractor screening look like?

    Effective screening for IT contractors should be proportional to access level. An individual with read-only access to a test environment is not the same risk as someone with write access to a production database or administrator access to a cloud environment. The screening regime should reflect this.

    At a minimum, contractors being granted access to sensitive systems should be subject to identity verification, criminal record checks covering their country of residence and, where relevant, prior countries of residence, and verification of the employment history they have presented. Reference checks from prior engagements should be obtained. Where contractors are nationals of, or have lived in, countries that present particular geopolitical risk, enhanced due diligence is warranted.

    In practice, most European organisations do none of this for contractors. They rely on the placing agency to have conducted some level of check, without verifying what standard was applied, whether checks were recent, or whether the individual being placed is actually the individual who was screened. This is a significant gap.

    ‍

    The challenge of multi-tier supply chains

    A further complication is the prevalence of subcontracting within IT service delivery. A managed service provider contracted by your organisation may itself subcontract specialist work to a boutique firm, which may in turn use freelancers sourced from platform marketplaces. By the time an individual arrives at your systems, they may be three or four degrees removed from any entity that has a direct contractual relationship with you.

    European organisations operating in regulated sectors such as financial services, energy, healthcare and telecommunications should be establishing contractual requirements that flow down through supply chains. These should specify minimum screening standards, require evidence of compliance, and reserve the right to audit or request screening documentation for any individual granted access to systems or data. The same applies to screening energy contractors with access to substations, control rooms and grid systems.

    ‍

    The practical steps organisations can take now

    The starting point is an audit of who currently has access to your systems and on what basis. Many organisations discover, when they conduct this exercise, that they have active access credentials belonging to contractors who left months or years previously, or that access rights were never scoped appropriately to the work being performed.

    From there, the implementation of a structured pre-engagement screening process for all contractors being granted system access is a proportionate and defensible response to both the threat environment and the regulatory requirements. This does not need to be burdensome. Modern background screening platforms can deliver results for European contractors within 24 to 72 hours in most cases, covering the checks that matter.

    Finally, organisations should establish a clear deprovisioning process, triggered automatically at the end of any contractor engagement, that removes or suspends access credentials. The number of major incidents that can be traced to dormant accounts is striking, and the remedy is straightforward.

    The contractor in your network may be entirely trustworthy. But without a structured process for establishing that trust, you are extending access on the basis of assumption alone. Today, that is no longer a defensible position, legally, operationally, or commercially.

    ‍

  • 7 Reasons Why Your Background Screening Process Might Be Costing You Top Talent

    7 Reasons Why Your Background Screening Process Might Be Costing You Top Talent

    Research shows that 35% of candidates abandon hiring processes when background checks take longer than two weeks. In competitive European markets, screening delays aren’t just inconvenient, they’re expensive. Here’s what to watch for:

    ‍

    :alarm_clock:

    Weeks-Long Criminal Check Timelines

    If power of attorney paperwork is adding 4-6 weeks to your EU criminal background checks, you’re likely losing qualified candidates to faster-moving competitors. New approaches now exist that can complete multi-country checks without traditional POA requirements.
    ‍

    :memo:

    Excessive Candidate Paperwork

    Every additional form or document request reduces completion rates by 10-15%. When candidates face separate submissions for identity verification, criminal checks, and employment history, friction compounds and dropout increases.

    ‍

    :mobile_phone:

    Desktop-Only Submission Requirements

    Over 60% of candidates prefer completing screening tasks on mobile devices. Processes that require desktop access for document uploads create unnecessary barriers, especially for younger talent pools.

    ‍

    :earth_africa:

    No Solution for Multi-Country Roles

    European businesses routinely hire across borders, yet many screening processes treat each jurisdiction as a separate, manual workstream. Modern platforms should offer unified multi-country capabilities that significantly reduce administrative complexity.

    ‍

    :arrows_anticlockwise:

    Unclear Expectations Before Screening Begins

    When candidates aren’t told upfront what the screening process involves, which documents they’ll need, how long it will take, and what steps are required, confusion and frustration set in quickly. Clear, detailed instructions before screening starts reduce dropout rates and help candidates prepare, keeping the process moving smoothly.

    ‍

    :bar_chart:

    Inadequate Language Support

    Asking candidates to navigate screening in a language they’re not fully comfortable with increases errors, delays, and abandonment. In multilingual European markets, offering screening communications and instructions in a candidate’s own language significantly improves completion rates and demonstrates respect for the people you’re trying to hire.

    ‍

    :dart:

    No Visibility for Candidates

    Candidates left without status updates on their screening progress are twice as likely to accept competing offers. Transparency throughout the process is becoming a differentiator in candidate experience.
    The reality? Background screening should protect your organization without sabotaging your talent acquisition. When process friction becomes a hiring bottleneck, it’s time to reassess.

    Here at Scaut we work to ensure there are as few delays as possible in your candidate screening process.

  • The Overemployed Problem: Why Secret Double-Dippers Hurt Teams

    The Overemployed Problem: Why Secret Double-Dippers Hurt Teams

    The Overemployed Problem: Why Secret Double-Dippers Hurt Teams, and How to Spot and Prevent It

    “Overemployed” workers, people secretly holding two (or more) overlapping jobs, aren’t just a quirky byproduct of remote work. They create real risks: from conflicts of interest and data leakage to uneven workloads, burnout, and fairness issues for teammates pulling extra weight. The movement has its own jargon (“J1/J2”) and a well-worn playbook for juggling calendars, devices, and public profiles to stay hidden.


    Why this behavior is a problem for employers

    Contract and policy violations.
    Undisclosed concurrent work often breaches offer letters, moonlighting and conflict-of-interest clauses, or confidentiality terms, even where side work isn’t per se illegal. That exposes employers to reputational, legal, and IP risk.


    Security and data risk.
    Multiple employers mean multiple codebases and datasets on the same person’s devices. The more environments someone touches, the higher the chance of cross-pollination or mishandling of sensitive information.


    Productivity and time-theft signals.
    Some double-dippers simulate presence (e.g., “always online”) while context-switching. Output becomes inconsistent, deadlines slip, and peer workloads quietly increase.


    Team impact and equity.
    Colleagues experience slow responses, recurring meeting conflicts, chronic “camera-off” presence, and reluctance to take on visibility-creating work, classic red flags that erode trust and morale.


    How the overemployed do it (common patterns)


    Choose low-meeting, remote roles; control the calendar.
    Senior IC roles with autonomous schedules are favored because they allow work to be batched and collisions to be masked.


    Segregate devices and communications.
    Separate laptops and phones, distinct browsers and profiles, personal hotspots, and aggressive calendar blocking are used to prevent cross-contamination and detection.


    Obfuscate public signals.
    People downplay or delay title updates, keep profiles sparse, or use vague date ranges to avoid showing concurrent roles.


    Prefer contracting over payroll employment.
    Contract engagements may draw less scrutiny during onboarding and ongoing HR processes than full-time roles.


    Limit third-party employment checks.
    Some attempt to block or restrict access to income and employment verification services that could reveal current employer and pay cadence.


    How they get discovered (and what to look for)


    Verification and payroll trails

    • Employment and income verifications (with proper consent and permissible purpose) reveal ongoing payroll from another employer. That’s a bright red flag of undisclosed concurrent employment.

    Behavioral and operational red flags

    • Meeting collisions and inconsistent responsiveness tied to certain time blocks
    • Persistent “camera-off” stance and avoidance of ad-hoc collaboration
    • Refusal to take vacations or promotions that would increase visibility
    • Unusual activity telemetry (e.g., cursor movement without meaningful application interaction)

    Device and access anomalies

    • Conflicting device-management footprints (traces of other orgs’ MDM, SSO or communication tools)
    • Unusual sign-in patterns or sustained multitasking across unrelated tenant environments

    Inconsistent public or submitted data

    • Résumé and LinkedIn discrepancies around dates and titles that don’t match internal records, or suddenly sparse profiles right after hiring


    What background screening can (and can’t) do

    Pre-hire background checks are essential, but they’re a snapshot. They verify identity, records permitted by law, education, and prior employment, yet they won’t, by themselves, stop someone from adding a secret second job months later.
    ‍

    Where screening does help:

    1. Pre-hire employment verification, done right. Confirm current employment and start dates through reputable channels with the candidate’s authorization and a clear permissible purpose. Follow all disclosure, authorization, and adverse-action steps required in your jurisdiction.
    2. Post-hire rescreening and continuous monitoring (with consent). Adopt periodic rescreening (e.g., every 12–36 months) or provider-managed continuous monitoring for role-appropriate risks (e.g., regulated roles, privileged access). Any alerts should be validated at the original source before action is taken. In many cases screening acts as a deterrent: people considering overemployment will actively avoid opportunities that could involve screening. So if nothing else, simply having background screening in your HR process will help protect you against this practice.


    A practical, compliant prevention program

    1. Publish (and train on) a modern moonlighting and conflicts policy. Define “outside employment,” require prior written disclosure and approval, and detail consequences for violations. Apply consistently and fairly.
    2. Strengthen pre-hire verification. Verify current employment and reconcile discrepancies before Day 1. For sensitive roles, add identity proofing and right-to-work checks where applicable.
    3. Adopt post-hire checks proportionate to role risk. Use rescreening or continuous monitoring for high-risk positions, with explicit consent and a documented workflow for acting on findings.
    4. Harden device and access controls. Prohibit using company devices and accounts for other employers. Monitor for conflicting MDM or SSO agents and anomalous activity, within transparent, disclosed, and lawful boundaries. Enforce least-privilege access and data loss prevention.
    5. Coach managers on red flags and humane escalation. Give leaders a checklist (collisions, responsiveness patterns, unusual “always online,” reluctance to take visibility). Start with a supportive check-in to rule out legitimate causes before escalating.
    6. Reinforce confidentiality and IP protection. Re-acknowledge NDA and IP terms at onboarding and during key milestones; use code review and data-access logging to deter cross-org leakage.
    7. Tighten time and attendance attestations. If applicable, require periodic attestations that hours billed to the company weren’t simultaneously billed elsewhere; couple this with reasonable audits.

     

    The bottom line

    The overemployed phenomenon thrives on remote-work opacity and the gap between one-time hiring checks and ongoing risk management. Close those gaps with lawful verification, proportionate monitoring, clear policies, and manager training, and you’ll deter most double-dipping without overreaching.

  • HR and staying Compliant

    HR and staying Compliant

    The Emergence of Regulatory Standards

    The standards themselves are myriad, and some of the more prevalent are outlined below. In each case they contain significant guidance or requirements for HR departments to align their practices to ensure regulations are met, and the future points to an ever-increasing tightening in compliant hiring.

    SOC 2 (Service Organization Control 2) focuses on the management of customer data based on five trust services criteria: security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, and privacy. It is crucial for SOC 2 compliant organizations to deliver thorough employee screening processes to ensure expertise, reliability, and integrity for individuals handling sensitive data.

    ISO 27001 is a comprehensive framework for managing and protecting company and customer information through an information security management system (ISMS). This standard is recognized globally and applies to organizations of all sizes and industries. Control 6.1 states that companies must establish a screening process that vets all full-time, part-time and casual/temporary staff and suppliers, to ensure that only fit and proper personnel are able to access information.

    NIS2 Directive (Network and Information Systems) the NIS2 Directive is a continuation of the EU cybersecurity directive, NIS. Member States have until October 17, 2024 to transpose the Directive into national law. This means that affected organizations will be legally obligated to meet its requirements by Q4 2024.

    Critical Entities Resilience Directive is a European Union directive aimed at bolstering the security and resilience of critical infrastructure, to ensure that essential services for the maintenance of vital societal functions or economic activities are unobstructed. This directive is part of the EU’s efforts to enhance its collective resilience posture and protect its internal market from disruptions. Again, HR must implement an employee screening process, verify expertise, reliability, and integrity for those accessing critical infrastructure. Identity and criminal checks are a minimum standard.

    Impact on HR Departments

    The implementation and compliance with these standards have profound implications for HR departments for several reasons.

    Recruitment and Training: HR professionals now need to consider cybersecurity and data protection competencies as critical factors in the recruitment process. For roles that involve access to or management of sensitive information, candidates must demonstrate not only the necessary technical skills but also an understanding of compliance standards. Additionally, HR departments are tasked with developing comprehensive training programs to ensure all employees are aware of their roles in maintaining these standards.

    Policy Development and Enforcement: HR departments are increasingly involved in the development of policies related to information security, data protection, and incident response. These policies must align with the requirements of the relevant standards and be communicated effectively to all employees. HR plays a crucial role in enforcing these policies and handling breaches, including disciplinary actions when necessary.

    Vendor and Third-Party Management: As organizations rely more on third-party vendors for various services, HR departments must ensure that these partners comply with relevant standards. This includes conducting due diligence during the selection process and regular audits to ensure ongoing compliance. The HR department often collaborates with IT and legal teams to manage contracts and agreements that include clauses related to compliance with SOC 2, ISO 27001, NIS2, and other relevant standards.

    Employee Data Protection: With regulations like the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) in the EU, protecting employee data has become a critical concern for HR departments. The principles of these regulatory standards often extend to employee data, requiring HR to implement strict controls over access, processing, and storage of personal information.

    Continuous Monitoring and Improvement: Compliance with standards like ISO 27001 requires continuous monitoring and improvement of the ISMS. HR departments must work closely with IT and security teams to identify and address any gaps in compliance. This includes conducting regular internal audits, managing corrective actions, and updating policies and procedures as needed.

    Challenges and Solutions

    The evolving nature of these regulatory standards poses significant challenges for HR departments. Keeping abreast of changes in the regulatory landscape requires dedicated resources and ongoing education. Moreover, the intersection of HR functions with IT security and legal compliance demands a multidisciplinary approach that may not have been a traditional part of HR responsibilities.

    To address these challenges, organizations are increasingly adopting integrated compliance management solutions that automate many aspects of compliance tracking and reporting. Such tools can help HR departments manage employee training, policy acknowledgment, and incident reporting more efficiently. Additionally, fostering a culture of security and compliance within the organization can enhance employee engagement with these critical issues.

    Conclusion

    As the regulatory environment continues to evolve, HR departments must adapt to the changing landscape by acquiring new skills, collaborating across departments, and leveraging technology to manage compliance effectively. The role of HR is becoming increasingly strategic, not just in managing talent but in safeguarding the organization against the risks of non-compliance. By embracing these challenges, HR professionals can contribute significantly to the resilience and security of their organizations in the digital age.

    ‍

  • Everything begins and ends with employees

    Everything begins and ends with employees

    The number of attacks on property and sensitive information is steadily increasing, both in the private sector as well as the public. The importance of protecting them should therefore also rise against insider threats and employee fraud. Not because everyone steals and everyone is a fraudster, but because several objective factors will continue to increase the risk of internal attack in the years ahead.

    What are they?

    • The looming recession will worsen living conditions for many people, bringing some to the brink of existential problems
    • Financial difficulties, restructuring, and resource constraints in many businesses will lead to higher labor market turnover
    • The sudden loss of a job may lead to a desire to get a new job at any cost, even at the cost of ‘improving’ one’s CV, education, or experience
    • Existential problems can drive even a previously trouble-free employee to try to solve these problems at the expense of the employer
    • Despite the economic recession, there is a continuing shortage of certain specialisms in the labor market, even those that can easily be performed remotely
    • Remote working, including purely online recruitment, is still on the rise, but the risk of hiring someone online who has never actually been seen in the company is not always fully appreciated
    Internal risks, the threats associated with our employees, will become increasingly tangible. We may not like it, and we may say for the hundredth time that there is no such threat in our company, but that is the reality.

    František Nonnemann

    Compliance and Operational Risk Consultant

    ‍

    Protecting money or information? Both!

    When an employee steals money, the damage is clear. We’re not just talking about a small addition to the household in the form of “moving” work tools or office supplies. That too can hurt an employer, especially when it becomes a sport among employees. But even more serious can be fraudulent cost accounting, false invoicing, or even misrepresenting a bank account to customers. And the classic “reaching into the treasure chest” remains a threat when a previously exemplary employee “resolves” a complicated personal situation in a truly unfortunate way.

    In the event of a loss or leak of internal information, the financial loss may not be so visible at first glance. But the damage can be even greater as a result.

    Misuse of internal information against the employer’s interests, disclosure of production processes, leaking the source code of a customer application, selling a client list, premature disclosure of information important for stock markets… We can imagine many such black scenarios. And often there’s no need to strain the imagination too much, just scan the news from home and the world. Financial losses can run into hundreds of millions, not to mention problems with reputations, watchdogs, and the courts.

    When thinking about fraud protection, we should strive to prevent direct attacks on property as well as to consistently protect sensitive and confidential information. One without the other does not make sense. Setting up measures to ensure the physical security of branches and not addressing, for example, the protection of trade secrets or the client base, is necessarily incomplete. Such a half-hearted solution can ultimately be detrimental, as it gives a false sense of security to the organization’s management.

    You can’t do it without personnel security. But what is it?

    Whether we are dealing with the protection of plant know-how, cybersecurity, personal data, or ISO standards, personnel security is an integral part of the measures implemented. Or at least it should be.

    But what is it? Personnel security, human resources security, internal risks, “people risk”?

    In practice, the issue of personnel security is often seen as a training issue for employees. Employees have to be trained on how to work, how to protect internal information, and what regulations to follow. Within a few dozen minutes, they should process a lot of information, read dozens of internal directives and sign a confirmation that they know everything, understand everything, and will follow it.

    From a technical point of view, HR security is sometimes limited to defining the correct roles and user rights for employees and setting access and password policies. When there are sufficient resources, data leakage prevention (DLP), CCTV, or other security devices are put in place.

    Take action before the new employee starts!

    For HR security measures to be truly functional, they must begin before a potential attacker ever enters the organization.

    Why?

    The most advanced and expensive technical measures will not stop a truly determined attacker. It’s always just a question of money, capacity, and will. If someone enters your company or office with the intent and plan to misuse confidential information, technical measures alone will usually not stop them.

    Modern, interactive, and well-designed training will not reveal who lied at the interview and who is hiding something from their past. And it certainly won’t prevent an employee in a problematic personal situation from reaching into your coffers.

    It is therefore always better to start one step earlier and try to keep attackers, fraudsters, and other people who can cause very real and tangible problems for the employer out of the organization altogether. Better in the sense of being more efficient, conceptual, and ultimately cheaper.

    What does it mean to start early? Establish a process for a background check. This means checking the credibility and reliability of new employees or job applicants. After all, their past is your future. Checking to see if they are lying on their resume, improving their education, experience, or skills, or hiding other skeletons in their closet will save any employer a lot of future problems.

    Five conditions for a smart and effective background check

    Therefore, for a background check to work, and not just become another annoying paper exercise, it is advisable to choose a solution that will be:

    • Quick and easy for employers and candidates
    • Clear and transparent, with clear outputs for management
    • Reliable and comprehensive, including all relevant resources
    • Customizable, tailored to the employer’s conditions and the sensitivity of the position being filled
    • Fair and lawful, in line with data processing and privacy regulations for employees and job applicants

    More flies with one shot

    Setting up a reasonable, efficient, and smart process for vetting job applicants will help prevent internal fraud and misuse of information. However, quality tools for verifying the reliability of job applicants are also important in other areas. For example, they can greatly assist an organization in the:

    • Compliance with legislation that requires us to verify the trustworthiness of employees and protect sensitive information. From GDPR, a cybersecurity law that will soon affect thousands of companies, to financial market regulation, to state and local government. Everywhere we find requirements to secure information and assets, ensure the functionality of the services provided and the trustworthiness of key employees or officials.
    • Meeting the requirements of the parent company, the founder, shareholders or voluntarily accepted ethical commitments
    • Protecting members of the statutory body from material liability for failing to take reasonable care of assets under management
    • Increasing the value of the company, whether on the stock exchange or in negotiations for a potential merger or sale
    • Obtaining certification when, for example, ISO standards in the area of information protection, as well as others, require a demonstrable and documentable process for verifying the trustworthiness of employees

    In other words, a well-constructed process for vetting job applicants can help an employer respond to multiple challenges and requirements. And it pays off!

    Personnel security is the topic of the future

    Attacks on private and public organizations, their property, assets, and information will increase. Attacks will be amateur, partly organized, and fully professional.

    Unauthorized access to and compromise of data can be relatively easy, and an attack can often be carried out quickly and cheaply. And effectively. Efficient in a negative sense for employers, of course. Indeed, the consequences of a successful attack on sensitive information can lead to the interruption or shutdown of its operations, leakage of confidential production processes, and loss of client trust. As well as fines and damages.

    Everything begins and ends with people. If an organization is not concerned with personnel security, it is simply not protecting its interests.

    František Nonnemann

    Compliance and Operational Risk Consultant

    ‍