iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
A familiar voice, convincing video, or polished message is not proof of identity. When a call or message asks for money, an authentication code, account access, or sensitive information, pause and verify both the sender and the requested action through a separate channel you already trust.
Why spotting a deepfake is no longer a reliable test
Visual or audio oddities can raise suspicion, but their absence cannot establish who is contacting you. The FBI warns that AI-generated content has advanced to the point that it is often difficult to identify, and that cloned voices can sound nearly identical to those of people you know. A realistic image, familiar voice, or grammatically polished message should therefore not be treated as authentication.
Artifacts may still appear: the FBI lists distorted features, irregular movement, lighting or shadow problems, and unnatural audio as possible clues. Use them as reasons to scrutinize a communication, not as a pass/fail checklist. A video that looks convincing does not verify a financial request, and a glitch-free voice message does not prove who recorded it.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →AI can also make social engineering more targeted and scalable. In a May 2024 statement, the FBI described AI supporting targeted phishing, voice or video cloning, and attempts to persuade people to disclose sensitive information or approve fraudulent transactions. CISA’s January 2024 overview likewise identified voice cloning, deepfake-video scams, generated audio impersonation, and AI-enabled chatbot phishing as threat examples. The practical question has shifted from “Does this look or sound real?” to “Can I verify this request independently?”
#1 Best Overall
What an impersonation attempt may ask you to do
The delivery channel can vary: an unsolicited call, voice message, text, video meeting, or email. In a 2025 alert about a campaign impersonating senior U.S. officials, the FBI described initial contact by SMS, attempts to move conversations to encrypted messaging apps, and requests for one-time authentication codes, wire transfers, or introductions to associates. The alert also discusses smishing and vishing and notes that AI-generated voices may be used in voice messages. Those are examples from a particular campaign, not a template every scam follows.
Focus on the consequence of the request. A familiar person asking you to send money, disclose a code, change account access, share confidential information, or bypass a normal process warrants independent verification—even if the caller seems to know personal details or sounds exactly right.
Rank #2
How to verify a suspicious call, video, or message
- Pause the interaction. Do not let urgency, secrecy, or an apparent emergency push you into acting immediately. A request delivered through a convincing voice or video still needs verification.
- Find a trusted route yourself. Look up a number or contact method you already use, or obtain one independently from a reliable source. Call or message the person or organization through that route. Do not use a number, link, or contact detail supplied in the suspicious communication as your verification method.
- Confirm the specific action. Ask whether the person actually made the request. For a transfer, access change, credential request, or sensitive disclosure, follow the separate procedure established for that action; confirming someone’s identity alone does not make an unusual request safe.
- Keep authentication codes private. The FBI advises using multifactor authentication where available and not disabling it. Do not disclose a one-time authentication code in response to an unsolicited request.
- Report suspected fraud. The FBI directs people to report spoofing and phishing to the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3).
If you cannot reach the person through a trusted route, treat the request as unverified. For a genuine emergency, use another established contact method or involve someone who can confirm the situation without relying on the suspicious channel.
What organizations should do differently
For routine business communications, establish procedures that make sensitive actions verifiable independently of the message requesting them. The FBI recommends combining technical measures that reduce phishing and social-engineering messages with employee education on verifying digital communications, especially requests involving financial transactions or sensitive information. It also recommends multifactor authentication. These measures can reduce exposure and limit opportunities for account takeover; they do not guarantee that every attack will be stopped.
Formal remote identity proofing has additional requirements. NIST’s SP 800-63-4 identity-proofing guidance says submitted digital media should be analyzed for signs of manipulation. Automated image-analysis systems should be evaluated using both genuine media and available attack artifacts, with performance—including false positives and false negatives—understood. NIST says automated analysis and decisions should be augmented by manual review to address detection errors.
For attended remote proofing sessions, NIST calls for trained agents and recommends random human-in-the-loop cues, such as asking an applicant to move or to move an object between the camera and their face. These controls apply to identity-proofing workflows; they are not a universal way to authenticate every business call. NIST also describes social engineering as deception or coercion intended to persuade someone to act during identity proofing, and fake video feeds as an example of an injection attack.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Use detection tools as one signal, not the decision-maker
Automated media analysis may help flag material for review, but a detector’s output cannot, by itself, establish who sent a message or whether its request is legitimate. NIST’s guidance emphasizes evaluation against genuine and manipulated media, attention to false negatives, and manual review to address detection errors. That is why organizations should decide in advance who reviews an exception and what independent evidence is needed before a consequential action is approved.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →For an individual, the equivalent safeguard is straightforward: treat visual or audio clues as prompts to investigate, then verify through a separate trusted route. For an organization, combine technical filtering, staff education, multifactor authentication, and documented verification procedures. In both settings, the trust decision should rest on the request and a reliable process—not on whether a deepfake looks imperfect.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
