What challenge did the client face and why was it critical?
The bank regularly encountered campaigns exploiting its brand to steal login credentials, payment card data, and authorization codes, or to install malware. These threats originated outside the bank’s own infrastructure, appearing on domains registered by cybercriminals, sites hosted by third-party providers, and via SMS, emails, advertisements, instant messengers, as well as fraudulent services mimicking legitimate banking channels.
The problem was not the presence of phishing itself, as such campaigns are a permanent fixture of the financial sector's threat landscape. The key challenge was that an effective response required continuous monitoring of the attack ecosystem, including local domains, campaign distribution methods, tactics used by criminal groups, and the channels where fraudulent sites and messages appeared. From the bank's perspective, it was crucial not only to detect a single domain but also to quickly determine whether it was part of an active campaign targeting its customers.
For security teams, this meant having to operate under intense time pressure. Every hour a fraudulent site remained active increased the risk of a customer disclosing login credentials, approving an unauthorized transaction, or downloading malware. At the same time, the bank had to maintain operational alignment across its SOC, fraud, customer service, external communications, and regulatory compliance teams.
In practice, the challenge did not come down to the question: “Is someone impersonating our brand?” The crucial question was whether the bank had a sufficiently fast and scalable operational mechanism to detect a campaign, confirm its real impact on customers, and trigger effective take-down actions.
Key challenges:
- threats originating outside the bank's infrastructure, often with no visibility in internal SOC systems
- campaigns targeting customers, exploiting local language, context, and the bank's brand recognition
- rapid rotation of domains, SSL certificates, hosting providers, and redirects
- the need to differentiate between passive domain registration and an active phishing campaign
- the risk of credential theft, authorization code compromise, card data exposure, or malware infection
- the need for rapid evidence collection to submit abuse reports to CERTs, registrars, hosting providers, and other entities
- limited internal team capacity faced with a high volume of incidents and false alarms
- regulatory pressure tied to ICT risk management, DORA compliance, operational resilience, and the protection of financial services users
What was implemented and how did it work in practice?
PREBYTES SIRT provided the client with continuous monitoring and detection of phishing campaigns, malware, and infrastructure used to impersonate the bank. The scope of service includes tracking newly registered look-alike domains, SSL certificates, sites mimicking online banking, fraudulent login forms, spam, SMS messages, advertisements, and other channels, as well as mapping their connections to active campaigns observed in the Polish market.
The greatest value does not lie in the detection of the domain itself. PREBYTES SIRT analyzes the technical and operational context, determining whether the site is active, if it contains a login form, utilizes the bank's visual identity, collects user data, or redirects to subsequent stages of the attack. It also assesses if the infrastructure is linked to other domains, certificates, or tools used in similar campaigns. As a result, the bank receives a qualified incident report rather than a raw alert requiring further analysis by the client's internal team.
Once the threat is confirmed, PREBYTES SIRT initiates mitigation actions. These include analyzing the threat, preparing a report and supporting the takedown process to minimize the availability and activity of the malicious infrastructure as quickly as possible.
A vital element of the deployment is the local context. PREBYTES SIRT monitors locally relevant phishing campaigns and malicious infrastructure, enabling faster identification of attack patterns targeting the financial sector. This includes analyzing the language and content of the campaigns, along with their distribution techniques, the domains used by threat actors, phishing site templates, and cross-campaign similarities across different banks.
For the client, this delivers a tangible reduction in the workload of internal teams. The bank does not have to manage the entire process from detection to mitigation on its own every single time. Instead, it receives verified threat intelligence, clear prioritization, technical context, and dedicated support for take-down operations. This significantly shortens response times during active campaigns and minimizes customer exposure to fraudulent sites.
What were the results and how did it change day-to-day operations?
The most significant shift was moving from a reactive model to an operational model of early detection and mitigation. The bank no longer relied solely on customer reports, external warnings, or alerts received after the fact. Instead, it gained a continuous mechanism to identify brand impersonation threats before a campaign could scale.
For the SOC, this meant fewer raw alerts and more incidents containing specific technical context. For the fraud team, it provided faster intelligence on campaigns that could lead to account takeovers, financial fraud, or social engineering attempts against customers. The communication and customer service teams gained the ability to prepare warnings, announcements, and customer responses much earlier. Finally, for compliance and risk management, it added an extra layer of control over ICT threats that impact digital service security and trust in the bank.
The sector-wide impact was also significant. Phishing campaigns rarely operate in isolation, as threat actors often use the same patterns, infrastructure, or attack methods against multiple financial institutions. By monitoring bank’s customer's local threat landscape, PREBYTES SIRT can quickly identify these similarities and predict how an attack might develop. This provides the client with intelligence that is useful not only for responding to a single incident, but also for building broader threat awareness.
Through this deployment, the bank secured both a phishing detection service and tangible operational support across the entire incident lifecycle. This support spans from initial detection, through analysis and qualification, to final actions aimed at blocking the fraudulent site or infrastructure. As a result, the bank successfully reduced the uptime of malicious sites, eased the workload on internal teams, and enhanced protection for its customers.
Post-implementation outcomes:
- continuous monitoring of phishing and malware campaigns targeting the bank's customers
- identification of the infrastructure used in these campaigns, including fraudulent domains, SSL certificates, and websites impersonating the bank
- qualified threat assessment based on real customer impact rather than just domain similarity
- shorter time from campaign detection to the initiation of mitigation actions
- reduced workload for the SOC, fraud, and security teams by eliminating manual analysis of high-volume alerts
- improved coordination across security, fraud, communications, and customer service teams
- ability to issue proactive warnings to customers regarding active campaigns
- mitigated risk of credential theft and financial loss
- stronger control over ICT risk, DORA compliance, and reputational risk
- local visibility into active campaigns, enabling faster identification of recurring attack patterns
Facing similar campaigns? Learn more.
