The head of the CyberMoscow project, Grigory Pashchenko, recently explained practical methods to recognize a scammer who calls on the phone. In a candid interview with radio Sputnik, he outlined several clear indicators and protective steps that people can use to keep their personal information and finances safe. This guide compiles those insights into a straightforward, user‑friendly overview for audiences in Canada and the United States who want to curb phone fraud in daily life.
First, Pashchenko notes that many data breaches originate when customers interact with online stores or food delivery services. Personal details such as names, addresses, and contact numbers can be exposed through lax security or compromised databases. A practical precaution is to avoid sharing real personal details when communicating with unfamiliar services. Instead, use a fictitious name or minimal identifying information until the legitimacy of the request is verified. This practice helps reduce the risk of being targeted by scammers who routinely exploit leaked data for impersonation, phishing, and social engineering. In one illustrative example, if the offender claims to be someone with the victim’s name, the obvious red flag is the mismatch between what the caller asserts and what is already known about the account holder. Such inconsistencies should prompt immediate verification instead of blind trust. This approach is widely recommended by security researchers and practitioners who emphasize privacy by default for everyday digital transactions, especially when interacting with third-party platforms and delivery services. — according to CyberMoscow Project, using a fictitious name in these communications can blunt the impact of leaked identity data and make it easier to recognize fraudulent attempts.
Another common scam tactic is for the caller to pose as a relative in distress, requesting money or sensitive information. To counter this, families are advised to prearrange a simple code word that only trusted members would know. In moments of doubt, the presence of a code word can confirm legitimacy, while its absence can signal a red flag. Experts stress practicing this strategy with loved ones so that if a real emergency occurs, there is a reliable, nonverbal cue that does not rely on voice alone. It’s a quick, practical safeguard that can prevent impulsive transfers or emotionally driven decisions. If any doubt remains after hearing the caller’s story, the recommended response is to pause, verify through independent channels like a known contact number, and proceed only after confirmation. This method has become a staple of prudent family safety planning in today’s risk landscape. — as noted by the CyberMoscow team, a prearranged code word creates a tangible line of defense against emotionally charged phone scams.
Another straightforward tactic is to involve a trusted check via online resources. Callers sometimes push the conversation toward the need to verify information through a link or a quick search. Instead, individuals can forward the number to a reliable browser search engine and review public reviews, warnings, and reported experiences from other users. A broad pattern emerges when many independent sources flag the same number as suspicious. This cross‑checking habit provides a quick, noninvasive way to gauge risk before taking any action, such as sharing financial details or sending money. In practice, this method helps separate genuine requests from those designed to trigger panic or urgency. The goal is to slow down the interaction long enough to prevent hasty decisions. — CyberMoscow researchers emphasize that crowd‑sourced feedback can be a powerful early warning system when used alongside other precautions.
Some fraudsters push for real‑time verification, including attempts to arrange video calls. A practical guideline is to insist on a video conversation only if it originates from a verified, known contact, and to honest refuse any pressure to proceed through alternative channels. If a caller claims they cannot meet in video due to personal reasons, that hesitation should be treated as suspicious. Financial safety experts advise resisting pressure tactics and choosing to end the call and verify through official channels. This approach reduces the risk of social engineering, where the attacker relies on emotional cues to trigger compliance. Through careful, deliberate communication, potential victims can maintain control of the interaction and avoid impulsive decisions. — according to the CyberMoscow experts, even a momentary reluctance to use video proves the need for verification rather than surrender to urgency.
Recent security developments underscore the need for ongoing vigilance in digital communications. For instance, a widely publicized concern has been the vulnerability of some email sender verification systems, which have been exploited by attackers to imitate well-known brands and organizations. While these systems aim to protect users, no technology is perfect, and users must pair them with practical habits like skepticism, multi‑factor checks, and independent confirmation when handling important messages. Being aware of how verification mechanisms can be misused helps people respond more calmly and securely to suspicious outreach. In practice, people should pause before acting on email prompts that request sensitive information, especially when the sender claims unusual urgency or emotional pleas. This balanced approach reduces exposure to scams that leverage seemingly legitimate branding. — observers note that even established verification processes can be challenged by determined attackers, making personal caution essential.