Restricted meeting link
Helps the host understand how the participant entered the meeting. Authorization still follows the control assigned to the requested action.
Secure video meetingsNeuroMeeting · Coming Soon
Use meeting evidence without treating it as approval.
A participant’s face, voice, account, and conversational responses can inform the host. An authorized approver should still decide whether a transfer, access change, disclosure, or account action proceeds.
NeuroMeeting is a coming-soon product designed to analyze participant audio and video and present participant-level observations for host review. Those observations support an independent authorization workflow; they do not establish identity or approve the action.
01 / Public evidence
What the cited evidence establishes
Arup states that criminals used “fake voice, signatures and images” to execute a fraud in January 2024.
Scope of the evidence
Arup’s first-party disclosure demonstrates that fake voice, signatures, and images can contribute to a successful business fraud. It does not report how often meeting-based deepfake fraud occurs, and it does not support additional claims about the participants, platform, or authorization process involved.
22,364
complaints carrying the IC3 “AI Related” descriptor
$893.3M
in adjusted losses associated with those complaints
In the FBI’s 2025 IC3 report, “AI Related” is a descriptor for a medium or tool used to facilitate a reported crime. The report separately lists 24,768 BEC complaints; it does not identify all BEC complaints as AI-enabled.
Read the 2025 IC3 reportThese IC3 figures describe complaints submitted to the FBI and their adjusted losses. They are not a prevalence estimate for video-meeting impersonation, and they do not connect the AI descriptor, BEC category, and meeting fraud into one dataset.
02 / Decision path
Follow the request from participant to authorized approver
This sequence is a control model, not a reconstruction of the Arup incident. It shows where meeting context ends and the organization’s authorization process begins.
- 01
Meeting access
The participant joins through an expected route.
A restricted link, invited account, or recognized display name establishes meeting context. It does not authorize a later request. - 02
Identity claim
The participant appears and speaks on camera.
The host receives a face, voice, and conversational responses through media that may itself be manipulated. - 03
Sensitive request
The participant asks the host to act.
A transfer, access change, confidential disclosure, or account action may be presented as urgent or routine. - 04
Authorization
An approver makes the consequential decision.
The authorized approver accepts, rejects, or escalates the request in the bank, identity, HR, customer, or internal system where it will take effect.
The decision remains outside the meeting. The host can hold the request and provide context. Only the authorized approver acts in the system that controls the outcome.
03 / Meeting evidence
Decide how each meeting signal may be used
Access controls and participant cues help the host run the session. The security owner must separately define the evidence and approval required for a sensitive action.
Invited account or display name
Connects the session to an account or invitation. The authorized approver still verifies the request through the organization’s approved route.
Recognized face or voice
May help a participant communicate with the host, but cannot serve as an independent check when the media channel is in question.
Natural conversation
Provides context for the meeting. A sensitive action remains subject to the same approval policy used outside a video call.
04 / Actor responsibilities
Assign each part of the decision
The participant makes the request. NeuroMeeting can provide the host with a media observation. The security owner defines the verification path, and an authorized approver makes the decision.
The NeuroMeeting observation is one input to this workflow. The organization’s existing policy and authorized approver control the business action.
05 / Operating procedure
Give the host a defined next step
- 01Security owner
Define the protected decisions.
Identify the transfers, access grants, data disclosures, account changes, and approvals that require an authorized approver outside the meeting.
- 02Host
Hold the sensitive request.
The host records the request, avoids completing the action, and refers it to the organization’s approved verification path.
- 03Authorized approver
Verify through a known route.
The approver uses a pre-registered number, internal approval system, or another channel that was not supplied by the participant during the meeting.
- 04Security owner · record
Record the control outcome.
Retain the meeting observation, host response, verification route, and final decision according to the organization’s access and retention policy.
06 / Planned workflow scope
Define the control before discussing deployment
A useful planning discussion starts with the protected action and its decision owner. Product availability should not determine whether the organization applies its existing authorization policy.
- 01
Choose one meeting workflow
Start with a defined meeting type, the sensitive request it may produce, and the system where the action will occur.
- 02
Assign the responsible actors
Name the participant, host, security owner, and authorized approver for that workflow.
- 03
Define the host response
Specify what the host does with an elevated or uncertain observation and how the request reaches the security owner.
- 04
Keep the existing control available
Document how the authorized approver proceeds when NeuroMeeting is unavailable or does not provide usable context.
When no usable observation is available
If NeuroMeeting is unavailable or cannot provide usable context, the host refers the sensitive request to the organization’s existing high-risk authorization process. The authorized approver follows that process without relying on the meeting media.
07 / Evidence limits
Benchmark results define a testing constraint
Deepfake-Eval-2024 collected media circulated in 2024 across 88 websites and 52 languages. Its authors report that off-the-shelf open-source detector AUC fell by 50% for video, 48% for audio, and 45% for images compared with earlier benchmarks.
That result is not a NeuroMeeting evaluation and should not be used to infer NeuroMeeting performance. It shows why any detector result must be interpreted in light of the test data, media quality, manipulation method, and deployment conditions.
Review Deepfake-Eval-2024A planned workflow discussion should cover
- The intended meeting conditions and available media
- False-positive, false-negative, and uncertain-case handling
- Host and approver actions when no usable result is available
- Which product fields, access controls, and retention options are actually available
Neural Defend does not publish NeuroMeeting-specific accuracy or customer-outcome figures on this page.
08 / References
Sources used on this page
01
Arup
Financial Statement 2024
First-party disclosure of a January 2024 fraud using fake voice, signatures, and images.
02FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center
2025 IC3 Annual Report
Complaint-reported AI and BEC context released in April 2026, with separate categories and reporting limitations.
03CVPR Workshops 2026
Deepfake-Eval-2024
A multi-modal, in-the-wild benchmark measuring detector performance on media circulated in 2024.
NeuroMeeting · Coming Soon
Discuss one sensitive authorization workflow
Bring a meeting type, the sensitive action it can trigger, and the roles responsible for review and approval. The discussion will define the host response, independent verification route, and questions that must be resolved before any use.
Discuss a planned workflowNeuroMeeting is coming soon. Planned product behavior, deployment requirements, evidence handling, and workflow fit must be confirmed with the Neural Defend team.