For years, cybersecurity teams have worked to close gaps across email, endpoints, cloud infrastructure, and application layers. But as new threats like deepfake voices infiltrate customer service lines, IT help desk calls, and internal communication channels, a major blind spot remains: live audio.
From Slack, Zoom, Teams, WhatsApp, Discord and even traditional telephony, voice has quietly become one of the fastest-growing communication channels online, and it’s largely invisible to modern security stacks. That invisibility is turning voice into an emerging attack vector, one that many security teams aren’t equipped to monitor, detect, or control.
An expanding, unmonitored surface
From a risk perspective, voice introduces challenges that don’t exist in text-based systems. Live audio is ephemeral, fast-moving, and deeply contextual. Fraudulent behavior such as social engineering often unfolds in seconds, long before post-incident review is possible.
Unlike email or chat, voice rarely generates searchable logs or structured data. Traditional tools like DLPs, SIEMs, or keyword-based filters offer little visibility into what’s happening in real time. For attackers, that makes voice an attractive channel: high impact, low oversight.
Security leaders have seen this pattern before. Email was once treated as a productivity tool rather than a security risk until phishing and business email compromise forced a reckoning. Voice communications is following a similar trajectory.
The cost of reactive security
CISOs are increasingly under pressure to demonstrate return on security investments, and voice exposes the high cost of reactive approaches. When abuse or manipulation occurs in live voice environments, the damage is often immediate and irreversible. A deepfake attack may result in lost users, millions of dollars transferred, and reputational harm.
Manual review and after-the-fact enforcement don’t scale in real-time systems. By the time incidents are investigated, users have already disengaged or escalated complaints. Preventative controls, especially those that can operate in-line, offer a clearer ROI by reducing incident volume, support costs, and churn before they compound.
Duty of care in real time
Regulatory and governance frameworks are also evolving. While many compliance regimes focus on stored data, expectations around duty of care are expanding, particularly for platforms that host live interaction at scale.
Organizations that enable voice communication may be expected to demonstrate reasonable safeguards against abuse, especially in environments involving minors or vulnerable users. The inability to monitor or intervene in real time creates compliance risk, not because regulations explicitly mandate voice moderation today, but because regulators increasingly scrutinize preventable harm.
Security teams are being asked not just whether controls exist, but whether they’re appropriate for the medium.
Lost trust as a security outcome
Ultimately, trust is the common thread. Users assume that platforms offering voice communication are taking steps to protect them—not just from data breaches, but from harmful experiences that drive people away.
Voice is no longer a niche feature in the way we interact online; it’s often core to how we connect. As it grows, so does its relevance to cybersecurity strategy. Security teams that treat voice as “out of scope” risk repeating past mistakes, while those that recognize it as an emerging attack vector have an opportunity to get ahead of the curve.
The question isn’t whether voice belongs in the security conversation. Instead, it’s how long organizations can afford to leave it unmonitored.