Cheap, high-quality face and voice clones are torching KYC funnels. Full-stack architect Ali Abdiyev explains what breaks, what to build, and how to protect conversion while you harden verification. In the past 18 months, deepfake-enabled fraud has jumped from novelty to industrialized attack; European payments authorities now list deepfakes as a top tactic in digital onboarding, while banks tighten ID checks as synthetic media erodes trust in selfies and video calls. High-profile incidents—like the Hong Kong multi-participant video-call con that cost a global firm roughly $25 million—have made “liveness” a board-level word. Meanwhile, new rules (including EU AI Act transparency duties for synthetic content) are arriving just as passkeys go mainstream, pressuring teams to redesign identity stacks under fire.
TechGrid: Everyone says “deepfakes are getting better.” What’s actually changed inside onboarding flows?
Ali Abdiyev: Two things. First, scale—fraud moved from artisanal to automated. Off-the-shelf tools now assemble synthetic faces/voices and probe onboarding APIs at volume. Second, quality—we see “FaceTime-grade” spoofs and voice clones that can carry a conversation. That combination overwhelms selfie-checks built for static photos and naïve liveness. The practical impact: more false accepts and more false rejects, which is a brutal trade-off for growth teams.
TechGrid: Where do most “liveness” systems fail?
Ali: Three choke points:
-
Presentation attacks (photo of a screen/printout, replayed video, 2D masks).
-
Injection attacks that bypass the camera pipeline and feed pre-rendered frames straight into the SDK.
-
Operator errors—over-trusting vendor defaults, weak challenge design, and no server-side attestation.
TechGrid: What does a modern liveness stack look like?
Ali: I ship it as layers:
-
Device integrity & attestation (mobile SDK, jailbreak/root checks, secure enclave signals).
-
Anti-injection (bind the challenge to a server nonce; verify genuine camera frames, not just “some” frames).
-
Active liveness (prompt-based micro-challenges) blended with passive liveness (micro-movements, depth/lighting cues) to reduce user effort.
-
Behavioral analytics (cursor/scroll dynamics on web; sensor fusion on mobile).
-
Adversarial testing harness—we continuously attack our own pipeline with replay and model-generated video to calibrate thresholds.
TechGrid: You’re known for pushing “friction budgeting.” How do you add security without killing conversion?
Ali: Treat friction like spend. Default to a low-friction path and escalate with step-up only when the risk model says so—e.g., device anomalies, velocity, geolocation mismatches, or vendor-score ambiguity. In one of my previous funnels we hit ~90% completion by keeping step-ups under tight caps and letting safe cohorts sail through.
TechGrid: Give us an example of a good step-up design.
Ali: A two-minute liveness is not a step-up; it’s a rage-quit. A good step-up is 15–25 seconds, deterministic, and explainable. Think: “Quick check to confirm it’s really you—look left, blink twice.” Always bind the prompt to a server nonce and sign it; if an attacker replays frames from elsewhere, the server rejects them.
TechGrid: Lots of banks still use voice biometrics. Is that defensible?
Ali: As a primary factor, no. Voiceprints are now trivially cloned; keep voice for routing or assistance, not as a gate. Move primary auth to phishing-resistant factors and use step-up for high-risk actions.
TechGrid: So the replacement is passkeys?
Ali: For authentication, yes—passkeys radically cut phishing and boost success rates. For identity proofing (KYC), you still need document + liveness, but passkeys shrink the surface for account takeovers between sessions. Combine that with strong onboarding and you lower both fraud and friction.
TechGrid: Regulators—friend or foe here?
Ali: Both a constraint and a tailwind. The EU AI Act brings transparency duties for synthetic content, which nudges platforms to label and detect fakes. It doesn’t magically solve onboarding fraud, but it sharpens governance—think audit trails for synthetic-media handling and clearer user disclosure. Build for it now; retrofits are expensive.
TechGrid: What metrics prove your system is actually safer—not just “stricter”?
Ali: Track attack catch-rate (by class), false reject rate, funnel completion, time-to-verify, and post-facto fraud (chargebacks, mule leakage). At ops level, watch poison-queue depth, webhook retry health, and MTTR for identity incidents. If security goes up but completion falls off a cliff, you didn’t design—you blunted.
TechGrid: Where should founders spend the first 4 weeks hardening?
Ali:
Week 1: instrument the funnel; add server-nonce challenges; turn on anti-injection.
Week 2: swap SMS OTP on critical paths; prefer passkeys; add device attestation.
Week 3: adversarial testbed; replay attacks; threshold tuning with holdout cohorts.
Week 4: incident runbooks; human-in-the-loop review for ambiguous cases; alerting on anomaly spikes.
TechGrid: What’s the one myth you wish we’d stop repeating?
Ali: “More prompts = more security.” Attackers love predictable prompts. Users hate them. Security comes from binding, attestation, and signal diversity, not from making humans perform increasingly silly tasks on camera.
TechGrid: And the real headline lesson from the $25M Hong Kong case?
Ali: Don’t authenticate on vibe. If a video call can move money, it needs out-of-band verification with hard signals. Multi-participant calls are easy to spoof; policies must say: no irreversible actions without a verified second channel tied to a strong factor. The case is now a textbook example across risk teams.
