In an era of escalating cyber threats, some shifts remain beyond the reach of traditional defenses. Brand impersonation has become a leading attack vector, straddling reputational risk and cybercrime.
Written by Naima Hsu, an online brand protection specialist at Gandi Corporate Services, together with Jean-Yves Cadic, an expert in systems and digital asset security, this article offers a practical perspective grounded in real-world observations.
It highlights a critical reality: attacks are increasingly beginning with the exploitation of trust associated with brands, through phishing, fraudulent domain names, or targeted scam scenarios. Understanding this shift is essential for adapting protection mechanisms.
Brand impersonation is becoming a gateway to cybersecurity incidents.
Over the past year, through my discussions and collaborations across the APAC region, a clear shift has emerged: brand impersonation is no longer just a trademark or reputational issue. It is increasingly becoming an entry point for cybersecurity incidents.
This observation is supported by the ENISA Threat Landscape report (October 2025), which notes: “Phishing remains the primary intrusion vector, accounting for around 60% of cases, including malspam, vishing, and malvertising.”
When we think of “cybersecurity,” we often picture system intrusions, ransomware, or data breaches. In practice, however, the reality is different: attackers don’t necessarily need to penetrate internal systems.
Their first move is often far more “peripheral”:
👉 Registering a domain name that closely resembles the original
👉 Creating a near-identical login or payment page, then driving traffic via social media, advertising, or messaging platforms
Victims may be customers, business partners, or even employees. When credentials are intercepted, payments diverted, or internal accounts compromised, it becomes clear that this is not just a fake website, but a coordinated chain of phishing and fraud, sometimes escalating into Business Email Compromise (BEC) attacks.
Public communications from regulators and security agencies confirm this trend. The Hong Kong Monetary Authority regularly issues alerts about fake banking sites; Japan has reported a sharp rise in phishing cases, and the Singapore Police consistently highlight scams and cybercrime as major incidents.
All these signals point to the same conclusion: impersonation websites have become a high-frequency, systemic risk, exploiting the trust associated with established brands.
If one development stands out over the past year, it is this: attackers are investing more to appear legitimate:
👉 HTTPS certificates
👉 Highly realistic interfaces
👉 Typosquatted domain names
👉 Subdomain manipulation, all of these techniques lower victims’ psychological vigilance.
Another accelerating factor lies in scale and speed
Phishing content generation, fake customer service scripts, rapid website changes, and evasion techniques: the use of AI tools by malicious actors is making manual monitoring increasingly difficult.
The attack chain is also becoming more structured across platforms: initial exposure via social media or ads, redirection through messaging apps, and final conversion on impersonated domains and websites.
In many cases, the damage still occurs at the domain name and website level.
Through my collaborations, one conviction stands out: brand protection can no longer be limited to trademark registration or occasional actions. It must be integrated into a broader cybersecurity strategy.
The real challenge for organizations is to implement a sustainable framework: continuous detection, rapid takedown of fraudulent content, and stronger domain name security.
Common difficulties persist: organizations may detect some fraudulent domains, but without continuous coverage. Coordination between legal, IT, security, marketing teams, and external providers often slows down response times. And by the time takedown actions succeed, the fraud cycle is often already over.
According to Jean-Yves Cadic, expert in systems and digital asset security: “It is essential to maintain a clear view of all digital assets in cyberspace and to monitor them continuously over time. Without this visibility, forgotten or unmanaged resources can become real security vulnerabilities.
A recent example illustrates this risk well: abandoned AWS S3 buckets remained exposed, creating vulnerabilities that attackers could exploit. This shows that organizations must not only inventory their assets, but also review and secure them regularly.
Ultimately, the key message is vigilance: protect what you own, monitor what you do not yet own (typosquatting, Punycode domains), and secure what you no longer actively use (such as abandoned cloud resources). This comprehensive approach to digital asset management is essential to reduce risk in today’s threat landscape.”
In addition, domain name portfolios are often fragmented across multiple registrars, managed by different users, and lacking unified policies,weakening this critical layer against risks of hijacking or abuse.
A more pragmatic and sustainable approach could be built around three pillars:
👉 Continuous monitoring: extend beyond domain names to include web content, brand assets, and keywords across all platforms
👉 Rapid takedown: standardize processes, coordinate with registrars, hosting providers, and platforms, and track reappearances or migrations
👉 Domain name security: centralize assets on a secure platform and implement registry-level protections (such as Registry Lock) to prevent unauthorized transfers, deletions, or DNS changes
Monitoring and takedown actions address external risks, while domain governance strengthens internal control and asset security.
Ultimately, brand impersonation is a hijacking of trust, and its consequences often translate into cybersecurity incidents and financial losses. As digitalization accelerates, the value of trust associated with online brands increases,along with its attractiveness to attackers.
In my point of view, brand protection and cybersecurity are no longer separate topics: they now belong to the same risk management framework.
