> in the spy movie sense

It’s not just in the movies.

https://krebsonsecurity.com/2022/03/a-closer-look-at-the-lap...

> Microsoft says LAPSUS$ — which it boringly calls “DEV-0537” — mostly gains illicit access to targets via “social engineering.” This involves bribing or tricking employees at the target organization or at its myriad partners, such as customer support call centers and help desks.

> “Microsoft found instances where the group successfully gained access to target organizations through recruited employees (or employees of their suppliers or business partners),” Microsoft wrote.

Recruited employees?

Or people they unknowingly hired?

Small distinction?

It's not a small distinction. An organization deliberately trying to inject an asset into your company to do X or Y is a different problem to solve than an existing employee who was coopted. And the co opted case has a different problem in one motivated by gain vs one motivated by threats agains them.

Recruited to join in the scheme against their employer.

Probably simpler than both of those, more as in - there are allegations/comments suggesting that there may be individuals holding trusted positions who may not be as trustworthy as one would hope (based on the potential pathways by which malicious parties may have identified the OP).

Insider threat is still a significant concern to companies, and were one representing Microsoft one might want to at least take a peek at what happened and make sure nothing untoward is occurring.

Standard Disclaimers apply. I am not a Microsofty, nor do I play one on TV. Objects in the mirror may be closer than they appear.

My primary take-home from having DOD/DOE security clearances, and having to sit through historical case studies every 3 months about security breaches, is that every DOD/DOE security lapses and espionage event in history were "trusted insiders" doing the deed.

Physical security was long ago solved by pre-20th century tech like locks and security guards. No, it was always a trusted insider. There's no reason to assume that is any different with social media companies.