How are security job postings screening and authenticating candidates?Recruiting-scam and impersonation warnings rose.
Written entirely by agents in the Research Factory, within guardrails and controls set by our team. Figures as of 1 October 2026.
Read the full research paperThe clearest change is a warning, not a check. In spring 2024, 0.7% of 1,038 US security job postings warned candidates about recruiting scams or people posing as the employer's recruiters. In fall 2026, 11.3% of 4,587 security postings at US-headquartered companies did, from 81 employers.
Postings that name a screening step are fewer. In fall 2026, 2.5% of those postings named an identity check or a camera-on or in-person interview requirement, against none in 2024. They come from 18 employers, and two of them carry 54% of the postings.
A posting shows only what an employer chose to write down. It cannot show screening that is carried out, or anything after the posting. A posting that names no step may still run one.
These findings compare two sources: a public dataset of US postings from spring 2024, and AKA's read of company job boards in 2026. They apply best to US-headquartered companies on modern job boards, which lean toward technology, and less to government, staffing and managed-security firms.
The answer at a glance
Security postings naming a screening step (an identity check, or a camera-on or in-person interview) went from none to 2.5%.
A change in security postings naming a background check, 4.6% to 6.2%, is too close to call.
Security postings naming candidate-fraud screening or an interview-integrity rule went from 0.1% to 2.0%.
Warnings about recruiting scams and fake recruiters went from 0.7% to 11.3% of security postings.
The numbers
| Measure | Postings with it, 2024 → 2026 | 2024 | 2026 | Change, points | Likely range (95%) | Employers, 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Identity check, or camera-on or in-person requirement | 0 → 115 | 0.0% | 2.5% | +2.5 | +0.8 to +4.8 | 18 |
| Identity verification step | 0 → 64 | 0.0% | 1.4% | +1.4 | +0.3 to +3.3 | 11 |
| Camera-on or in-person interview or onboarding requirement | 0 → 104 | 0.0% | 2.3% | +2.3 | +0.6 to +4.5 | 13 |
| Background check | 48 → 284 | 4.6% | 6.2% | +1.6 | −1.4 to +4.7 | 69 |
| Candidate-fraud screening or interview-integrity rule | 1 → 90 | 0.1% | 2.0% | +1.9 | +0.5 to +3.9 | 12 |
| Recruiting-scam or impersonation warning | 7 → 517 | 0.7% | 11.3% | +10.6 | +7.1 to +14.5 | 81 |
| E-Verify or I-9 eligibility line | 18 → 192 | 1.7% | 4.2% | +2.5 | +0.2 to +5.0 | 33 |
| Each bar is a range of likely values against zero, the dashed line. A hollow bar includes zero: we can’t tell the change from no change. | ||||||
Source: AKA Security analysis of 1,038 US security postings at 679 companies from a public job-postings dataset (spring 2024) and 4,587 postings at 831 US-headquartered companies in AKA's job-board data (open on or after 23 September 2026).
The identity step, the camera-on or in-person requirement and the E-Verify or I-9 line carry no rating of their own.
Identity checks and camera-on interviews
In spring 2024, no US security posting named an identity check or a camera-on or in-person interview requirement. In fall 2026, 115 of 4,587 security postings at US-headquartered companies did, 2.5%. The range of likely values for the change is +0.8 to +4.8 points, a likely but borderline rise.
The rise rests on few employers. 18 of 831 employers name such a step. The two largest carry 36 and 26 postings, together 54% of the 115. With those two removed, the share is 1.2%, still a likely but borderline rise.
Counted once per employer, 2.2% of employers named such a step in 2026, against none in 2024. That rise is clear, with a range of +1.2 to +3.1 points.
An identity step means identity verification, photo identification or an identity check in the same sentence as the hiring process, a candidate, an interview or onboarding. The federal I-9 wording, that all persons hired must verify identity and eligibility to work, does not count. It falls under the E-Verify or I-9 line.
Background checks and fraud screening
Background checks were named in 4.6% of US security postings in spring 2024 and 6.2% at US-headquartered companies in fall 2026. The range, −1.4 to +4.7 points, includes zero, so the change is too close to call. Counted once per employer, the share went from 5.4% to 8.3%, a likely but borderline rise.
Candidate-fraud screening or an interview-integrity rule went from 1 posting, 0.1%, in 2024 to 90 postings, 2.0%, in 2026. This measure covers fraud-detection tools, bans on AI tools in interviews, and warnings that misrepresented qualifications disqualify a candidate. The rise is likely but borderline. 12 employers name it, and the two largest carry 53% of the postings.
Recruiting-scam and impersonation warnings
In spring 2024, 7 of 1,038 US security postings warned candidates about recruiting scams or impersonation, 0.7%. In fall 2026, 517 of 4,587 security postings at US-headquartered companies did, 11.3%. The range for the change is +7.1 to +14.5 points.
A warning counts when the posting warns about recruiting scams or people posing as recruiters, or says the company does not ask candidates for money or contacts them only from official channels. 81 employers carry one in 2026. The two largest carry 44 and 35 postings, 15% of the total.
The rise holds with the two largest employers removed, at 9.7%, and counted once per employer, at 9.7% of employers. At the same 74 companies in both years, the share went from 3.6% to 13.7%, a likely but borderline rise.
The collected text differs between years. The equal-opportunity statement, used here as a marker that closing text was collected, appears in 39.1% of 2024 postings and 54.1% of 2026 postings.
| Source | Postings | Scam or impersonation warning | Equal-opportunity statement |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024, applied through a company job board | 131 | 2.3% | 67.2% |
| 2024, other postings | 907 | 0.4% | 35.1% |
| 2026, source A | 1,732 | 14.8% | 68.2% |
| 2026, source B | 1,161 | 15.6% | 60.5% |
| 2026, source C | 553 | 7.4% | 50.6% |
| 2026, source D | 224 | 0.0% | 0.4% |
| 2026, other boards | 917 | 4.3% | 34.7% |
Source: AKA Security analysis of 1,038 US security postings (spring 2024) and 4,587 postings at US-headquartered companies (fall 2026), by collection source.
Limited to the 131 postings from 2024 that applied through a company job board, the 2024 share is 2.3%, against 11.3% for all 2026 postings. That rise is clear, with a range of +3.9 to +13.8 points. The two years are still collected differently: a 2026 sample from the 2024 source would remove that difference, and it has not run.
Where the data comes from
The 2024 postings come from a public job-postings dataset: 1,038 US security postings from 679 companies, listed in spring 2024 and US by posting location. The 2026 postings come from AKA's daily read of 2,194 job boards across 16 applicant tracking systems: 4,587 security postings from 831 US-headquartered companies, open on or after 23 September 2026. Collection began on 31 July 2026.
A posting counts when its title passes the series' security title rules, a local model reading the posting judges it a security role, and it carries a description. Only one posting per title per company counts. Job aggregators are left out, and physical security, fraud, and trust and safety roles are out of scope. 74 companies have postings in both years. Each year holds the posting text its collection kept.
Until the evening of 21 September 2026, the collection skipped titles containing analyst, auditor, consultant, CISO, director, head of, specialist and "manager, security". Postings that closed before then are left out.
Each measure is a search rule applied to the posting text, written once and used for both years. Each range of likely values (95%) comes from resampling whole companies rather than single postings. In 2026, 32 postings carry both an identity or interview measure and a background check, and 1 carries both an identity or interview measure and a scam warning.
How this answer was stress-tested
| Test | Identity or interview step | Scam or impersonation warning | Background check |
|---|---|---|---|
| Headline | 0.0% → 2.5% (+0.8 to +4.8) | 0.7% → 11.3% (+7.1 to +14.5) | 4.6% → 6.2% (−1.4 to +4.7) |
| Two largest employers removed | 0.0% → 1.2% (+0.5 to +2.1) | 0.7% → 9.7% (+6.2 to +12.3) | 4.6% → 4.9% (−2.1 to +2.7) |
| Same companies, the 74 in both years | 0.0% → 6.3% (0.0 to +15.9) | 3.6% → 13.7% (+1.0 to +20.7) | 4.3% → 3.9% (−5.9 to +4.9) |
| Staffing firms and government contractors removed | 0.0% → 1.8% (+0.6 to +3.4) | 0.8% → 11.6% (+7.2 to +14.9) | 5.2% → 6.3% (−2.0 to +4.4) |
| Postings of 3,000 to 6,000 characters | 0.0% → 0.9% (+0.1 to +2.0) | 0.2% → 5.0% (+2.2 to +8.1) | 6.1% → 4.9% (−5.1 to +2.7) |
| 2024 postings applied through a company job board | 0.0% → 2.5% (+0.8 to +4.8) | 2.3% → 11.3% (+3.9 to +13.8) | 6.9% → 6.2% (−6.3 to +4.5) |
| Each employer counted once, share of employers | 0.0% → 2.2% (+1.2 to +3.1) | 0.9% → 9.7% (+6.8 to +11.0) | 5.4% → 8.3% (+0.3 to +5.4) |
Source: AKA Security analysis of 1,038 US security postings (spring 2024) and 4,587 postings at US-headquartered companies (fall 2026). Each cell gives both years and the range of likely values for the change, in points.
For candidate-fraud screening, four of six checks show a likely but borderline rise. At the same companies and on postings of similar length, the change is too close to call.
| Reading check of the rules | Matches read | Correct | Near misses read | Near misses that qualified |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Identity verification step | 20 | 20 | 24 | 0 |
| Camera-on or in-person interview requirement | 20 | 20 | 22 | 1 |
| Background check | 20 | 19 | 22 | 0 |
| Candidate-fraud screening | 20 | 20 | 22 | 1 |
| Scam warning | 20 | 20 | 22 | 0 |
| E-Verify or I-9 eligibility line | 20 | 20 | 20 | 0 |
Source: AKA Security reading of rule matches and near misses in the 2024 and 2026 postings.
The one background-check error was a scam warning that listed background checks among fees, and the final rule excludes it. The interview near miss that qualified listed an in-person interview as a stage without requirement wording. All 11 employers read for identity verification and all 14 read for the interview requirement were correct.
What would strengthen this answer
| Test | What it would settle | Why it has not run |
|---|---|---|
| Full closing text from every board | Whether source D employers carry warnings the data misses. Source D shows an equal-opportunity statement in 0.4% of postings | |
| A 2026 sample from the 2024 source | Removes the difference in collection method | |
| More employers naming identity steps | Whether the rise is broad rather than carried by a few employers. 18 employers name one today | |
| What happens after the posting | Whether a named step is carried out, and how often an unnamed one runs. Needs employer or candidate reports |
Other formats
The same findings and figures, laid out as a research paper with numbered sections, references and a citation.
Read the full research paperVersion history
Every change to this piece is tagged and logged. When a figure moves or a finding no longer holds, it is recorded here rather than edited in silence.
- Rewritten from the 1 October facts with a new title, description and glance rows. No answer reversed.
- How are security job postings screening and authenticating candidates? Figures as of 1 October 2026.
Corrections
Received. The Research Factory rechecks the figure against the source, and any fix appears in the changelog.
The rating scales and the standard checks are the same for every piece. How the research is made.
Ask the Research Factory a question.
This is not a live chat. Accepted questions become new pieces, published in a later release.
- 01 You ask, with the decision it would inform You queued
- 02 We check job postings can answer it Our team queued
- 03 Approved questions join the reader queue Our team queued
- 04 Agents write the analysis, ratings and piece Research Factory queued
- 05 Every answer runs our standard controls Our controls queued
- 06 Published and tagged, credited if you want Research Factory queued
- 01 You ask, with the decision it would inform You done
- 02 We check job postings can answer it Our team next
- 03 Approved questions join the reader queue Our team queued
- 04 Agents write the analysis, ratings and piece Research Factory queued
- 05 Every answer runs our standard controls Our controls queued
- 06 Published and tagged, credited if you want Research Factory queued