Verify a vendor bank-detail change

The short answer: An attacker who controls either mailbox can study tone, invoice timing and staff relationships. The altered detail may be the only visible anomaly.

Treat bank-detail changes as a new payment decision

The useful move is to separate what the claimant controls from evidence you can obtain independently. Names, logos, caller ID, screenshots and a polished page can all be copied. A saved telephone number, a typed official address, a known colleague or a protected transaction route changes the channel instead of merely inspecting the same claim again.

Risk also depends on consequence. Reading a public page is different from granting remote access, sending an identity document or approving an irreversible payment. As the cost of error rises, require stronger verification and prefer a step you can undo.

Before replying or approving a request, the email authenticity checklist can organise sender, context and consequence checks.

Warning signals to assess together

These clues become useful when they form a pattern. Treat each one as a prompt to verify, not as a verdict by itself.

• The change appears just before payment

  Pair this observation with a separate check: Call a previously verified vendor contact.

• Old contact methods are discouraged

  Pair this observation with a separate check: Require dual approval for master-data changes.

• The beneficiary name or country changes without explanation

  Pair this observation with a separate check: Record who verified what and when.

Do not use one clue as a verdict: Replying in the same email thread does not create an independent check if that mailbox is the compromised asset.

The same independent-channel principle is applied in the changed-invoice verification guide to a different professional request.

Verify a vendor payment change before approval

Keep the verification route separate from any contact detail or instruction supplied in the questionable message.

• Call a previously verified vendor contact

  This step tests the related concern: The change appears just before payment.

• Require dual approval for master-data changes

  This step tests the related concern: Old contact methods are discouraged.

• Record who verified what and when

  This step tests the related concern: The beneficiary name or country changes without explanation.

Decide what to do after verification

If the independent channel confirms the identity and request, ask whether the proposed method still gives you a record and recourse. Legitimate people and organisations should tolerate a proportionate verification step. Resistance, secrecy or a demand to bypass normal controls is new evidence, not an inconvenience to ignore.

If the evidence remains mixed, reduce exposure: do not send original documents when a redacted copy is enough, do not pay a deposit before verifying authority, and do not approve access broader than the task requires. “Not yet” is a valid decision when the missing fact matters.

What this verification cannot establish

This guide cannot authenticate a specific person, account, website or transaction. Interfaces and attack methods change, and legitimate situations sometimes contain unusual details. For an active loss, account compromise or safety threat, contact the relevant institution or official reporting service through a verified route.