How to Catch Students Cheating in Online Exams

The signals that actually indicate assistance

ScreenComply supports trustworthy results by reviewing the whole session and flagging concerns for human review, with evidence attached.

Why browser-based proctoring misses modern AI assistants

Most proctoring tools are built as browser extensions or lockdown browsers. They can see the tab, the page, and sometimes the webcam, but their visibility ends at the edge of the browser process. Modern AI assistance does not live inside the browser.

Tools such as invisible interview copilots and always-on-top answer overlays run as native desktop applications. They render above every other window, are frequently excluded from screen capture and screen share, and never touch the exam tab. A lockdown browser can be perfectly locked down while an assistant quietly reads the question and displays an answer on the same screen.

The same gap applies to remote-control software, virtual machines, injected keyboard input, and a second device sitting off camera. None of these leave a trace inside the browser, which is why a session can look clean in a browser-only tool and still be assisted end to end.

• Native overlay applications draw above the browser and are often invisible to screen sharing and screen recording.
• Remote-access tools let another person drive the machine without any browser-visible signal.
• Virtual machines and sandboxes let a candidate run the assessment in a controlled environment with helpers outside it.
• Synthesized or injected keyboard input can type answers that were never physically typed.
• A second phone, tablet, or monitor off camera leaves nothing at all in the browser.

What device-level detection actually sees

ScreenComply supports trustworthy results by reviewing the whole session and flagging concerns for human review, with evidence attached.

How audit-ready integrity reports work

ScreenComply supports trustworthy results by reviewing the whole session and flagging concerns for human review, with evidence attached.

Each entry is timestamped and tied to the specific observation that produced it, so a reviewer can see what was detected, when it happened, and how strong the signal was. Reports are written in non-accusatory, factual language, because the institution or employer makes the decision, not the software.

Reports can be exported to PDF and shared with a secure link, which is what makes them usable in academic-integrity hearings, HR reviews, and compliance audits. Retention is configurable, including tiers that minimize or eliminate stored artifacts for privacy-sensitive programs.

• Executive verdict with a graded risk level rather than a pass/fail guess.
• Chronological, timestamped evidence timeline linked to underlying signals.
• Human-review-by-design framing: factual observations, not accusations.
• PDF export and secure sharing for hearings, HR files, and audits.
• Configurable retention, up to zero-retention operating modes.

Reviewing a flagged session without overreaching

Detection systems produce signals, not conclusions. Some flags have innocent explanations: a notification stealing focus, an accessibility tool synthesizing input, an unusual but legitimate hardware setup. Treating every flag as misconduct erodes trust in the process and produces cases that collapse under appeal.

ScreenComply supports trustworthy results by reviewing the whole session and flagging concerns for human review, with evidence attached.