skip to main content
10.1145/3055305.3055310acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageshotsosConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Use of Phishing Training to Improve Security Warning Compliance: Evidence from a Field Experiment

Published:04 April 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

The current approach to protect users from phishing attacks is to display a warning when the webpage is considered suspicious. We hypothesize that users are capable of making correct informed decisions when the warning also conveys the reasons why it is displayed. We chose to use traffic rankings of domains, which can be easily described to users, as a warning trigger and evaluated the effect of the phishing warning message and phishing training. The evaluation was conducted in a field experiment. We found that knowledge gained from the training enhances the effectiveness of phishing warnings, as the number of participants being phished was reduced. However, the knowledge by itself was not sufficient to provide phishing protection. We suggest that integrating training in the warning interface, involving traffic ranking in phishing detection, and explaining why warnings are generated will improve current phishing defense.

References

  1. 2014a. Global Phishing Survey 1H2014: Trends and Domain Name Use. (2014). https://docs.apwg.org/reports/APWG_Global_Phishing_Report_1H_2014.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. 2014b. Phishing Activity Trends Report. (2014). https://docs.apwg.org/reports/apwg_trends_report_q2_2014.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. 2015. Email authentication. (2015). https://support.google.com/mail/answer/180707?hl=en.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. 2016. Chrome Privacy White Paper. (2016). https://www.google.com/chrome/browser/privacy/whitepaper.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Devdatta Akhawe and Adrienne Porter Felt. 2013. Alice in Warningland: A Large-Scale Field Study of Browser Security Warning Effectiveness.. In Usenix Security. 257--272. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. John R Anderson. 1983. The architecture of cognition. Psychology Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Lujo Bauer, Cristian Bravo-Lillo, LF Cranor, and Elli Fragkaki. 2013. Warning design guidelines. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. L. E. Bourne and A. F. Healy. 2012. Training and Its Cognitive Underpinnings. In Training cognition: Optimizing Efficiency, Durability, and Generalizability, A. F. Healy and L. E. Bourne (Eds.). Psychology Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Cristian Bravo-Lillo, Lorrie Cranor, Julie Downs, Saranga Komanduri, Stuart Schechter, and Manya Sleeper. 2012. Operating system framed in case of mistaken identity: measuring the success of web-based spoofing attacks on OS password-entry dialogs. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM conference on computer and communications security. ACM, 365--377. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Neil Chou, Robert Ledesma, Yuka Teraguchi, John C Mitchell, and others. 2004. Client-Side Defense Against Web-Based Identity Theft.. In NDSS.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Jason W Clark and Damon McCoy. 2013. There Are No Free iPads: An Analysis of Survey Scams as a Business.. In LEET.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Fergus IM Craik and Janine M Jennings. 1992. Human memory. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, Chapter Handbook of aging and cognition.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Lorrie Faith Cranor. 2008. A Framework for Reasoning About the Human in the Loop. UPSEC 8 (2008), 1--15.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Rachna Dhamija and J Doug Tygar. 2005. The battle against phishing: Dynamic security skins. In Proceedings of the 2005 symposium on Usable privacy and security. ACM, 77--88. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Julie S Downs, Barbagallo Donato, and Acquisti Alessandro. 2015. Predictors of risky decisions: Improving judgment and decision making based on evidence from phishing attacks. In Neuroeconomics, judgment, and decision making, Evan A Wilhelms and Valerie F Reyna (Eds.). Psychology Press, 239--253.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Julie S Downs, Mandy B Holbrook, and Lorrie Faith Cranor. 2006. Decision strategies and susceptibility to phishing. In Proceedings of the second symposium on Usable privacy and security. ACM, 79--90. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. W Keith Edwards, Erika Shehan Poole, and Jennifer Stoll. 2008. Security automation considered harmful?. In Proceedings of the 2007 Workshop on New Security Paradigms. ACM, 33--42. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Serge Egelman, Lorrie Faith Cranor, and Jason Hong. 2008. You've been warned: an empirical study of the effectiveness of web browser phishing warnings. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1065--1074. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Adrienne Porter Felt, Alex Ainslie, Robert W Reeder, Sunny Consolvo, Somas Thyagaraja, Alan Bettes, Helen Harris, and Jeff Grimes. 2015. Improving SSL Warnings: Comprehension and Adherence. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2893--2902. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. J Paul Frantz. 1994. Effect of location and procedural explicitness on user processing of and compliance with product warnings. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 36, 3 (1994), 532--546.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Stefan Görling. 2006. The myth of user education. In Virus Bulletin Conference, Vol. 11. 13--16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Amir Herzberg and Ahmad Gbara. 2004. Trustbar: Protecting (even naive) web users from spoofing and phishing attacks. Technical Report. ryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2004/155. http://eprint.iacr.org/2004/155.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Robert R Hoffman. 2014. The psychology of expertise: Cognitive research and empirical AI. Psychology Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Ponnurangam Kumaraguru, Justin Cranshaw, Alessandro Acquisti, Lorrie Cranor, Jason Hong, Mary Ann Blair, and Theodore Pham. 2009. School of phish: a real-world evaluation of anti-phishing training. In Proceedings of the 5th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security. ACM, 3--15. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Kenneth R Laughery and Michael S Wogalter. 2006. Designing effective warnings. Reviews of human factors and ergonomics 2, 1 (2006), 241--271.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Eric Lin, Saul Greenberg, Eileah Trotter, David Ma, and John Aycock. 2011. Does domain highlighting help people identify phishing sites?. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2075--2084. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Christian Ludl, Sean McAllister, Engin Kirda, and Christopher Kruegel. 2007. On the effectiveness of techniques to detect phishing sites. In DIMVA, Vol. 7. Springer, 20--39. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Justin Ma, Lawrence K Saul, Stefan Savage, and Geoffrey M Voelker. 2009a. Beyond blacklists: learning to detect malicious web sites from suspicious URLs. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. ACM, 1245--1254. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Justin Ma, Lawrence K Saul, Stefan Savage, and Geoffrey M Voelker. 2009b. Identifying suspicious URLs: an application of large-scale online learning. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual International Conference on Machine Learning. ACM, 681--688. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Kathryn Parsons, Agata McCormac, Malcolm Pattinson, Marcus Butavicius, and Cate Jerram. 2015. The design of phishing studies: Challenges for researchers. Computers & Security (2015). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Robert W Proctor and Addie Dutta. 1995. Skill acquisition and human performance. Sage Publications, Inc.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Steve Sheng, Mandy Holbrook, Ponnurangam Kumaraguru, Lorrie Faith Cranor, and Julie Downs. 2010. Who falls for phish?: a demographic analysis of phishing susceptibility and effectiveness of interventions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 373--382. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Steve Sheng, Brad Wardman, Gary Warner, Lorrie Cranor, Jason Hong, and Chengshan Zhang. 2009. An empirical analysis of phishing blacklists. In Sixth Conference on Email and Anti-Spam (CEAS). California, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Andreas Sotirakopoulos, Kirstie Hawkey, and Konstantin Beznosov. 2011. On the challenges in usable security lab studies: lessons learned from replicating a study on SSL warnings. In Proceedings of the Seventh Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security. 3--15. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Colin Whittaker, Brian Ryner, and Marria Nazif. 2010. Large-Scale Automatic Classification of Phishing Pages.. In NDSS, Vol. 10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Christopher D Wickens. 2014. Effort in human factors performance and decision making. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (2014), 1--8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Michael S Wogalter, Dave DeJoy, and Kenneth R Laughery. 2005. Warnings and risk communication. CRC Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Michael S Wogalter, Russell J Sojourner, and John W Brelsford. 1997. Comprehension and retention of safety pictorials. Ergonomics 40, 5 (1997), 531--542.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Min Wu, Robert C Miller, and Simson L Garfinkel. 2006. Do security toolbars actually prevent phishing attacks?. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems. ACM, 601--610. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Guang Xiang, Jason Hong, Carolyn P Rose, and Lorrie Cranor. 2011. Cantina+: A feature-rich machine learning framework for detecting phishing web sites. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security (TISSEC) 14, 2 (2011), 21. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Yue Zhang, Serge Egelman, Lorrie Cranor, and Jason Hong. 2006. Phinding phish: Evaluating anti-phishing tools. ISOC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Use of Phishing Training to Improve Security Warning Compliance: Evidence from a Field Experiment

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        HoTSoS: Proceedings of the Hot Topics in Science of Security: Symposium and Bootcamp
        April 2017
        99 pages
        ISBN:9781450352741
        DOI:10.1145/3055305

        Copyright © 2017 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 4 April 2017

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Acceptance Rates

        HoTSoS Paper Acceptance Rate9of17submissions,53%Overall Acceptance Rate34of60submissions,57%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader