Upload
jason-hong
View
111
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
An overview of our group's work on teaching people not to fall for phishing attacks, using simulated phish. The summary is that simulated phish work surprisingly well, in terms of learning and retention.
Citation preview
Jason HongCarnegie Mellon University
Wombat Security Technologies
Teaching Johnny
Not to Fall for Phish
What are Effective Ways of TeachingPeople not to Fall for Phish?
PhishGuru Embedded Training• Use embedded training to teach people how
to avoid phishing in regular use of email – People get simulated phishing email from good guys– Teach how to protect self in engaging format– Applies learning science for training
• Motivating users – “teachable moment” • Started as research at CMU, product
by Wombat Security Technologies
Subject: Revision to Your Amazon.com InformationSubject: Revision to Your Amazon.com Information
Subject: Revision to Your Amazon.com InformationSubject: Revision to Your Amazon.com Information
Please login and enter your informationPlease login and enter your information
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/sign-in.htmlhttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/sign-in.html
Tells people why they are seeing this message, uses engaging character
Tells people why they are seeing this message, uses engaging character
Tells a story about what happened and what the risks are
Tells a story about what happened and what the risks are
Gives concrete examples of how to protect oneselfGives concrete examples of how to protect oneself
Explains how criminals conduct phishing attacksExplains how criminals conduct phishing attacks
Series of User Studies
Studies Results
Lab study I • Security notices are ineffective • Users educated with PhishGuru made better decisions
Lab study II • Users in embedded condition retain and transfer knowledge more effectively than other conditions even after 7 days
Real-world study I
• PhishGuru is effective in training people in the real world • Trained participants retained knowledge after
7 days of training
Real-world study II
• People trained with PhishGuru were less likely to click on phishing links than those not trained
• People retained their training for 28 days • Two training messages are better than one• PhishGuru training does not make people less likely
to click on legitimate links
First lab study results• Are security notices
effective?– Ineffective for training
• Is embedded training effective?– Embedded training
condition made better decisions than those sent security notices
Kumaraguru, P., Rhee, Y., Acquisti, A., Cranor, L. F., Hong, J., and Nunge, E. Protecting people from phishing: the design and evaluation of an embedded training email system. CHI ’07, pp. 905-914.
Second lab study results
• Can people retain what they learned?– Users educated with PhishGuru
retained knowledge after seven days
• Do people have to fall for phish?– Users trained with embedded
did better than users trained with non-embedded
Kumaraguru, P., Rhee, Y., Sheng, S., Hasan, S., Acquisti, A., Cranor, L. F., and Hong, J. Getting users to pay attention to anti-phishing education: Evaluation of retention and transfer. e-Crime Researchers Summit, Anti-Phishing Working Group (2007).
Real world study: Portuguese ISP
• Does PhishGuru training extend to real world?– Did reduce rate of falling for phishing
– Trained participants retained knowledge after 7 days of training
– Don’t have to train all people in organization
Kumaraguru, P., Sheng, S., Acquisti, A., Cranor, L. F., and Hong, J. Lessons from a real world evaluation of anti-phishing training. e-Crime Researchers Summit, 2008
Real world study: CMU
• Replicate previous study at larger scale• Investigate retention after 1 week, 2 weeks,
and 4 weeks • Compare effectiveness of 2 training
messages vs 1 training message• Examine demographics and phishing
P. Kumaraguru, J. Cranshaw, A. Acquisti, L. Cranor, J. Hong, M. A. Blair, and T. Pham. School of Phish: A Real-World Evaluation of Anti-Phishing Training. 2009. SOUPS 2009.
Study design• Sent email to all CMU students, faculty and
staff to recruit participants (opt-in)• 515 participants in three conditions
– Control / One training message / Two messages • Emails sent over 28 day period
– 7 simulated spear-phishing messages– 3 legitimate (cyber security scavenger hunt)
• Campus help desks and all spoofed departments notified before messages sent
Our Simulated Spear Phish
URL is not hiddenURL is not hidden
Plain text email without graphicsPlain text email without graphics
Our Simulated Phishing Websitehttp://andrewwebmail.org/password/change.htm?ID=9009http://andrewwebmail.org/password/change.htm?ID=9009
Our Simulated Phishing Website
http://andrewwebmail.org/password/thankyou.html?ID=9009http://andrewwebmail.org/password/thankyou.html?ID=9009
Effect of PhishGuru Training
Condition N % who clicked on Day 0
% who clicked on Day 28
Control 172 52.3 44.2
Trained 343 48.4 24.5
Results conditioned on participants who clicked on day 0
TestTest
Results conditioned on participants who clicked on day 0
Trained participants less likely to fall for phish
Trained participants less likely to fall for phish
Trained participants remember what they learned 28 days later
Trained participants remember what they learned 28 days later
Test + train
Test + train
TestsTests TestsTests
Results conditioned on participants who clicked on day 0 and day 14
Two-train participants less likely than one-train participants to click on days 16 and 21
Two-train participants less likely than one-train participants to click on days 16 and 21
Results conditioned on participants who clicked on day 0 and day 14
Two-train participants less likely than one-train participants to click on days 16 and 21
Two-train participants less likely than one-train participants to click on days 16 and 21
Two-train participants less likely than one-train participants to provide information on day 28
Two-train participants less likely than one-train participants to provide information on day 28
Does PhishGuru Affect Clicking on Legitimate Emails?
Condition N Day 0 Day 7 Day 28
Clicked % Clicked % Clicked %
Control 90 50.0 41.1 38.9
One-train 89 39.3 42.7 32.3
Two-train 77 48.1 44.2 35.1
For Cyber Security Scavenger Hunt
No difference between the three conditions on days 7 and 28
For Cyber Security Scavenger Hunt
No difference between the three conditions on days 7 and 28
Students Most Vulnerable• Students significantly more likely to fall for
phish than staff before training
• No significant differences based on student year, department, or gender
• 18-25 age group most vulnerable
Age group Day 0 Day 2818-25 62% 36%26-35 48% 16%36-45 33% 18%45 and older 43% 10%
Most Participants Liked PhishGuru, Wanted More
• 280 post study responses
• 80% recommended that CMU continue PhishGuru training– “I really liked the idea of sending CMU students fake
phishing emails and then saying to them, essentially, HEY! You could've just gotten scammed! You should be more careful - here's how....”
– “I think the idea of using something fun, like a cartoon, to teach people about a serious subject is awesome!”
Summary
• People trained with PhishGuru far less likely to click on phishing links than not trained
• People retained training for 28 days
• Two training messages better than one
• PhishGuru training does not make people less likely to click on legitimate links
For More Information
• Forthcoming SOUPS 2009 paper
• White paper on Wombat Security web site
• PhishGuru commercialized by Wombat Security
Acknowledgments
• Supporting Trust Decisions group
• CyLab Usable Privacy and Security Lab
• CMU’s Information Security Office
• APWG
• Supported by National Science Foundation, Army Research Office, CyLab, ISP in Portugal
Study schedule
Day of the study
Control One training message
Two training
messages
Day 0 Test and real Train and real Train and real
Day 2 Test
Day 7 Test and real
Day 14 Test Test Train
Day 16 Test
Day 21 Test
Day 28 Test and real
Day 35 Post-study survey
Why is Teaching People Hard?
Why is Teaching People Hard?
• Problems– Existing materials good, but could be better
• Not many opportunities for testing skills– Most people don’t proactively look for
security training materials– “Security notice” emails tend to be ignored
• Too much to read• People don’t consider them relevant
Legitimate emails
No difference between the three conditions on day 0, 7, and 28 No difference between the three conditions on day 0, 7, and 28
No difference within the three conditions for the three emailsNo difference within the three conditions for the three emails
Condition N Day 0 Day 7 Day 28
Clicked % Clicked % Clicked %
Control 90 50.0 41.1 38.9
One-train 89 39.3 42.7 32.3
Two-train 77 48.1 44.2 35.1