Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/1572532.1572536acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessoupsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

School of phish: a real-world evaluation of anti-phishing training

Published: 15 July 2009 Publication History

Abstract

PhishGuru is an embedded training system that teaches users to avoid falling for phishing attacks by delivering a training message when the user clicks on the URL in a simulated phishing email. In previous lab and real-world experiments, we validated the effectiveness of this approach. Here, we extend our previous work with a 515-participant, real-world study in which we focus on long-term retention and the effect of two training messages. We also investigate demographic factors that influence training and general phishing susceptibility. Results of this study show that (1) users trained with PhishGuru retain knowledge even after 28 days; (2) adding a second training message to reinforce the original training decreases the likelihood of people giving information to phishing websites; and (3) training does not decrease users' willingness to click on links in legitimate messages. We found no significant difference between males and females in the tendency to fall for phishing emails both before and after the training. We found that participants in the 18--25 age group were consistently more vulnerable to phishing attacks on all days of the study than older participants. Finally, our exit survey results indicate that most participants enjoyed receiving training during their normal use of email.

References

[1]
J. R. Anderson and H. A. Simon. Situated learning and education. Educational Researcher, 25:5--11, 1996.
[2]
D. B. Buller and J. K. Burgoon. Interpersonal deception theory. Communication Theory, 6(3):203--242, 1996.
[3]
J. R. Carlson, J. F. George, J. K. Burgoon, M. Adkins, and C. H. White. Deception in computer-mediated communication. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13(1):5--28, 2004.
[4]
R. Dhamija, J. D. Tygar, and M. Hearst. Why Phishing Works. Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI), 2006.
[5]
E. Ellis, L. Worthington, and M. Larkin. Research synthesis on effective teaching principles and the design of quality tools for educators. Technical report, National center to improve the tools of educators, 1994.
[6]
A. J. Ferguson. Fostering E-Mail Security Awareness: The West Point Carronade. EDUCASE Quarterly, (1), 2005.
[7]
T. Jagatic, N. Johnson, M. Jakobsson, and F. Menczer. Social phishing. Communications of the ACM, 50(10):94--100, October 2007.
[8]
P. Johnson, S. Grazioli, K. Jamal, and G. Berryman. Detecting deception: adversarial problem solving in a low base-rate world. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 25(3):355--392, 2001.
[9]
P. Kumaraguru, Y. Rhee, A. Acquisti, L. F. Cranor, J. Hong, and E. Nunge. Protecting people from phishing: the design and evaluation of an embedded training email system. In CHI '07: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pages 905--914, 2007.
[10]
P. Kumaraguru, Y. Rhee, S. Sheng, S. Hasan, A. Acquisti, L. F. Cranor, and J. Hong. Getting users to pay attention to anti-phishing education: Evaluation of retention and transfer. e-Crime Researchers Summit, Anti-Phishing Working Group, 2007.
[11]
P. Kumaraguru, S. Sheng, A. Acquisti, L. Cranor, and J. Hong. Under review.
[12]
P. Kumaraguru, S. Sheng, A. Acquisti, L. F. Cranor, and J. Hong. Lessons from a real world evaluation of anti-phishing training. e-Crime Researchers Summit, Anti-Phishing Working Group, October 2008.
[13]
R. Lininger and R. D. Vines. Phishing: Cutting the Identity Theft Line. Indianapolis, Indiana, USA, 2005.
[14]
R. C. Miller and M. Wu. Fighting Phishing at the User Interface. O'Reilly, August 2005. In Lorrie Cranor and Simson Garfinkel (Eds.) Security and Usability: Designing Secure Systems that People Can Use.
[15]
T. Moore and R. Anderson. How brain type influences online safety. Working paper, July 2008.
[16]
R. A. Morin and A. Fernandez Suarez. Risk aversion revisited. Journal of Finance, 38(4):1201--16, September 1983.
[17]
New York State Office of Cyber Security&Critical Infrastructure Coordination. Gone phishing. a briefing on the anti-phishing exercise initiative for new york state government. Aggregate Exercise Results for public release., 2005.
[18]
R. A. Schmidt and R. A. Bjork. New conceptualizations of practice: Common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychological Science, 3(4):207--217, July 1992.
[19]
S. Sheng, B. Magnien, P. Kumaraguru, A. Acquisti, L. F. Cranor, J. Hong, and E. Nunge. Anti-phishing phil: The design and evaluation of a game that teaches people not to fall for phish. In SOUPS '07: Proceedings of the 3rd symposium on Usable privacy and security, pages 88--99, 2007.
[20]
E. Spagat. Justice department hoaxes employees. News article, January 2009. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090129/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/justice_hoax.
[21]
G. Stefano. Where did they go wrong? an analysis of the failure of knowledgeable internet consumers to detect deception over the internet. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13:149--172, March 2004.

Cited By

View all
  • (2025)What goes wrong during phishing education? A probe into a game-based assessment with unfavorable resultsEntertainment Computing10.1016/j.entcom.2024.10081552(100815)Online publication date: Jan-2025
  • (2024)Vulnerability of Students of Masaryk University to Two Different Types of PhishingApplied Cybersecurity & Internet Governance10.60097/ACIG/190268Online publication date: 24-Jun-2024
  • (2024)You Know What? - Evaluation of a Personalised Phishing Training Based on Users' Phishing Knowledge and Detection SkillsProceedings of the 2024 European Symposium on Usable Security10.1145/3688459.3688460(1-14)Online publication date: 30-Sep-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Reviews

Pieter Hartel

The well-designed "school of phish" experiment compares to what extent three groups, of about 170 participants each, fall for phishing scams. The control group received no training, one group was trained once, and the third group received two training sessions. The results indicate that training the participants reduces the likelihood that they will fall for phishing scams. However, even after training, the number of participants who fall for phishing scams remains large-about 20 percent. The research demonstrates that participants are equally likely to fall for the scam, regardless of their demographics. Given that all of the participants in the experiment are either staff or students at Carnegie Mellon University, one fears that individuals randomly selected from the population at large would be even more likely to fall for phishing scams. Case studies like the one presented here are unfortunately rare in the computer science literature. The paper represents an important first step (in the sense that it assesses the likelihood of victimization) toward a scientific study of evidence-based crime prevention. One might hope that the authors will take the next step, which would be to evaluate in randomized controlled trials how effective the "school of phish" actually is in reducing crime. This study indicates that in spite of the significant attention received from the research community to date, phishing is still a serious problem that training alone will not solve. The paper is relevant to a wide audience interested in preventing cybercrime, which includes computer scientists, criminologists, policy makers, and members of law enforcement. Online Computing Reviews Service

Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
SOUPS '09: Proceedings of the 5th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security
July 2009
205 pages
ISBN:9781605587363
DOI:10.1145/1572532

Sponsors

  • Carnegie Mellon CyLab
  • Google Inc.

In-Cooperation

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 15 July 2009

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. email
  2. embedded training
  3. phishing
  4. real-world studies
  5. usable privacy and security

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Funding Sources

Conference

SOUPS '09
Sponsor:
SOUPS '09: Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security
July 15 - 17, 2009
California, Mountain View, USA

Acceptance Rates

SOUPS '09 Paper Acceptance Rate 15 of 49 submissions, 31%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 15 of 49 submissions, 31%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)313
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)34
Reflects downloads up to 25 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2025)What goes wrong during phishing education? A probe into a game-based assessment with unfavorable resultsEntertainment Computing10.1016/j.entcom.2024.10081552(100815)Online publication date: Jan-2025
  • (2024)Vulnerability of Students of Masaryk University to Two Different Types of PhishingApplied Cybersecurity & Internet Governance10.60097/ACIG/190268Online publication date: 24-Jun-2024
  • (2024)You Know What? - Evaluation of a Personalised Phishing Training Based on Users' Phishing Knowledge and Detection SkillsProceedings of the 2024 European Symposium on Usable Security10.1145/3688459.3688460(1-14)Online publication date: 30-Sep-2024
  • (2024)From Victims to Defenders: An Exploration of the Phishing Attack Reporting EcosystemProceedings of the 27th International Symposium on Research in Attacks, Intrusions and Defenses10.1145/3678890.3678926(49-64)Online publication date: 30-Sep-2024
  • (2024)Does trainer gender make a difference when delivering phishing training? A new experimental design to capture biasProceedings of the 28th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering10.1145/3661167.3661232(130-139)Online publication date: 18-Jun-2024
  • (2024)Employees' Attitudes towards Phishing Simulations: "It's like when a child reaches onto the hot hob"Proceedings of the 2024 on ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security10.1145/3658644.3690212(4167-4181)Online publication date: 2-Dec-2024
  • (2024)Selling Satisfaction: A Qualitative Analysis of Cybersecurity Awareness Vendors' PromisesProceedings of the 2024 on ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security10.1145/3658644.3690196(2666-2680)Online publication date: 2-Dec-2024
  • (2024)Cognition in Social Engineering Empirical Research: A Systematic Literature ReviewACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction10.1145/363514931:2(1-55)Online publication date: 29-Jan-2024
  • (2024)Better Together: The Interplay Between a Phishing Awareness Video and a Link-centric Phishing Support ToolProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642843(1-60)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
  • (2024)The Effects of Group Discussion and Role-playing Training on Self-efficacy, Support-seeking, and Reporting Phishing Emails: Evidence from a Mixed-design ExperimentProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3641943(1-21)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media