Phishing and spear phishing, i.e. social engineering, have rendered today’s users defenseless against increasingly sophisticated cyber-attacks. In 2016, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) reported that 91% of all successful cyber-attacks against the Federal Government in 2015 were enabled by social engineering. In short, 91% of successful cyber-attacks were enabled by users. To complicate matters further, Federal users represent a near 100% cybersecurity trained population, operating within compliance-based cybersecurity programs. If the purpose of cybersecurity programs is to reduce risks, then the DNI metric would suggest a review of such programs may be in order. A logical starting point would be to understand the number one vulnerability: the user.
This presentation provides an overview of two quantitative studies conducted at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) in 2017. These studies were designed to explore psychological and contextual variables that influence users confronted with cybersecurity challenges and their propensity to comply with policies under those conditions. From these studies, a new, cross-disciplinary approach towards assessing cybersecurity risk began to emerge. Ultimately, these efforts could lead to the development of risk assessment instruments that provide a tailored approach towards understanding organizational risk.
juntigno
2019-01-28 at 13:56To Dr Merz,
Thank you for your ‘Phishing for Solutions ‘ webinar which I was able to watch belatedly. As one more focused with the behavioral science aspect, I agree with the development of a risk tool which would assess one’s vulnerability to phishing/spear-phishing attacks, but am concerned that this will entail privacy issues hindering enduser cooperation if evaluated on the depth of the individual-relationship context as a separate post-Domain entry self-assessment test . Could this risk tool (upon development) already be integrated with the domain upon allowing the enduser’s entry? Thanks,
trmerz
2019-01-28 at 15:16HI,
Thank you for the comment. Great question by the way. Privacy is definitely a concern. To answer your question, I need to get a little more clarity around your question: can you elaborate on what is meant by “separate post-Domain entry self-assessment test”?
Also, Just so we’re coordinated, the domains are contextual parameters that allow the grouping of context variables. For example the Organization’s domain would include variables such as policies, mission, technology, location etc..
So, the risk took wouldn’t integrate with a domain. The risk tool would evaluate which context variables within each of the contextual domains is affecting a given event. Does that make sense?
Thanks!
Terri