skip to main content
10.1145/1234772.1234786acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschimitConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Looking for trouble: understanding end-user security management

Published:30 March 2007Publication History

ABSTRACT

End users are often cast as the weak link in computer security; they fall victim to social engineering and tend to know very little about security technology and policies. This paper challenges this view as derogatory and unconstructive, arguing that users, as agents of organizations, often have sophisticated strategies regarding sensitive data, and are quite cautious. Existing work on user security practice has failed to consider how users view security; this paper provides content on and analysis of end user perspectives on security management. We suggest that properly designed systems would bridge the knowledge gap (where necessary) and mask levels of detail (where possible), allowing users to manage their security needs in synchrony with the needs of the organization. The evidence for our arguments comes from a set of in-depth interviews with users with no special training on, knowledge of, or interest in computer security. We conclude with guidelines for security and privacy tools that better leverage existing users knowledge.

References

  1. Women in the Labor Force: A Databook. Labor, U.S.D.o. ed., 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Worm targets Macs via Bluetooth Cnn.com, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Acquisiti, A. and Grossklags, J. Privacy and Rationality in Individual Decision Making. IEEE Security and Privacy. 26--33, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Adams, A. and Blandford, A. Bridging the gap between organizational and user perspectives of security in the clinical domain. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63. 175--202, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Anderson, R., Why Information Security is Hard: An Economic Perspective. in Seventeenth Computer Security Applications Conference, 2001, 358--365. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Brooks, F. P., Jr. No Silver Bullet: Essence and Accidents of Software Engineering. IEEE Computer, 20 (4), 1987, 10--19. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Carroll, J. M. Making Use: Scenario-Based Design of Human-Computer Interaction. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. De Angeli, A., Coventry, L., Johnson, G. and Renaud, K. Is a picture really worth a thousand words? Exploring the feasibility of graphical authentication systems. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63, 2005 128--152. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. de Paula, R., Ding, X., Dourish, P., Nies, K., Pillet, B., Redmiles, D. F., Ren, J., Rode, J. A. and Filho, R. S. In the eye of the beholder: A visualization-based approach to information system security. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63, 2005, 5--24. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Dhamija, R., Why Phishing Works. in CHI, (Montreal, Quebec), 2006, 581--590. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Dhamija, R. and Tygar, J. D., The battle against phishing: Dynamic Security Skins. in Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, (Pittsburgh, PA), 20005, 77--88. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Dourish, P., Grinter, R. E., Delgado de la Flor, J. and Joseph, M. Security in the wild: user strategies for managing security as an everyday, practical problem. Personal Ubiquitous Computing, 8 (6), 2004, 391--401. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Gaw, S. and Felten, E. W., Password Management Strategies for Online Accounts. in Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, (Pittsburgh, PA), 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Holmstrom, U., User-centered design of secure systems. in Proceedings of Human Factors in Telecommunications, (Copenhagen, Denmark), 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Jeffs, T. and Smith, M. K. Informal Education: Conversation, Democracy and Learning. Education Now, 1996.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Jensen, C., Potts, C. and Jensen, C. Privacy practices of Internet users: Self-reports versus observed behavior. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63 (203--227), 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Karat, C.-M., Iterative Usability Testing of a Security Application. in Human Factors, 1989.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Karat, J., Karat, C.-M., Brodie, C. and Feng, J. Privacy in information technology: Designing to enable privacy policy management in organizations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63. 153--174, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Kormann, D. P. and Rubin, A. D. Risks of the Passport single signon protocol. Computer Networks, 33, 2000, 51--58. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Lee, K. M. and Nass, C., Designing Social Presence of Social Actors in Human Computer Interactions. in CHI, (Ft. Lauderdale, Florida), ACM Press, 2003, 289--296. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. March, J. G. and Simon, H. A. Organizations, 1958.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Mason, J. Qualitative Researching. SAGE Publications Ltd, London, UK, 1996.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Maxion, R. A. and Reeder, R. W. Improving userinterface dependability through mitigation of human error. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63. 2005, 25--50. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Mitnick, K. D. The Art of Deception. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Mosteller, W. S. and Ballas, J., Usability Analysis of Messages from a Security System. in Human Factors, 1989.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Orlikowski, W. J. Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations. Organization Science, 11 (4), 2000, 404--428. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Roth, V., Straub, T. and Richter, K. Security and usability engineering with particular attention to electronic mail. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63, 2005, 51--73. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Sasse, M. A., Brostoff, S. and Weirich, D. Transforming the 'weakest link' - a human/computer interaction approach to usable and effective security. BT Technology Journal, 19 (3), 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Schneier, B. Secrets and Lies. John Wiley & Sons, NY, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Seely Brown, J. and Duguid, P. Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation. Organization Science, 2 (1), 1991, 40--57.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Selber, S. A. Multiliteracies for a Digital Age. Southern Illinois University Press, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Serazzi, G. and Zanero, S. Computer Virus Propagation Models. in Performance Tools and Applications to Networked Systems, Spring, 2004, 26--50.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Siponen, M. T. A conceptual foundation for organizational information security awareness. Information Management & Computer Security, 8 (1), 2000, 31--41.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Thomas, D. A. Security Threats and FBI Counterintrusion Efforts, Penn State, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Thorpe, J. and van Oorschot, P. C., Towards Secure Design Choices for Implementing Graphical Passwords. in 20th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, 2004, IEEE Computer Society. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Watkins, K. E. and Marsick, V. J. Towards a Theory of Informal and Incidental Learning in Organizations. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 11 (4), 2001, 287--300.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Weidenbeck, S., Waters, J., Birget, J.-C., Brodskiy, A. and Memon, A. PassPoints: Design and longitudinal evaluation of a graphical password system. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63, 2005 102--127. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Looking for trouble: understanding end-user security management

            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 Conferences
              CHIMIT '07: Proceedings of the 2007 symposium on Computer human interaction for the management of information technology
              March 2007
              124 pages
              ISBN:9781595936356
              DOI:10.1145/1234772

              Copyright © 2007 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: 30 March 2007

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • Article

              Acceptance Rates

              CHIMIT '07 Paper Acceptance Rate11of34submissions,32%Overall Acceptance Rate15of43submissions,35%

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader