Comments
Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
Users Still need the Blame
Users are the weakest link. When the security measures are in place and the user still does the wrong thing because there are no consequences adapting the security to them is a futile effort. The only fix to that is to hold the users accountable. Case in point, trying to make cars that keep you in your lane or stop for you is needed because people are not paying attention. How about when they cause an accident due to texting and driving they get rewarded with license revocation.
As far as taking the empathy approach with the user, it is difficult to build security around the "I am going to do what I am going to do regardless of what I am supposed to do" attitude. No matter how friendly you make the security if it inhibits the user from doing what they want they will ignore and find a way around.
Designing better error messages for the users is a good idea. It is possible if the error message was informative it would help the tech that has to work on it. .That being said most of the users do not read the error message so that would not help a user. Just as they do not read the popup that downloads the cropto-ware on their system. An example of this is when the help desk gets the call of "It just stopped working," and "I didn't do anything." Of course the answer of "ummm....I don't know" when asked "What did the error message say?" Users just click without reading.
The point of rewarding them for doing what they are supposed to do is like giving them a trophy for showing up. Then they will expect a trophy all of the time and the value of the "incentive" will diminish. This is what created the situation that we are in with the users not caring now.
I do agree that security must be made to be a bit more user friendly. I also believe that the users will adapt in a downward direction to put us back in the same situation. I think accountability is the direction that will produce a bigger bang for the buck.
As far as taking the empathy approach with the user, it is difficult to build security around the "I am going to do what I am going to do regardless of what I am supposed to do" attitude. No matter how friendly you make the security if it inhibits the user from doing what they want they will ignore and find a way around.
Designing better error messages for the users is a good idea. It is possible if the error message was informative it would help the tech that has to work on it. .That being said most of the users do not read the error message so that would not help a user. Just as they do not read the popup that downloads the cropto-ware on their system. An example of this is when the help desk gets the call of "It just stopped working," and "I didn't do anything." Of course the answer of "ummm....I don't know" when asked "What did the error message say?" Users just click without reading.
The point of rewarding them for doing what they are supposed to do is like giving them a trophy for showing up. Then they will expect a trophy all of the time and the value of the "incentive" will diminish. This is what created the situation that we are in with the users not caring now.
I do agree that security must be made to be a bit more user friendly. I also believe that the users will adapt in a downward direction to put us back in the same situation. I think accountability is the direction that will produce a bigger bang for the buck.
White Papers
Video
4 Comments
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: Look deep into my eyes. You are getting sleepy, very sleepy......
Latest Comment: Look deep into my eyes. You are getting sleepy, very sleepy......
Current Issue
10 Best Practices That Could Reshape Your IT Security DepartmentThis Dark Reading Tech Digest, explores ten best practices that could reshape IT security departments.
Flash Poll
How Enterprises Are Using IT Threat Intelligence
Large organizations are harnessing data about cyberattackers and their exploits to improve the safety of their critical data. Find out what they're doing.
Twitter Feed
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database CVE-2018-20168
PUBLISHED: 2018-12-17
PUBLISHED: 2018-12-17
PUBLISHED: 2018-12-15
PUBLISHED: 2018-12-15
PUBLISHED: 2018-12-15
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database CVE-2018-20168
PUBLISHED: 2018-12-17
Google gVisor before 2018-08-22 reuses a pagetable in a different level with the paging-structure cache intact, which allows attackers to cause a denial of service ("physical address not valid" panic) via a crafted application.
CVE-2018-20167PUBLISHED: 2018-12-17
Terminology before 1.3.1 allows Remote Code Execution because popmedia is mishandled, as demonstrated by an unsafe "cat README.md" command when \e}pn is used. A popmedia control sequence can allow the malicious execution of executable file formats registered in the X desktop share MIME typ...
CVE-2018-20161PUBLISHED: 2018-12-15
A design flaw in the BlinkForHome (aka Blink For Home) Sync Module 2.10.4 and earlier allows attackers to disable cameras via Wi-Fi, because incident clips (triggered by the motion sensor) are not saved if the attacker's traffic (such as Dot11Deauth) successfully disconnects the Sync Module from the...
CVE-2018-20159PUBLISHED: 2018-12-15
i-doit open 1.11.2 allows Remote Code Execution because ZIP archives are mishandled. It has an upload feature that allows an authenticated user with the administrator role to upload arbitrary files to the main website directory. Exploitation involves uploading a ".php" file within a "...
CVE-2018-20157PUBLISHED: 2018-12-15
The data import functionality in OpenRefine through 3.1 allows an XML External Entity (XXE) attack through a crafted (zip) file, allowing attackers to read arbitrary files.
- Terms of Service
- Privacy Statement
- Legal Entities
- Copyright © 2018 UBM, All rights reserved
Tweet This