Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Endpoint

8/17/2016
03:30 PM
Lysa Myers
Lysa Myers
Commentary
Connect Directly
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail vvv
50%
50%

User Ed: Patching People Vs Vulns

How infosec can combine and adapt security education and security defenses to the way users actually do their jobs.

I spend a lot of my work hours fretting about the effects of people who don’t specialize in computer and network security making security-related decisions. It hadn’t fully struck me how much of a deficit exists because people who are making business decisions about how to "do" security aren’t necessarily expert in education, usability, or linguistics.

At the recent Black Hat 2016 in Las Vegas, there were a few sessions in particular that brought this message home for me. The first talk was “Exploiting Curiosity and Context”, which was presented by Zinaida Benenson from the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg. The next one was “Security Through Design,” presented by Jelle Niemantsverdriet from Deloitte. The last was “Language Properties of Phone Scammers” by Judith Tabron from Hofstra University.

These three presenters dug into human error from different perspectives: how context can deceive, how poor design choices can lead people to make dangerous decisions, and how we can easily explain detectable patterns in telephone scams.

Benenson’s research involved a phishing test on a number of individuals, after which she surveyed them about the event. Most notably, many of the people who clicked were unaware that they’d done so, or had forgotten. Of those who were aware that they’d clicked, there was a variety of relatively unsurprising reasons given: they thought they knew the sender, they were curious, or they thought their software choices would protect them.

Niemantsverdriet discussed how design succeeds or fails depending on how well it addresses the way people actually use a thing. He listed a variety of ways that security companies could make changes to find and fix problems that exist in present products, such as: A/B testing, making user interfaces more intuitive, simplifying wording in products, and using strategic placement of options to influence user’s choices.

Tabron’s presentation analyzed recordings of scam calls to search for linguistic patterns that would help indicate when a caller is a scammer. She discovered that there are patterns that can be discerned by looking for irregularities -- such as in the caller’s speech pacing, excessive use of tag questions, or redirecting conversation to avoid answering questions and create a sense of urgency.

All of these speakers cautioned that while it is possible for people to be constantly in a “James Bond” mode of hypervigilance, it is not beneficial for the individual or for harmonious group dynamics to be in a constant state of distrust. The idea is not so much to eliminate security failures completely – even security experts make mistakes – but to find ways that make it easier for people to make better security decisions more often.

The first two speakers also highlighted the need to communicate with users so that those of us creating security policies and products can better understand their experiences. That way, education and security defenses can be adapted to how people actually do their jobs.

There is a tendency among security practitioners to get rather jaded and bitter; we assume, because our efforts to improve security are frequently unheeded or thwarted, that most users are so clueless that education is a lost cause. We often design products as if they are to be used by people who are security experts, or run once and never touched again. And when people fail to make good security decisions because they’re following (or creating) the path of least resistance we throw up our hands in disgust and declare, “You can’t patch stupid.”

In reality, creating a patch that doesn’t break existing functionality or create new vulnerabilities is a time-consuming and difficult task requiring people who are skillful coders -- and it’s something we often get wrong. Likewise, “patching” users requires skillful and thorough education by security professionals who understand how their users are expected to function and do their jobs.

Related Content:

 

Lysa Myers began her tenure in malware research labs in the weeks before the Melissa virus outbreak in 1999. She has watched both the malware landscape and the security technologies used to prevent threats from growing and changing dramatically. Because keeping up with all ... View Full Bio
 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Commentary
How SolarWinds Busted Up Our Assumptions About Code Signing
Dr. Jethro Beekman, Technical Director,  3/3/2021
News
'ObliqueRAT' Now Hides Behind Images on Compromised Websites
Jai Vijayan, Contributing Writer,  3/2/2021
News
Attackers Turn Struggling Software Projects Into Trojan Horses
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  2/26/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
2021 Top Enterprise IT Trends
We've identified the key trends that are poised to impact the IT landscape in 2021. Find out why they're important and how they will affect you today!
Flash Poll
How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
Recent breaches of third-party apps are driving many organizations to think harder about the security of their off-the-shelf software as they continue to move left in secure software development practices.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2021-21510
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-08
Dell iDRAC8 versions prior to 2.75.100.75 contain a host header injection vulnerability. A remote unauthenticated attacker may potentially exploit this vulnerability by injecting arbitrary ‘Host’ header values to poison a web-cache or trigger redirections.
CVE-2020-27575
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-08
Maxum Rumpus 8.2.13 and 8.2.14 is affected by a command injection vulnerability. The web administration contains functionality in which administrators are able to manage users. The edit users form contains a parameter vulnerable to command injection due to insufficient validation.
CVE-2020-27576
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-08
Maxum Rumpus 8.2.13 and 8.2.14 is affected by cross-site scripting (XSS). Users are able to create folders in the web application. The folder name is insufficiently validated resulting in a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability.
CVE-2020-27838
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-08
A flaw was found in keycloak in versions prior to 13.0.0. The client registration endpoint allows fetching information about PUBLIC clients (like client secret) without authentication which could be an issue if the same PUBLIC client changed to CONFIDENTIAL later. The highest threat from this vulner...
CVE-2021-21503
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-08
PowerScale OneFS 8.1.2,8.2.2 and 9.1.0 contains an improper input sanitization issue in a command. The Compadmin user could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to potential privileges escalation.