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.

Perimeter

4/21/2009
08:00 PM
Gadi Evron
Gadi Evron
Commentary
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Analyzing Security Psychology

The integration of psychology into the security strategic-thinking process is critical for the advancement of information security. The human element influences all security controls because all of these controls seek to regulate human behavior.

The integration of psychology into the security strategic-thinking process is critical for the advancement of information security. The human element influences all security controls because all of these controls seek to regulate human behavior.Consider passwords. They require handling in a technological fashion that will be safe from theft. But as we all know, attackers go after the weakest link. The weakest link may be the user's display screen.

That makes convincing the user that keeping a password secret is a good idea problematic. Users forget their passwords, and they want them to be handy when they do.

They want easy-to-remember passwords rather than ones that can be secured from brute-force attacks. So security policy -- which demands the user create a password with 15 characters, two letters, and one period -- may not go over well. One urban legend is that when users were required to change their passwords without using their previous 30 passwords, after 30 times they would just use their old password again.

Functionality trumps security, as it should, in most cases. Building security to accommodate functionality rather than being an inhibitor -- the enemy -- is the way to go.

Information security professionals are technical, but it is ever more obvious that the psychological element of security is just as important when trying to secure any environment involving people. Putting "people handling" into the security planning and design phases solves many future risks, but this is not yet common practice.

So what do you think? Should people be our top concern? How do we go about educating users on the risks they are taking, or try to limit the risks despite users' lack of "common sense" in this arena? Do you have examples in your organization where this either worked or failed? Send me a comment.

Follow Gadi Evron on Twitter: http://twitter.com/gadievron

Gadi Evron is an independent security strategist based in Israel. Special to Dark Reading. Gadi is CEO and founder of Cymmetria, a cyber deception startup and chairman of the Israeli CERT. Previously, he was vice president of cybersecurity strategy for Kaspersky Lab and led PwC's Cyber Security Center of Excellence, located in Israel. He is widely recognized for ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
News
Inside the Ransomware Campaigns Targeting Exchange Servers
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  4/2/2021
Commentary
Beyond MITRE ATT&CK: The Case for a New Cyber Kill Chain
Rik Turner, Principal Analyst, Infrastructure Solutions, Omdia,  3/30/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
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-2021-23381
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-18
This affects all versions of package killing. If attacker-controlled user input is given, it is possible for an attacker to execute arbitrary commands. This is due to use of the child_process exec function without input sanitization.
CVE-2021-23374
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-18
This affects all versions of package ps-visitor. If attacker-controlled user input is given to the kill function, it is possible for an attacker to execute arbitrary commands. This is due to use of the child_process exec function without input sanitization.
CVE-2021-23375
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-18
This affects all versions of package psnode. If attacker-controlled user input is given to the kill function, it is possible for an attacker to execute arbitrary commands. This is due to use of the child_process exec function without input sanitization.
CVE-2021-23376
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-18
This affects all versions of package ffmpegdotjs. If attacker-controlled user input is given to the trimvideo function, it is possible for an attacker to execute arbitrary commands. This is due to use of the child_process exec function without input sanitization.
CVE-2021-23377
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-18
This affects all versions of package onion-oled-js. If attacker-controlled user input is given to the scroll function, it is possible for an attacker to execute arbitrary commands. This is due to use of the child_process exec function without input sanitization.