Final published version
Licence: CC BY: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Many phish in the C
T2 - A coexisting-choice-criteria model of security behavior
AU - Embrey, Iain
AU - Kaivanto, Kim
PY - 2023/4/30
Y1 - 2023/4/30
N2 - Normative decision theory proves inadequate for modeling human responses to the social-engineering campaigns of Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) attacks. Behavioral decision theory fares better, but still falls short of capturing social-engineering attack vectors, which operate through emotions and peripheral-route persuasion. We introduce a generalized decision theory, under which any decision will be made according to one of multiple coexisting choice criteria. We denote the set of possible choice criteria by C. Thus the proposed model reduces to conventional Expected Utility theory when | C_EU | = 1, whilst Dual-Process (thinking fast vs. thinking slow) decision making corresponds to a model with | C_DP | = 2. We consider a more general case with | C | >= 2, which necessitates careful consideration of *how*, for a particular choice-task instance, one criterion comes to prevail over others. We operationalize this with a probability distribution that is conditional upon traits of the decision maker as well as upon the context and the framing of choice options. Whereas existing Signal Detection Theory (SDT) models of phishing detection commingle the different peripheral-route persuasion pathways, in the present descriptive generalization the different pathways are explicitly identified and represented. A number of implications follow immediately from this formulation, ranging from the conditional nature of security-breach risk to delineation of the prerequisites for valid tests of security training. Moreover, the model explains the 'stepping-stone' penetration pattern of APT attacks, which has confounded modeling approaches based on normative rationality.
AB - Normative decision theory proves inadequate for modeling human responses to the social-engineering campaigns of Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) attacks. Behavioral decision theory fares better, but still falls short of capturing social-engineering attack vectors, which operate through emotions and peripheral-route persuasion. We introduce a generalized decision theory, under which any decision will be made according to one of multiple coexisting choice criteria. We denote the set of possible choice criteria by C. Thus the proposed model reduces to conventional Expected Utility theory when | C_EU | = 1, whilst Dual-Process (thinking fast vs. thinking slow) decision making corresponds to a model with | C_DP | = 2. We consider a more general case with | C | >= 2, which necessitates careful consideration of *how*, for a particular choice-task instance, one criterion comes to prevail over others. We operationalize this with a probability distribution that is conditional upon traits of the decision maker as well as upon the context and the framing of choice options. Whereas existing Signal Detection Theory (SDT) models of phishing detection commingle the different peripheral-route persuasion pathways, in the present descriptive generalization the different pathways are explicitly identified and represented. A number of implications follow immediately from this formulation, ranging from the conditional nature of security-breach risk to delineation of the prerequisites for valid tests of security training. Moreover, the model explains the 'stepping-stone' penetration pattern of APT attacks, which has confounded modeling approaches based on normative rationality.
KW - advanced persistent threat
KW - choice criteria
KW - dual-process theory
KW - latent class model
KW - phishing
KW - peripheral-route persuasion
KW - states of mind
KW - social engineering
KW - decision theory
U2 - 10.1111/risa.13947
DO - 10.1111/risa.13947
M3 - Journal article
VL - 43
SP - 783
EP - 799
JO - Risk Analysis
JF - Risk Analysis
SN - 0272-4332
IS - 4
ER -