Google Search

Showing posts with label research. Show all posts
Showing posts with label research. Show all posts

Thursday, May 15, 2014

Brain research tracks internet safety performance, dispels assumptions, identifies traits of those at-risk

Internet users face a barrage of information with each click, some of it designed to compromise security and privacy. Spammers hope, and security researchers have warned, that users cannot distinguish legitimate websites from dangerous ones and do not heed browser safety warnings.

However, new research from the University of Alabama at Birmingham suggests that users pay more attention to Internet safety than previously assumed. In a paper that won the "Distinguished Paper Award" at the 2014 Network and Distributed Systems Security Symposium, researchers used a novel methodology to gain new neurological insights into how users face security questions and how their personalities might affect their performance.

Nitesh Saxena, Ph.D., associate professor in the Department of Computer and Information Sciences and a core member of the Center for Information Assurance and Joint Forensics Research, wondered what was happening in Internet users' brains when they encountered malware warnings or malicious websites.

"Many computer-based lab studies on user-centered security have concluded that users do not pay attention to these tasks and are ill-equipped to pay attention to security warnings," Saxena said. "I had been taught for years that users are careless when it comes to security endeavors."

However, security studies in lab settings show different results than a recent study based on real-world user data, he says.

He teamed up with Rajesh Kana, Ph.D., associate professor of psychology, and UAB graduate research assistants Ajaya Neupane (lead student author) and Michael Georgescu, as well as Keya Kuruvilla, a Department of Psychology student, to use brain imaging to discover what is really happening in users' brains as they encounter security questions.

Users were given two tasks. First, they were shown intermingled examples of popular websites' real login pages and fraudulent replications of those pages and were asked to determine which were real and which were fake -- phishing -- sites. Users were then asked to read several sample news articles and were interrupted by pop-ups that contained either benign information or warnings about malware, software created to obtain unauthorized access to a computer's resources and collect information.

Using a functional magnetic resonance imaging, or fMRI, machine, researchers measured users' accuracy while tracking their brain activity. Results showed activation in areas of the brain associated with attention, decision-making and problem-solving. Activity in the brain's decision-making regions carried across both tasks, suggesting that accuracy at one task could predict accuracy at the other.

"For both tasks we found brain activity, so people are not careless," Saxena said. "But whether or not their decisions are valid is a different situation."

Accuracy in the malware warning task was about 89 percent, and the fMRI scans showed high brain activity in regions associated with problem-solving and decision-making.

"In the warning task, people seem to make extra effort to make decisions," Saxena said. "When they were subject to warnings, there was also activity in language comprehension areas. Warnings trigger some sort of thought process in people's brains that there is something unusual going on."

Accuracy in identifying real versus fake websites was low at only about 60 percent -- only 10 percent better than a random guess, though participants showed activation in brain regions associated with decision-making.

"In the phishing task, users didn't do very well," Saxena said. "That may be because they don't know what to look for. When they look at a website, they might be paying attention only to the look and feel of the website instead of the URL, which is often a real indicator."

Researchers also had users complete a personality assessment to measure their impulsiveness, and the fMRI results showed differences in how highly impulsive users behaved.

"Not all individuals are alike," Saxena said. "We found a negative correlation of impulsivity and brain activity. Highly impulsive people probably just hit 'yes' when they are stopped by a malware warning asking if they want to proceed. This is interesting because it offers a way to predict how people may perform in security tasks based on impulsivity scores."

The relationship between personality traits like impulsivity and brain responses was especially interesting, Kana says.

"Participants with greater impulsive traits showed less brain activity in key decision-making areas of the brain during security decisions," Kana said.

The study could help security programmers focus their attention on designing better warning systems, and network managers target their security training at users who tend to be impulsive, Neupane says.

Cite This Page:

University of Alabama at Birmingham. "Brain research tracks internet safety performance, dispels assumptions, identifies traits of those at-risk." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 28 February 2014. .University of Alabama at Birmingham. (2014, February 28). Brain research tracks internet safety performance, dispels assumptions, identifies traits of those at-risk. ScienceDaily. Retrieved May 5, 2014 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140228121130.htmUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham. "Brain research tracks internet safety performance, dispels assumptions, identifies traits of those at-risk." ScienceDaily. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140228121130.htm (accessed May 5, 2014).

View the original article here

Sunday, January 13, 2013

Sophos staff win Movember contest while raising money for prostate cancer research

Over 170,000 people are part of the Sophos community on Facebook. Why not join us on Facebook to find out about the latest security threats.

Hi fellow Twitter user! Follow our team of security experts on Twitter for the latest news about internet security threats.

Already using Google+? Find us on Google+ for the latest security news.

Peter Gale from Team MophosFor the unfamiliar, Movember (The month formerly known as November) is a moustache-growing charity event, held each November, that raises funds and awareness for men's health.

The Mo Bros and Mo Sistas of Sophos Vancouver formed a team this year, Team Mophos, on the international Movember website to see how much money we could collectively raise as an office.

How'd we do? Well, 25 individuals participated from the Vancouver office alone, raising more than $6000 Canadian for charity (It's not too late! Click Team Mophos above to contribute).

In major cities, Movember also coordinates some celebrations and contests at the end of the month and Vancouver was no exception.

Onur Komili from Team Mophos

There are all kinds of different contests and awards for the best and most creative mustachioed faces.

Peter Gale, Product Development Manager, and Onur Komili, Sr. Web Threat Researcher in SophosLabs, decided to enter the best costume contest as the legendary 1990's wrestling team The Legion of Doom.

Considerable effort was put into the outfits and makeup to create just the right amount of menace, respect and of course an opportunity to show off the stache.

Team Mophos Legion of Doom

I am proud to announce they were selected by the Mo Bros and Mo Sistas at the Vancouver Gala Parté as best Team Mo Bro, and Onur won the award for Man of Movember.

Congratulations, guys. Aside from the fun we all had we were able to raise a tidy sum of money for a good cause.

Follow @chetwisniewski

View the original article here

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

More than half of Androids have unpatched security holes, research claims

Over 170,000 people are part of the Sophos community on Facebook. Why not join us on Facebook to find out about the latest security threats.

Hi fellow Twitter user! Follow our team of security experts on Twitter for the latest news about internet security threats.

Already using Google+? Find us on Google+ for the latest security news.

X Ray appIf you're the owner of a mobile device running Google's Android mobile OS, the chances are pretty good that your device is vulnerable to attack, according to data from the firm Duo Security.

One in two Android devices that installed Duo’s X-Ray mobile vulnerability assessment software found known, unpatched vulnerabilities on the phone that could be used to take "full control of users' phones," according to a post by Duo CTO (and security Ninja) Jon Oberhide.

And the 50% number may be a conservative number, Oberhide warned.

Writing on the company's blog, Oberhide said that carriers' conservative approach to rolling out patches to fix Android vulnerabilities is a big part of the problem.

Duo's X-Ray application was released in July and has already been installed on 20,000 devices – a pretty good data set.

The application collects information on the version of the Android operating system a device is running, the carrier and any potentially vulnerable software.

Oberhide said that vulnerabilities on Android devices are a serious security problem and that vulnerable devices "often remain vulnerable for months and even years."

"Yes, it's a scary number, but it exemplifies how important expedient patching is to mobile security and how poorly the industry (carriers, device manufacturers, etc) has performed thus far," Oberhide wrote.

Data presented by Oberhide

Exploitable vulnerabilities are inevitable in complex software applications and operating systems and Duo says that Apple mobile devices like iPhones and iPad could contain vulnerabilities, also.

However, Apple and Google have taken radically different paths to market, with Apple retaining strict control over its operating system and the hardware platform it runs on. That has enabled the Cupertino, California company to easily and quickly push out operating system updates to its entire user base, regardless of carrier.

Google, however, offered its operating system as an open source offering that could run on any hardware.

That's been great for building a worldwide user base. Carriers and handset makers partnered to roll their own Android devices, each with a different version of the OS and a mélange of different applications and component.

That leaves Android device owners at the mercy of both their carrier and the handset maker if they want to get a security update to patch a serious, remotely exploitable hole; each update from Google has to be tested against a particular hardware platform by the manufacturer, then pushed out through carriers who are reluctant to do anything that might rile their mobile customer base.

Vanja Svajcer"Essentially, in Android ecosystem we are in a worse place than with pre-millennium Windows, before Automatic Updating was released," said Vanja Svajcer, a principal malware researcher at Sophos. "The main difference is that with Windows we did not have IBM, HP, Toshiba and Dell producing their own versions of the operating system and Best Buy, Walmart and Amazon deciding when to update."

Svajcer said the current, decentralized system of updates isn't sustainable: "Something will have to change with Android updating soon if we do not want to witness mass compromises of Android devices of the scale reminiscent Nimda, Code Red and other large Windows outbreaks from the beginning of the decade."

Oberhide presented the results of his company's survey of Android devices at the UNITED Security Summit in San Francisco on Friday, September 14.

Follow @paulfroberts

Tags: Android, Android attack, dnschanger, Duo Security, Exploit, Google, hacking, ios, Jon Oberhide, Malware, mobile malware, mobile phones, mobile virus, smart phones, United Summit, Vanja Svajcer, vulnerability, x-ray


View the original article here