skip to main content
10.1145/1357054.1357217acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Sesame: informing user security decisions with system visualization

Published:06 April 2008Publication History

ABSTRACT

Non-expert users face a dilemma when making security decisions. Their security often cannot be fully automated for them, yet they generally lack both the motivation and technical knowledge to make informed security decisions on their own. To help users with this dilemma, we present a novel security user interface called Sesame. Sesame uses a concrete, spatial extension of the desktop metaphor to provide users with the security-related, visualized system-level information they need to make more informed decisions. It also provides users with actionable controls to affect a system's security state. Sesame graphically facilitates users' comprehension in making these decisions, and in doing so helps to lower the bar for motivating them to participate in the security of their system. In a controlled study, users with Sesame were found to make fewer errors than a control group which suggests that our novel security interface is a viable alternative approach to helping users with their dilemma.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

1357217.mp4

mp4

152 MB

References

  1. Conti, G., Abdullah, K., Grizzard, J., Stasko, J., Copeland, J., Ahamad, M., Owen, H., Lee, C. Countering Security Information Overload through Alert and Pack Visualization. IEEE Computer Graphics (2006). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Dhamija, Rachna, Tygar, J.Doug. The Battle Against Phishing: Dynamic Security Skins. Symposium On Usable Privacy and Security, (2005). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. DiGioia, P., Dourish P. Social Navigation as a Model for Usable Security. Symposium On Usable Privacy and Security (2005). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Downs, J. S., Holbrook, M. B., Cranor, L. F. Decision Strategies and Susceptibility to Phishing. Symposium On Usable Privacy and Security, (2005). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Edwards, W. K., Shehan, E., Stoll, J. Security Automation Considered Harmful? NSPW (2007) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Flinn, S.A., Flock of Birds, Safely Staged. DIMACS Workshop on Usable Privacy & Security Software (2005).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Foresti, S., Agutter, J. Visual Correlation of Network Alerts. IEEE Computer Graphics (2006). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Hutchins, E., Hollan, J., Norman, D. Direct Manipulation Interfaces. Human Computer Interaction, 1985. 1: p. 311--338.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Know Your Enemy: Tracking Botnets. Honeynet Project and Research Alliance. honeynet.org/papers/bots (2005).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Nielsen, J., Landauer, T. K., A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems. Proceedings of the ACM INTERCHI'93 Conference (1993). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Shukla, S., Nah, F., Web Browsing and Spyware Intrusion. Communications of the ACM.Vol. 48, No. 8 (2005). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Smetters, D., Grinter, R. Moving from the Design of Usable Security Technologies to the Design of Useful Secure Applications. NSPW (2002). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Spyware. NISCC Technical Note. National Infrastructure Security Coordination Centre. (2006).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Thorpe, S., Fize, D. & Marlot, C. (1996).Speed of processing in the human visual system. Nature, 381, 520--522.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Walker, A. Absolute Beginner's Guide to Security, Spam, Spyware & Viruses. Que Publishing, ©© 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Whalen, T., Inkpen, K. Techniques for Visual Feedback of Security State. DIMACS Workshop on Usable Privacy and Security Software (2004).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Whitten, A., Tygar, J. Safe Security Staging. CHI 2003 Workshop on Human-Computer Interaction and Security Systems (2003).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Whitten, A., Tygar, J., Why Johnny Can't Encrypt. Proc. of the 8th USENIX Security Symposium (1999).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Wu, M., Miller, R. C., Little, G. Web Wallet: Preventing Phishing Attacks by Revealing User Intentions. Symposium On Usable Privacy and Security, (2006). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Wu, M., Miller, R. C., Garfinkel, S., Do Security Toolbars Actually Prevent Phishing Attacks? CHI (2006). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Yee, K., Sitaker, K. Passpet: Convenient Password Management and Phishing Protection. Symposium On Usable Privacy and Security, (2006). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. www.sysinternals.com/Utilities/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Sesame: informing user security decisions with system visualization

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI '08: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      April 2008
      1870 pages
      ISBN:9781605580111
      DOI:10.1145/1357054

      Copyright © 2008 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 6 April 2008

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '08 Paper Acceptance Rate157of714submissions,22%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader