skip to main content
10.1145/3290605.3300338acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

What.Hack: Engaging Anti-Phishing Training Through a Role-playing Phishing Simulation Game

Published:02 May 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Phishing attacks are a major problem, as evidenced by the DNC hackings during the 2016 US presidential election, in which staff were tricked into sharing passwords by fake Google security emails, granting access to confidential information. Vulnerabilities such as these are due in part to insufficient and tiresome user training in cybersecurity. Ideally, we would have more engaging training methods that teach cybersecurity in an active and entertaining way. To address this need, we introduce the game What.Hack, which not only teaches phishing concepts but also simulates actual phishing attacks in a role-playing game to encourage the player to practice defending themselves. Our user study shows that our game design is more engaging and effective in improving performance than a standard form of training and a competing training game design (which does not simulate phishing attempts through role-playing).

References

  1. 2007. The Carnegie Cyber Academy - An Online Safety site and Games for Kids. http://www.carnegiecyberacademy.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. 2008. MAVI interactive. Agent Surefire. http://maviinteractive.com/ mavi_products.asp. Accessed: 2018-09--20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. 2016. Cyber Security Challenge UK Cyphinx. https://www. cybersecuritychallenge.org.uk/competitions/play-demand-cyphinx. Accessed: 2018-09--20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. 2017. Game Sets Sights on Fake News. https://www.american.edu/ soc/news/fake-news-game.cfm. Accessed: 2018-09--20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. 2018. The Federal Bureau of Investigations, "Kids Games.". https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/fun-games/kids/kids-games. Accessed: 2018-09--20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. 2018. Information Assurane Support Environment Cyber Protect. https://iatraining.disa.mil/eta/cyber-protect/launchcontent.html. Accessed: 2018-09--20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. 2018. Information Security Office Carnegie Mellon University "Anti-Phihsing Phil.". https: //www.cmu.edu/iso/aware/phil/index.html. Accessed: 2018-09--20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. 2018. OnGuardOnline. https://www.onguardonline.gov/media. Accessed: 2018-09--20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. 2018. PhishLine Training. https://www.phishline.com/ complimentary-content/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Gupta BB Atawneh S. Meulenberg A. & Almomani E. Almomani, A. 2013. A survey of phishing email filtering techniques. In IEEE communications surveys & tutorials, Vol. 15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Erik Andersen, Eleanor O'Rourke, Yun-En Liu, Rich Snider, Jeff Lowdermilk, David Truong, Seth Cooper, and Zoran Popovic. 2012. The impact oftutorialsongamesofvaryingcomplexity.InProceedingsoftheSIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 59--68. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. John R Anderson, Lynne M Reder, and Herbert A Simon. 1996. Situated learning and education. Educational researcher 25, 4 (1996), 5--11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Nalin Asanka Gamagedara Arachchilage and Steve Love. 2013. A game design framework for avoiding phishing attacks. Computers in Human Behavior 29, 3 (2013), 706--714. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Nalin Asanka Gamagedara Arachchilage, Steve Love, and Konstantin Beznosov. 2016. Phishing threat avoidance behaviour: An empirical investigation. Computers in Human Behavior 60 (2016). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Ian Arawjo, Cheng-Yao Wang, Andrew C Myers, Erik Andersen, and François Guimbretière. 2017. Teaching Programming with Gamified Semantics. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Suranjith Ariyapperuma and Amina Minhas. {n. d.}. Internet security games as a pedagogic tool for teaching network security. In 35th Annual Frontiers in Education. IEEE, S2D--1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Sasha Barab, Michael Thomas, Tyler Dodge, Robert Carteaux, and Hakan Tuzun. 2005. Making learning fun: Quest Atlantis, a game without guns. Educational technology research and development 53, 1 (2005), 86--107.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Peter Chapman, Jonathan Burket, and David Brumley. 2014. PicoCTF: A Game-Based Computer Security Competition for High School Students.. In 3GSE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Naomi C Chesler, Golnaz Arastoopour, Cynthia M D'Angelo, Elizabeth A Bagley, and David Williamson Shaffer. 2013. Design of a professional practice simulator for educating and motivating first-year engineering students. Advances in Engineering Education 3, 3 (2013), n3.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Benjamin D Cone, Cynthia E Irvine, Michael F Thompson, and Thuy D Nguyen. 2007. A video game for cyber security training and awareness. computers & security 26, 1 (2007), 63--72. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Dan Conway, Ronnie Taib, Mitch Harris, Kun Yu, Shlomo Berkovsky, and Fang Chen. 2017. A Qualitative Investigation of Bank Employee Experiences of Information Security and Phishing. In Thirteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Seth Cooper, Firas Khatib, Adrien Treuille, Janos Barbero, Jeehyung Lee, Michael Beenen, Andrew Leaver-Fay, David Baker, Zoran Popovic, et al. 2010. Predicting protein structures with a multiplayer online game. Nature 466, 7307 (2010), 756--760.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. National Research Council et al. 2000. How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school: Expanded edition. National Academies Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. 1991. Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Vol. 41. HarperPerennial New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Gabriel Culbertson, Erik Andersen, Walker White, Daniel Zhang, and Malte Jung. {n. d.}. Crystallize: An Immersive, Collaborative Game for Second Language Learning. In CSCW 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Gabriel Culbertson, Shiyu Wang, Malte Jung, and Erik Andersen. 2016. Social Situational Language Learning through an Online 3D Game. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Andy Davis, Tim Leek, Michael Zhivich, Kyle Gwinnup, and William Leonard. 2014. The Fun and Future of CTF. In USENIX Summit on Gaming, Games, and Gamification in Security Education (3GSE 14).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Tamara Denning, Adam Lerner, Adam Shostack, and Tadayoshi Kohno. 2013. Control-Alt-Hack: the design and evaluation of a card game for computer security awareness and education. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGSAC conference on Computer & communications security. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Rachna Dhamija, J Doug Tygar, and Marti Hearst. 2006. Why phishing works. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Julie S Downs, Mandy B Holbrook, and Lorrie Faith Cranor. 2006. Decision strategies and susceptibility to phishing. In Proceedings of the second symposium on Usable privacy and security. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. James Paul Gee. 2003. What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Computers in Entertainment (CIE) 1, 1 (2003). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Mark Gondree and Zachary NJ Peterson. 2013. Valuing Security by Getting {d0x3d!} Experiences with a network security board game. (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Jason Hong. 2012. The state of phishing attacks. Commun. ACM 55, 1 (2012). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Fares Kayali, Günter Wallner, Simone Kriglstein, Gerhild Bauer, Daniel Martinek, Helmut Hlavacs, Peter Purgathofer, and Rebbeca Wölfle. 2014. A case study of a learning game about the Internet. In International Conference on Serious Games. Springer, 47--58.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Diane Jass Ketelhut, Brian C Nelson, Jody Clarke, and Chris Dede. 2010. A multi-user virtual environment for building and assessing higher order inquiry skills in science. British Journal of Educational Technology 41, 1 (2010), 56--68.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Ponnurangam Kumaraguru, Justin Cranshaw, Alessandro Acquisti, Lorrie Cranor, Jason Hong, Mary Ann Blair, and Theodore Pham. 2009. School of phish: a real-world evaluation of anti-phishing training. In Proceedingsofthe5thSymposiumonUsablePrivacyandSecurity.ACM,3. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Ponnurangam Kumaraguru, Yong Rhee, Alessandro Acquisti, Lorrie Faith Cranor, Jason Hong, and Elizabeth Nunge. 2007. Protecting people from phishing: the design and evaluation of an embedded training email system. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Ponnurangam Kumaraguru, Yong Rhee, Alessandro Acquisti, Lorrie Faith Cranor, Jason Hong, and Elizabeth Nunge. 2007. Protecting people from phishing: the design and evaluation of an embedded training email system. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, 905--914. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Ponnurangam Kumaraguru, Steve Sheng, Alessandro Acquisti, Lorrie Faith Cranor, and Jason Hong. 2010. Teaching Johnny not to fall for phish. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology (TOIT) 10, 2 (2010). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Elmer Lastdrager, Inés Carvajal Gallardo, Pieter Hartel, and Marianne Junger. 2017. How Effective is Anti-Phishing Training for Children. In Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge university press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. 3909 LLC Lucas P. 2013. Papers, Please: a dystopian document thriller. http://store.steampowered.com/app/239030/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Jelena Mirkovic and Peter A. H. Peterson. 2014. Class Capture-the-Flag Exercises. In USENIX Summit on Gaming, Games, and Gamification in Security Education (3GSE 14).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Gaurav Misra, Nalin Asanka Gamagedara Arachchilage, and Shlomo Berkovsky. 2017. Phish Phinder: A Game Design Approach to Enhance User Confidence in Mitigating Phishing Attacks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.06064 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Jason J Morrissette. 2017. Glory to Arstotzka: Morality, Rationality, and theIronCageofBureaucracyinPapers,Please. GameStudies17,1(2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Casey O'Donnell. 2014. Getting played: Gamification, bullshit, and the rise of algorithmic surveillance. Surveillance & Society 12, 3 (2014), 349.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. Marc Olano, Alan T Sherman, Linda Oliva, Ryan Cox, Deborah Firestone, Oliver Kubik, Milind Patil, John Seymour, and Donna Thomas. {n. d.}. SecurityEmpire: Development and Evaluation of a Digital Game to Promote Cybersecurity Education.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Cas Pars. 2017. PHREE of Phish: The Effect of Anti-Phishing Training on the Ability of Users to Identify Phishing Emails. Master's thesis. University of Twente.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. PwC. 2017. Game of Threats -- A cyber threat simulation. http: //www.pwc.com/us/en/financial-services/cybersecurity-privacy/ game-of-threats.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Prashanth Rajivan and Cleotilde Gonzalez. 2018. Creative Persuasion: A study on adversarial behaviors and strategies in phishing attacks. Frontiers in psychology 9 (2018), 135.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. C Reigeluth and R Stein. 1983. Elaboration theory. Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status (1983), 335--381.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. Andrew Ruef, Michael Hicks, James Parker, Dave Levin, Michelle L Mazurek, and Piotr Mardziel. 2016. Build It, Break It, Fix It: Contesting Secure Development. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. ACM, 690--703. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Wombat Security. 2017. State of the Phish. http://usdatavault.com/ library/Wombat%20State%20of%20the%20Phish%202017.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. David W Shaffer. 2006. Epistemic frames for epistemic games. Computers & education 46, 3 (2006), 223--234. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. SteveSheng,MandyHolbrook,PonnurangamKumaraguru,LorrieFaith Cranor, and Julie Downs. 2010. Who falls for phish?: a demographic analysis of phishing susceptibility and effectiveness of interventions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Steve Sheng, Bryant Magnien, Ponnurangam Kumaraguru, Alessandro Acquisti, Lorrie Faith Cranor, Jason Hong, and Elizabeth Nunge. 2007. Anti-phishing phil: the design and evaluation of a game that teaches people not to fall for phish. In Proceedings of the 3rd symposium on Usable privacy and security. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Adam Shostack. 2017. Security Games & Resources. https: //adam.shostack.org/games.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Michael F. Thompson and Cynthia E. Irvine. 2014. CyberCIEGE Scenario Design and Implementation. In USENIX Summit on Gaming, Games, and Gamification in Security Education (3GSE 14).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Jin-Ning Tioh, Mani Mina, and Douglas W Jacobson. 2017. Cyber security training a survey of serious games in cyber security. In Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). IEEE, 1--5.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  60. Endel Tulving and Donald M Thomson. 1973. Encoding specificity and retrievalprocessesinepisodicmemory. Psychologicalreview 80,5(1973).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Lev Semenovich Vygotsky. 1980. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard university press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Chad Walker. 2015. Cryptomancer: A Fantasy Role-Playing Game about Hacking. http://cryptorpg.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Rick Wash and Molly M Cooper. 2018. Who Provides Phishing Training?: Facts, Stories, and People Like Me. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 492. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. Gregory B White, Dwayne Williams, and Keith Harrison. 2010. The CyberPatriot national high school cyber defense competition. IEEE Security & Privacy 5 (2010), 59--61. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  65. Wikipedia. 2017. Podesta emails. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index. php?title=Podesta%20emails&oldid=759435543.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Emma J Williams, Amy Beardmore, and Adam N Joinson. 2017. Individual differences in susceptibility to online influence: a theoretical review. Computers in Human Behavior 72 (2017), 412--421. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  67. Che-Ching Yang, Shian-Shyong Tseng, Tsung-Ju Lee, Jui-Feng Weng, and Kaiyuan Chen. 2012. Building an anti-phishing game to enhance network security literacy learning. In 2012 IEEE 12th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies. IEEE, 121--123. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. What.Hack: Engaging Anti-Phishing Training Through a Role-playing Phishing Simulation Game

        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 '19: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
          May 2019
          9077 pages
          ISBN:9781450359702
          DOI:10.1145/3290605

          Copyright © 2019 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: 2 May 2019

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          CHI '19 Paper Acceptance Rate703of2,958submissions,24%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format .

        View HTML Format