Kuidas viia läbi õngitsuskirja eksperimenti
Files
Date
2018
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
Õngitsusrünnete hulk on aasta-aastalt kasvanud ja ründed on muutunud keerumkamaks kui kunagi varem, põhjustades ettevõtetele rahalist kahju. Akadeemilistes ringkondades on kasvanud huvi simuleeritud õngitsusrünnete vastu, kuid uuringud keskenduvad peamiselt spetsiifilistele aspektidele, nagu näiteks eetilised kaalutlused ja mitte õngitsuseksperimendi läbiviimisele. Autor ei leidnud olemasolevate teadustööde hulgast konsolideeritud juhised,mis kirjeldaksid, kuidas viia läbi õngituskirjade eksperimenti. Käesoleva lõputöö eesmärgiks on uurida, kuidas viia läbi simuleeritud õngitsuskirjade eksperimenti ja luua konsolideeritud juhiseid, mida ettevõtted saaksid lihtsalt rakendada ettevõtte X2 näitel. Lõputöö uurimisküsimused on järgnevad: mida peaksid ettevõtted arvestama õngitsuseksperimendi läbiviimsel? Mis seos on õngitsuskirja raskusastme ja klikkimise sageduse vahel? Kuidas inimesed reageerivad simuleeritud õngitsuseksperimentidele? Antud uurimistöös kasutati nii kvantitatiivseid kui ka kvalitatiivseid meetodeid. Esiteks sai loodud konsolideeritud juhised simuleeritud õngitsuseksperimentide läbiviimiseks, mis baseeruvad eelevatel uurimustöödel. Teiseks viidi läbi õngitsuseksperiment (Eksperiment I) 53 osaleja hulgas, kasutades ristuva uuringu disaini. Töötajad jaotati juhuslikult kaheks grupiks: (Grupp K) ja (Grupp L).Neile saadeti erinevatel kuupäevadel kaks e-kirja erinevate raskusastemega: (Tüüp X) ja (Tüüp Y). Esimeses kampaanias saadeti Grupile K keerulisem kiri (Tüüp X) ja Grupile L lihtsam kiri (Tüüpi Y) ja teise kampaania ajal oli see vastupidi. Raskemad (Tüüp X) e-kirjad olid sihipärased, grammatiliselt korrektsed ja relevantse sisuga. Kergemad e-kirjad (Tüüp Y) olid üldisemad ja nähtavate grammatikavigadega. Suunatud õngitsuseksperiment (Eksperiment II) viidi läbi kahe osaleja hulgas, kasutades üksikosaleja kvaasi eksperimentaalset uurimustöö disaini. Tüüp Z e-kirjad, mis saadeti välja suunatud õngitsuseksperimendi ajal, olid personaalsed ja relevantse sisuga ning baseerusid kahe osaleja taustauuringutel. Kolmandaks kavandati ja viidi läbi kvalitatiivsed intervjuud osalejatega, kes osalesid simuleeritud õngitsusrünnetes, et uurida, kuidas nad sellistele eksperimentidele reageerivad ja parandada lähtuvalt nende tagasisidest õngituskirjade eksperimendi juhiseid. Antud uurimistöö kinnitas, et väljatöötatud juhised on piisavad, et viia läbi õngituskirjade eksperimenti ettevõttetes. Uurimistöö tulemused näitasid, et 23% töötajatest klikkisid raskemini äratuntavale e-kirjale (Tüüp X) ja 11% lihtsamini ära tuntavale e-kirjale (Tüüp Y). Lisaks raporteeriti lihtsamini ära tuntavat kirja sagedamini (22,6%) kui raskemini ära tuntavat kirja(18.9%). Suunatud õngitsuseksperiment osutus edukas ja osalejad ei saanud aru simuleeritud pettusest. Käesolev lõputöö näitab, et õngitsusrünnede edukus on suurem, kui e-kirja sisu on sihitud ja relevantne. Töötajate raporteerimise teadlikkuse tase oli madal ja üks peamisi klikkimise põhjuseid oli uudishimu. Selle uuringu tulemused viitavad sellele, et inimesed reageerivad simuleeritud õngitsusrünnetele positiivselt, kui need viiakse läbi viisil, mis ei tekita osalejatele psühholoogilist kahju või stressi.
Phishing attacks are on the rise and more sophisticated than ever before inflicting major financial damage on businesses. Simulated phishing attacks are of growing interest in academia, however, the studies are mainly focusing on the specific angles of the phenomenon, e.g. ethical considerations; and not on the implementation itself. Author was not able to find consolidated guidelines that would walk through the whole process of conducting email phishing experiments. The aim of this study is to explore how to conduct simulated phishing experiments and to create consolidated guidelines that companies could easily implement on the example of Company X1. The research questions postulated for this study are: What should companies consider when conducting phishing experiments? What is the correlation between the phishing email difficulty level and the click through rate? How people react to simulated email phishing experiments? Both quantitative and qualitative research methodswere applied to find answers to the research questions. Firstly, based on the existing studies, guidelines on how to conduct phishing experiments in companies were created. Secondly, phishing experiment (Experiment I) was designed and conducted among 53 participants applying a crossover research design. The employees were randomly divided into two groups (Group K) and (Group L); and they were sent in two distinct time periods two emails whichcorresponded to the different difficulty levels (Type X and Type Y). During the first campaign Group K was sent Type X email and Group L was sent Type Y email and during the second campaign it was vice versa. Type X email messages were designed to be targeted, grammatically correct and with relevant content. Type Y email messages were designed to be general and with visible grammar mistakes. Additionally, a spear phishing experiment (Experiment II) was conducted among two participants applying a single-subject quasi-experimental research design. The third type of emails (Type Z) that were sent out during thespear phishing experiment were personalized and relevant based on the pre-conducted research about the two targets. Thirdly, qualitative interviews were designed and conducted with the employees who participated in the simulated phishing experiments to investigate how they react to such experiments and to improve the guidelines based on their feedback.This research confirmed that the proposed guidelines are sufficient for conducting phishing experiments in a company setting. The results of this research show that 23% of the employees clicked on the link embedded to the more complex (Type X) phishing email and 11% of the employees clicked on the link embedded to the simpler (Type Y) email. Furthermore, Type Y emails were reported as phishing emails more frequently (22,6%), whereas Type X, emails were reported less (18,9%). The spear phishing experiment was successful,and the participants did not recognize the deceptiveness of the simulated phishing emails.This research shows that the phishing success rate is higher when the content is targeted and relevant. The employee awareness level about reporting phishing was low and the main stimuli for clicking on phishing links was curiosity. The findings of this study imply that people react positively to phishing experiments if these are conducted in a manner that it does not pose psychological damage or distress for the participants.
Phishing attacks are on the rise and more sophisticated than ever before inflicting major financial damage on businesses. Simulated phishing attacks are of growing interest in academia, however, the studies are mainly focusing on the specific angles of the phenomenon, e.g. ethical considerations; and not on the implementation itself. Author was not able to find consolidated guidelines that would walk through the whole process of conducting email phishing experiments. The aim of this study is to explore how to conduct simulated phishing experiments and to create consolidated guidelines that companies could easily implement on the example of Company X1. The research questions postulated for this study are: What should companies consider when conducting phishing experiments? What is the correlation between the phishing email difficulty level and the click through rate? How people react to simulated email phishing experiments? Both quantitative and qualitative research methodswere applied to find answers to the research questions. Firstly, based on the existing studies, guidelines on how to conduct phishing experiments in companies were created. Secondly, phishing experiment (Experiment I) was designed and conducted among 53 participants applying a crossover research design. The employees were randomly divided into two groups (Group K) and (Group L); and they were sent in two distinct time periods two emails whichcorresponded to the different difficulty levels (Type X and Type Y). During the first campaign Group K was sent Type X email and Group L was sent Type Y email and during the second campaign it was vice versa. Type X email messages were designed to be targeted, grammatically correct and with relevant content. Type Y email messages were designed to be general and with visible grammar mistakes. Additionally, a spear phishing experiment (Experiment II) was conducted among two participants applying a single-subject quasi-experimental research design. The third type of emails (Type Z) that were sent out during thespear phishing experiment were personalized and relevant based on the pre-conducted research about the two targets. Thirdly, qualitative interviews were designed and conducted with the employees who participated in the simulated phishing experiments to investigate how they react to such experiments and to improve the guidelines based on their feedback.This research confirmed that the proposed guidelines are sufficient for conducting phishing experiments in a company setting. The results of this research show that 23% of the employees clicked on the link embedded to the more complex (Type X) phishing email and 11% of the employees clicked on the link embedded to the simpler (Type Y) email. Furthermore, Type Y emails were reported as phishing emails more frequently (22,6%), whereas Type X, emails were reported less (18,9%). The spear phishing experiment was successful,and the participants did not recognize the deceptiveness of the simulated phishing emails.This research shows that the phishing success rate is higher when the content is targeted and relevant. The employee awareness level about reporting phishing was low and the main stimuli for clicking on phishing links was curiosity. The findings of this study imply that people react positively to phishing experiments if these are conducted in a manner that it does not pose psychological damage or distress for the participants.