The Challenges of Understanding Users' Security-related Knowledge, Behaviour, and Motivations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to improve current security solutions or devise novel ones, it is important to understand users' knowledge, behaviour, motivations and challenges in using a security solution. However, achieving this understanding is challenging because of the limitations of current research methodologies. We have been investigating the experiences of users with two practical implementations of the principle of least privilege (PLP) Windows Vista and Windows 7. PLP requires that users be granted the most restrictive set of privileges possible for performing the task at hand; in other words, they should not use accounts with administrator privileges. By following this principle, users will be better protected from malware, security attacks, accidental or intentional modifications to system configurations, and accidental or intentional unauthorized access to confidential data. To obtain an understanding of their knowledge, behaviour, motivations and challenges in following PLP, we had participants complete realistic tasks during a lab study that would raise user account control prompts and then performed a contextual interview to probe their behaviours. We faced numerous challenges during our study, including reflecting the realistic behaviour of participants, understanding their knowledge and challenges managing their user accounts and dealing with security warnings, and generalizing our results to a wider community. We discuss how we addressed these challenges, how well our methodological design decisions worked, and the ongoing challenges.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.044 | 0.117 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".