The persuasive phish: examining the social psychological principles hidden in phishing emails

O. Zielinska, Allaire K. Welk, C. Mayhorn, E. Murphy-Hill
{"title":"The persuasive phish: examining the social psychological principles hidden in phishing emails","authors":"O. Zielinska, Allaire K. Welk, C. Mayhorn, E. Murphy-Hill","doi":"10.1145/2898375.2898382","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Phishing is a social engineering tactic used to trick people into revealing personal information [Zielinska, Tembe, Hong, Ge, Murphy-Hill, & Mayhorn 2014]. As phishing emails continue to infiltrate users' mailboxes, what social engineering techniques are the phishers using to successfully persuade victims into releasing sensitive information? Cialdini's [2007] six principles of persuasion (authority, social proof, liking/similarity, commitment/consistency, scarcity, and reciprocation) have been linked to elements of phishing emails [Akbar 2014; Ferreira, & Lenzini 2015]; however, the findings have been conflicting. Authority and scarcity were found as the most common persuasion principles in 207 emails obtained from a Netherlands database [Akbar 2014], while liking/similarity was the most common principle in 52 personal emails available in Luxemborg and England [Ferreira et al. 2015]. The purpose of this study was to examine the persuasion principles present in emails available in the United States over a period of five years. Two reviewers assessed eight hundred eighty-seven phishing emails from Arizona State University, Brown University, and Cornell University for Cialdini's six principles of persuasion. Each email was evaluated using a questionnaire adapted from the Ferreira et al. [2015] study. There was an average agreement of 87% per item between the two raters. Spearman's Rho correlations were used to compare email characteristics over time. During the five year period under consideration (2010--2015), the persuasion principles of commitment/consistency and scarcity have increased over time, while the principles of reciprocation and social proof have decreased over time. Authority and liking/similarity revealed mixed results with certain characteristics increasing and others decreasing. The commitment/consistency principle could be seen in the increase of emails referring to elements outside the email to look more reliable, such as Google Docs or Adobe Reader (rs(850) = .12, p =.001), while the scarcity principle could be seen in urgent elements that could encourage users to act quickly and may have had success in eliciting a response from users (rs(850) = .09, p =.01). Reciprocation elements, such as a requested reply, decreased over time (rs(850) = -.12, p =.001). Additionally, the social proof principle present in emails by referring to actions performed by other users also decreased (rs(850) = -.10, p =.01). Two persuasion principles exhibited both an increase and decrease in their presence in emails over time: authority and liking/similarity. These principles could increase phishing rate success if used appropriately, but could also raise suspicions in users and decrease compliance if used incorrectly. Specifically, the source of the email, which corresponds to the authority principle, displayed an increase over time in educational institutes (rs(850) = .21, p <.001), but a decrease in financial institutions (rs(850) = -.18, p <.001). Similarly, the liking/similarity principle revealed an increase over time of logos present in emails (rs(850) = .18, p <.001) and decrease in service details, such as payment information (rs(850) = -.16, p <.001). The results from this study offer a different perspective regarding phishing. Previous research has focused on the user aspect; however, few studies have examined the phisher perspective and the social psychological techniques they are implementing. Additionally, they have yet to look at the success of the social psychology techniques. Results from this study can be used to help to predict future trends and inform training programs, as well as machine learning programs used to identify phishing messages.","PeriodicalId":163427,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Symposium and Bootcamp on the Science of Security","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the Symposium and Bootcamp on the Science of Security","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2898375.2898382","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Phishing is a social engineering tactic used to trick people into revealing personal information [Zielinska, Tembe, Hong, Ge, Murphy-Hill, & Mayhorn 2014]. As phishing emails continue to infiltrate users' mailboxes, what social engineering techniques are the phishers using to successfully persuade victims into releasing sensitive information? Cialdini's [2007] six principles of persuasion (authority, social proof, liking/similarity, commitment/consistency, scarcity, and reciprocation) have been linked to elements of phishing emails [Akbar 2014; Ferreira, & Lenzini 2015]; however, the findings have been conflicting. Authority and scarcity were found as the most common persuasion principles in 207 emails obtained from a Netherlands database [Akbar 2014], while liking/similarity was the most common principle in 52 personal emails available in Luxemborg and England [Ferreira et al. 2015]. The purpose of this study was to examine the persuasion principles present in emails available in the United States over a period of five years. Two reviewers assessed eight hundred eighty-seven phishing emails from Arizona State University, Brown University, and Cornell University for Cialdini's six principles of persuasion. Each email was evaluated using a questionnaire adapted from the Ferreira et al. [2015] study. There was an average agreement of 87% per item between the two raters. Spearman's Rho correlations were used to compare email characteristics over time. During the five year period under consideration (2010--2015), the persuasion principles of commitment/consistency and scarcity have increased over time, while the principles of reciprocation and social proof have decreased over time. Authority and liking/similarity revealed mixed results with certain characteristics increasing and others decreasing. The commitment/consistency principle could be seen in the increase of emails referring to elements outside the email to look more reliable, such as Google Docs or Adobe Reader (rs(850) = .12, p =.001), while the scarcity principle could be seen in urgent elements that could encourage users to act quickly and may have had success in eliciting a response from users (rs(850) = .09, p =.01). Reciprocation elements, such as a requested reply, decreased over time (rs(850) = -.12, p =.001). Additionally, the social proof principle present in emails by referring to actions performed by other users also decreased (rs(850) = -.10, p =.01). Two persuasion principles exhibited both an increase and decrease in their presence in emails over time: authority and liking/similarity. These principles could increase phishing rate success if used appropriately, but could also raise suspicions in users and decrease compliance if used incorrectly. Specifically, the source of the email, which corresponds to the authority principle, displayed an increase over time in educational institutes (rs(850) = .21, p <.001), but a decrease in financial institutions (rs(850) = -.18, p <.001). Similarly, the liking/similarity principle revealed an increase over time of logos present in emails (rs(850) = .18, p <.001) and decrease in service details, such as payment information (rs(850) = -.16, p <.001). The results from this study offer a different perspective regarding phishing. Previous research has focused on the user aspect; however, few studies have examined the phisher perspective and the social psychological techniques they are implementing. Additionally, they have yet to look at the success of the social psychology techniques. Results from this study can be used to help to predict future trends and inform training programs, as well as machine learning programs used to identify phishing messages.
有说服力的网络钓鱼:检查隐藏在网络钓鱼电子邮件中的社会心理学原理
网络钓鱼是一种用来诱骗人们泄露个人信息的社会工程策略[Zielinska, Tembe, Hong, Ge, Murphy-Hill, & Mayhorn 2014]。随着网络钓鱼邮件不断渗入用户的邮箱,网络钓鱼者使用了哪些社会工程技术来成功地说服受害者释放敏感信息?Cialdini[2007]的六个说服原则(权威,社会证明,喜欢/相似,承诺/一致性,稀缺性和回报)与网络钓鱼电子邮件的元素有关[Akbar 2014;Ferreira, & Lenzini 2015];然而,研究结果却相互矛盾。从荷兰数据库获得的207封电子邮件中,权威和稀缺性被发现是最常见的说服原则[Akbar 2014],而在卢森堡和英国的52封个人电子邮件中,喜欢/相似是最常见的原则[Ferreira et al. 2015]。这项研究的目的是研究美国五年来电子邮件中出现的说服原则。两位评论者评估了来自亚利桑那州立大学、布朗大学和康奈尔大学的887封网络钓鱼邮件,得出了Cialdini的6条说服原则。每封电子邮件都使用了Ferreira等人[2015]研究的问卷进行评估。两名评分者在每个项目上的平均一致性为87%。斯皮尔曼的Rho相关性被用来比较不同时期的电子邮件特征。在研究的五年期间(2010- 2015),承诺/一致性和稀缺性的说服原则随着时间的推移而增加,而回报和社会认同的原则随着时间的推移而减少。权威和喜欢/相似度显示出混合结果,某些特征增加而其他特征减少。承诺/一致性原则可以在电子邮件中看到,电子邮件中引用的元素增加,看起来更可靠,如Google Docs或Adobe Reader (rs(850) =. 12, p =.001),而稀缺原则可以在紧急元素中看到,可以鼓励用户迅速采取行动,并可能成功地引起用户的回应(rs(850) =. 09, p =.01)。响应元素,如请求的回复,随着时间的推移而减少(rs(850) = -)。12, p =.001)。此外,通过参考其他用户的行为而呈现在电子邮件中的社会证明原则也减少了(rs(850) = -)。10, p = 0.01)。随着时间的推移,有两种说服原则在电子邮件中的出现次数既增加又减少:权威原则和喜欢/相似原则。如果使用得当,这些原则可以提高网络钓鱼成功率,但如果使用不当,也可能引起用户的怀疑并降低遵从性。具体而言,与权威原则相对应的电子邮件来源,随着时间的推移,教育机构的电子邮件来源呈增加趋势(rs(850) = .21, p <.001),而金融机构的电子邮件来源呈下降趋势(rs(850) = -)。18, p < 0.001)。同样,喜欢/相似原则显示,随着时间的推移,电子邮件中出现的徽标数量增加(rs(850) = .18, p <.001),服务细节(如付款信息)减少(rs(850) = -)。16, p < 0.001)。这项研究的结果为网络钓鱼提供了一个不同的视角。以往的研究主要集中在用户方面;然而,很少有研究检查了钓鱼者的观点和他们正在实施的社会心理技术。此外,他们还没有看到社会心理学技术的成功。这项研究的结果可以用来帮助预测未来的趋势,并为培训计划提供信息,以及用于识别网络钓鱼消息的机器学习程序。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信