Human in cybersecurity: Teach a man to phish...

Social engineering attacks, especially phishing attacks, have come a long way from simple Nigerian prince mails although, this tried and widespread tactic still rakes a lot of money using the most basic of all human drives, greed.

These days, we are more likely to see advanced forms of phishing attacks that target a specific person or group. Examples of such mail are numerous, and all it takes to find one is to open your own email inbox.

Fast development of AI made phishing easier than ever with plethora of tools that aid the attackers with omitting telltale signs of old; wonky translations and grammatic or/and spelling errors.

Tackling the Phish

To successfully combat advanced phishing mails, most organizations rely on establishing education programs and conducting email phishing tests as often as possible. However, as some examples show¹, spamming the employees with daily phishing mails is not only counterproductive, but also dangerous for organizations especially if failing the phishing test results with sanctions and punishment.

As Frank Herbert wrote, “Fear is the mind-killer”, and most people tend to lose themselves in a constant state of anxiety about some unknown attacker lurking from the shadows, be it a malicious hacker or a member of the IT security team trying to prove that nobody is safe. That’s why most phishing tests tend to be a double-edged sword, a mechanism more likely to cause distrust towards the security team and apathy among employees if not used correctly than part of user centric education program designed to give the employee the tools needed to take active stance in defense of organization.

Teach a Man to Phish…

Well then, how to phish? With precision and with the employee in mind, using different phishing templates that are more or less difficult to recognize. And to adequately assess the “hardness” of phishing mail, we need a methodology that can cover most of the scenarios we use in testing and that allows us to measure the evolution of employee’s resilience.

In order to rate the mails we use to test our employees, we can use the NIST Phish Scale², a method that allows us to easily measure the detection difficulty of a phishing mail.

The Scale is biaxial, with one axis providing us with “A scoring system for observable characteristics of the phishing mail itself”, and other with “A scoring system for alignment of the phishing email premise with the respect to a target audience”³. In short, one axis tells us “How dirty the phishing mail is?”, while other tells “How appropriate the mail is?”.

To assess how “dirty” the phishing is, NIST provided us a set of email cues that are distributed into five big categories⁴:

1. Errors – relating to spelling and grammar errors and inconsistencies contained in the message;

2. Technical indicators – pertaining to email addresses, hyperlinks and attachments;

3. Visual presentation indicators – relating to branding, logos, design and formatting;

4. Language and content – such as a generic greeting and lack of signer details, use of time pressure and threatening language; and

5. Common tactics – use of humanitarian appeals, “too good to be true” offers, time-limited offers, poses as a friend, colleague, or authority figure, and so on.

After we used the afore mentioned categories of cues to analyze the “dirtiness” of phishing mail, it remains to be seen how aligned the premise of the phishing mail is to the context of the organization we are testing. Phish Scale states that:

Premise alignment is a measure of how closely an email matches the work roles or responsibilities of an email’s recipient or organization. The stronger an email’s premise alignment, the more difficult it is to detect as a phish. Inversely, the weaker an email’s premise alignment, the easier it is to detect as a phish.

Using this method, we can finally, and with high precision, determine the “difficulty” of specific phishing mail.

But that’s only half of the picture… To have a clear picture of an organization’s resilience to phishing attacks, we need to correlate how user react on phishing emails.

Downstream or Upstream?

To do that, we need to categorize how employees react when challenged with phishing mail in one of the four categories (from better to worse):

1. Didn’t click and reported

2. Clicked and reported

3. Didn’t click and didn’t report

4. Clicked and didn’t report

Let’s say that we have 4 different employees that are being tested, Amy, John, Doug, and Winston.

Winston receives the phishing mail, opens the included link, and doesn’t report anything to the security team. This is the least favorable behavior because it leaves our organization possibly penetrated and our security team blind.

John on the other hand, receives the phishing mail, sees it’s a fake, deletes it from his inbox and carries on with his daily activities without notifying the security team. This still isn’t good enough. Although John can recognize phishing mail, the security team is still blind. Winston clicked, the organization is possibly compromised, and a report from John could have helped the security team to respond accordingly.

Doug, distracted from all the work and deadlines, clicked the link in the phishing mail. But Doug then recognized that the URL address was wrong and that the landing site was fake. He recognizes that he erred and reports his actions to the security team. This is good for several reasons. Firstly, Doug trusts the security team enough to admit he did wrong. Secondly, the security team now knows that the organization is a target of a phishing campaign and, based on that information, they can block the sender, pull all the similar emails from employees’ inboxes, issue a warning, or even force all the employees to change their passwords.

Finally, we have Amy. She didn’t click and she reported the phishing mail to the security team. She recognized the phishing mail and took an active stance in defending the organization. This is the most favorable course of action that an employee can take when faced with phishing mail.

The Resilience of the School

Once we categorized the behavior of our employees into four said categories, we take the worst and the best results and calculate the resilience score of the organization:

Let’s analyze a specific case. In the graph below we can see the results that Organization A scored on phishing test:

In short, resilience score for this specific organization is:

Ok, now we have a number that is derived from click and report rates. How do we determine if an organization is resilient or not? We use the thresholds.

For instance, in the context of the tests that we conducted⁵, we defined the following thresholds:

So, based on the thresholds we defined, Organization A from our previous example is not resilient enough and needs to work on raising the awareness of employees.

Wild Blue Ponder

However, now that we have all this data, a new challenge arises! How to compare results from different campaigns? How to keep track of improvement or deterioration of our employee’s resilience to phishing attack?

We introduce ponders that help us in comparing the campaigns of different difficulty. If this sounds a little bit complex, you are right. It takes a long road to go from a Nigerian prince to resilience score ponders.

Let’s go back to the beginning and illustrate how to get the most complete picture of organization resilience and how to compare it with other results:

1. Determine the difficulty of phishing mail

2. Send the mail to targets

3. Gather the info about reports

4. Categorize the behavior into one of four categories

5. Calculate the resilience score

6. Ponder the resilience score based on the difficulty of phishing mail

Based on our experience, the ponders are:

• Least difficult mail = 1

• Moderately difficult mail = 2,5

• Very difficult mail = 4

So, after we multiply the resilience score with appropriate ponder, we can track it through multiple campaigns which gives us ability to reevaluate our awareness raising educations and our employee’s readiness.

Here’s drill down a comparison of results:

Not the only Phish in the Sea

The phishing story isn’t all about the click, but reporting, about education, and about continuous testing that strives to empower the employees, not to sanction them. In the end, it’s about building the relationship of trust and mutual respect between employees and the security team.

References