ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Command line or pretty lines?: comparing textual and visual interfaces for intrusion detection
Full text PdfPdf (646 KB)
Source
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems archive
Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems table of contents
San Jose, California, USA
SESSION: Input techniques table of contents
Page: 1205  
Year of Publication: 2007
ISBN:978-1-59593-593-9
Authors
Ramona Su Thompson  University of Illinois, Urbana, IL
Esa M. Rantanen  University of Illinois, Urbana, IL
William Yurcik  University of Illinois, Urbana, IL
Brian P. Bailey  University of Illinois, Urbana, IL
Sponsors
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
SIGCHI: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 21,   Downloads (12 Months): 111,   Citation Count: 3
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1240624.1240807
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Intrusion detection (ID) is one of network security engineers' most important tasks. Textual (command-line) and visual interfaces are two common modalities used to support engineers in ID. We conducted a controlled experiment comparing a representative textual and visual interface for ID to develop a deeper understanding about the relative strengths and weaknesses of each. We found that the textual interface allows users to better control the analysis of details of the data through the use of rich, powerful, and flexible commands while the visual interface allows better discovery of new attacks by offering an overview of the current state of the network. With this understanding, we recommend designing a hybrid interface that combines the strengths of textual and visual interfaces for the next generation of tools used for intrusion detection.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
Cisco Systems NetFlow Services Export Version 9, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3954.txt, 2004.
 
2
Network- vs. Host-based Intrusion Detection http://www.vigilar.com/wps/ISS/network_vs_hostbased_ids.pdf, ISS: Internet Secruity Systems white paper, 1998.
 
3
4
5
6
 
7
8
9
 
10
Goodall, J.R., Lutters, W.G. and Komlodi, A., The Work of Intrusion Detection: Rethinking the Role of Security Analysts. AMCIS, (2004), 1421--1427.
 
11
12
13
14
15
 
16
Kandogan, E. and Haber, E. Security Administration Tools and Practices. in Cranon, L. and Garfinkel, S. eds. Security and Usability: Designing Secure Systems that People Can Use, O'Reilly, Beijing, 2005, 357--376.
17
 
18
Killcrece, G., Kossakowski, K., Ruefle, R. and Zajicek, M. State of the Practice of Computer Security Response Teams (CSIRTs), Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute (SEI), 2003.
19
20
21
 
22
 
23
Thompson, R.S., Rantanen, E. and Yurcik, W., Network Intrusion Detection Cognitive Task Analysis: Textual and Visual Tool Usage and Recommendations. Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, (2006).
24
 
25
Yurcik, W., Barlow, J. and Rosendale, J., Maintaining Perspective on Who is the Enemy in the Security Systems Administration of Computer Networks. CHI Workshop on System Administrators Are Users, Too: Designing Workspaces for Managing Internet--Scale Systems, (2003).


Collaborative Colleagues:
Ramona Su Thompson: colleagues
Esa M. Rantanen: colleagues
William Yurcik: colleagues
Brian P. Bailey: colleagues