ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Sesame: informing user security decisions with system visualization
Full text FlvFlv (27:32),  PdfPdf (1.34 MB)
Source
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems archive
Proceeding of the twenty-sixth annual SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems table of contents
Florence, Italy
SESSION: Am I Safe table of contents
Pages 1045-1054  
Year of Publication: 2008
ISBN:978-1-60558-011-1
Authors
Jennifer Stoll  Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA
Craig S. Tashman  Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA
W. Keith Edwards  Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA
Kyle Spafford  Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA
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): 16,   Downloads (12 Months): 224,   Citation Count: 2
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/10.1145/1357054.1357217
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Non-expert users face a dilemma when making security decisions. Their security often cannot be fully automated for them, yet they generally lack both the motivation and technical knowledge to make informed security decisions on their own. To help users with this dilemma, we present a novel security user interface called Sesame. Sesame uses a concrete, spatial extension of the desktop metaphor to provide users with the security-related, visualized system-level information they need to make more informed decisions. It also provides users with actionable controls to affect a system's security state. Sesame graphically facilitates users' comprehension in making these decisions, and in doing so helps to lower the bar for motivating them to participate in the security of their system. In a controlled study, users with Sesame were found to make fewer errors than a control group which suggests that our novel security interface is a viable alternative approach to helping users with their dilemma.


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
2
3
4
 
5
Edwards, W. K., Shehan, E., Stoll, J. Security Automation Considered Harmful? NSPW (2007)
 
6
Flinn, S.A., Flock of Birds, Safely Staged. DIMACS Workshop on Usable Privacy & Security Software (2005).
 
7
 
8
Hutchins, E., Hollan, J., Norman, D. Direct Manipulation Interfaces. Human Computer Interaction, 1985. 1: p. 311--338.
 
9
Know Your Enemy: Tracking Botnets. Honeynet Project and Research Alliance. honeynet.org/papers/bots (2005).
 
10
11
12
 
13
Spyware. NISCC Technical Note. National Infrastructure Security Coordination Centre. (2006).
 
14
Thorpe, S., Fize, D. & Marlot, C. (1996).Speed of processing in the human visual system. Nature, 381, 520--522.
 
15
 
16
Whalen, T., Inkpen, K. Techniques for Visual Feedback of Security State. DIMACS Workshop on Usable Privacy and Security Software (2004).
 
17
Whitten, A., Tygar, J. Safe Security Staging. CHI 2003 Workshop on Human-Computer Interaction and Security Systems (2003).
 
18
Whitten, A., Tygar, J., Why Johnny Can't Encrypt. Proc. of the 8th USENIX Security Symposium (1999).
19
20
21
 
22
www.sysinternals.com/Utilities/


Collaborative Colleagues:
Jennifer Stoll: colleagues
Craig S. Tashman: colleagues
W. Keith Edwards: colleagues
Kyle Spafford: colleagues