skip to main content
10.1145/3468784.3468789acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesiaitConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Human Factors in Cybersecurity: A Scoping Review

Authors:
Tashfiq Rahman
King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi, Bangkok, Thailand
,
Rohani Rohan
King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi, Bangkok, Thailand
,
Debajyoti Pal
King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi, Bangkok, Thailand
,
Prasert Kanthamanon
King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi, Bangkok, Thailand
Authors Info & Claims
Published: 20 July 2021 Publication History

Abstract

Humans are often considered to be the weakest link in the cybersecurity chain. However, traditionally the Computer Science (CS) researchers have investigated the technical aspects of cybersecurity, focusing on the encryption and network security mechanisms. The human aspect although very important is often neglected. In this work we carry out a scoping review to investigate the take of the CS community on the human-centric cybersecurity paradigm by considering the top conferences on network and computer security for the past six years. Results show that broadly two types of users are considered: expert and non-expert users. Qualitative techniques dominate the research methodology employed, however, there is a lack of focus on the theoretical aspects. Moreover, the samples have a heavy bias towards the Western community, due to which the results cannot be generalized, and the effect of culture on cybersecurity is a lesser known aspect. Another issue is with respect to the unavailability of standardized security-specific scales that can measure the cybersecurity perception of the users. New insights are obtained and avenues for future research are presented.

References

[1]
Acar, Y. 2017. Security Developer Studies with GitHub Users: Exploring a Convenience Sample. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2017) (2017), 81–95.
[2]
Acar, Y. 2016. You Get Where You're Looking for: The Impact of Information Sources on Code Security. Proceedings - 2016 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, SP 2016 (2016), 289–305.
[3]
Adams, D. 2019. Ethics emerging: The story of privacy and security perceptions in virtual reality. Proceedings of the 14th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, SOUPS 2018 (2019), 427–442.
[4]
Alomar, N. 2020. “You've got your nice list of bugs, now what?” Vulnerability discovery and management processes in the wild. Proceedings of the 16th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, SOUPS 2020 (2020), 319–340.
[5]
Angulo, J. 2015. “WTH.!?!” Experiences, reactions, and expectations related to online privacy panic situations. Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (2015), 19–38.
[6]
Baki, S. 2017. Scaling and effectiveness of email masquerade attacks: Exploiting natural language generation. ASIA CCS 2017 - Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Asia Conference on Computer and Communications Security (2017), 469–482.
[7]
Le Blond, S. 2018. On Enforcing the Digital Immunity of a Large Humanitarian Organization. Proceedings - IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (2018), 424–440.
[8]
Blythe, J.M. 2019. Unpacking security policy compliance: The motivators and barriers of employees’ security behaviors. SOUPS 2015 - Proceedings of the 11th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (2019), 103–122.
[9]
Chen, P. 2007. Finding scientific gems with Google's PageRank algorithm. Journal of Informetrics. 1, 1 (2007), 8–15.
[10]
Dunn, M.H. and Merkle, L.D. 2018. Assessing the Impact of a National Cybersecurity Competition on Students’ Career Interests. Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (New York, NY, USA, 2018), 62–67.
[11]
Enev, M. 2015. Automobile Driver Fingerprinting. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies (2015), 34–50.
[12]
Faklaris, C. 2019. A self-report measure of end-user security attitudes (SA-6). Proceedings of the 15th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, SOUPS 2019 (2019), 61–77.
[13]
Frik, A. 2019. Privacy and security threat models and mitigation strategies of older adults. Proceedings of the 15th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, SOUPS 2019 (2019), 21–40.
[14]
Frik, A. 2020. The impact of ad-blockers on product search and purchase behavior: A lab experiment. Proceedings of the 29th USENIX Security Symposium (2020), 163–179.
[15]
Hamm, P. 2019. A Systematic Analysis of User Evaluations in Security Research. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security (New York, NY, USA, 2019).
[16]
Humayun, M. 2020. Cyber Security Threats and Vulnerabilities: A Systematic Mapping Study. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering. 45, 4 (2020), 3171–3189.
[17]
Jayakrishnan, G.C. 2020. Passworld: A Serious Game to Promote Password Awareness and Diversity in an Enterprise. Proceedings of the 16th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, SOUPS 2020 (2020), 1–18.
[18]
Jeong, J. 2019. Towards an Improved Understanding of Human Factors in Cybersecurity. 2019 IEEE 5th International Conference on Collaboration and Internet Computing (CIC) (2019), 338–345.
[19]
Kitkowska, A. 2020. Enhancing privacy through the visual design of privacy notices: Exploring the interplay of curiosity, control and affect. Proceedings of the 16th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, SOUPS 2020 (2020), 437–456.
[20]
Lebeck, K. 2018. Towards Security and Privacy for Multi-user Augmented Reality: Foundations with End Users. 2018 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) (2018), 392–408.
[21]
Lee, I. 2020. Internet of Things (IoT) Cybersecurity: Literature Review and IoT Cyber Risk Management. Future Internet .
[22]
Li, F. 2019. Keepers of the machines: Examining how system administrators manage software updates. Proceedings of the 15th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, SOUPS 2019 (2019), 273–288.
[23]
van der Linden, D. 2020. Pets without PETs: on pet owners’ under-estimation of privacy concerns in pet wearables. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies (2020), 143–164.
[24]
Mathur, A. and Chetty, M. 2017. Impact of User Characteristics on Attitudes Towards Automatic Mobile Application Updates Impact of User Characteristics on Attitudes Towards. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2017) (2017), 175–193.
[25]
Michalec, O.A. 2020. Industry Responses to the European Directive on Security of Network and Information Systems ( NIS ): Understanding policy implementation practices across critical infrastructures This paper is included in the Proceedings of the Sixteenth Symposium on Usab. Soups (2020).
[26]
Minkov, M. and Hofstede, G. 2011. The evolution of Hofstede's doctrine. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal. 18, 1 (Jan. 2011), 10–20.
[27]
Mu, D. 2018. Understanding the reproducibility of crowd-reported security vulnerabilities. Proceedings of the 27th USENIX Security Symposium (2018), 919–936.
[28]
Munn, Z. 2014. Establishing confidence in the output of qualitative research synthesis: the ConQual approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 14, 1 (2014), 108.
[29]
Nurse, J.R.C.C. 2018. “ It ’ s Scary ... It ’ s Confusing ... It ’ s Dull ”: How Cybersecurity Advocates Overcome Negative Perceptions of Security This paper is included in the Proceedings of the " It ’ s Scary ... It ’ s Confusing ... It ’ s Dull ": How Cybersecurity Advocate. Risk Analysis (2018), 1337–1342.
[30]
Oates, M. 2018. Turtles, locks, and bathrooms: Understanding mental models of privacy through illustration. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies (2018), 5–32.
[31]
Oliveira, D.S. 2018. API Blindspots: Why Experienced Developers Write Vulnerable Code. Proceedings of the 14th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, SOUPS 2018 (2018), 315–328.
[32]
Palombo, H. 2020. An ethnographic understanding of software (In)security and a co-creation model to improve secure software development. Proceedings of the 16th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, SOUPS 2020 (2020), 205–220.
[33]
Palombo, H. 2020. An Ethnographic Understanding of Software (In)Security and a Co-Creation Model to Improve Secure Software Development. Sixteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security ({SOUPS} 2020) (Aug. 2020), 205–220.
[34]
Peters, M.D.J. 2015. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. International journal of evidence-based healthcare. 13, 3 (Sep. 2015), 141–146.
[35]
Redmiles, E.M. 2019. How Well Do My Results Generalize? Comparing Security and Privacy Survey Results from MTurk, Web, and Telephone Samples. Proceedings - IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (2019), 1326–1343.
[36]
Redmiles, E.M. 2019. “Should I Worry?” A Cross-Cultural Examination of Account Security Incident Response. 2019 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) (2019), 920–934.
[37]
Ruoti, S. 2019. A comparative usability study of key management in secure email. Proceedings of the 14th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, SOUPS 2018 (2019), 375–394.
[38]
Ruoti, S. 2019. Weighing Context and Trade-offs: How suburban adults selected their online security posture. Proceedings of the 13th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, SOUPS 2017 (2019), 211–228.
[39]
Sánchez-Gordón, M. and Colomo-Palacios, R. 2020. Security as Culture: A Systematic Literature Review of DevSecOps. Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering Workshops (New York, NY, USA, 2020), 266–269.
[40]
Suryotrisongko, H. and Musashi, Y. 2019. Review of Cybersecurity Research Topics, Taxonomy and Challenges: Interdisciplinary Perspective. 2019 IEEE 12th Conference on Service-Oriented Computing and Applications (SOCA) (2019), 162–167.
[41]
Švábenský, V. 2020. What Are Cybersecurity Education Papers About? A Systematic Literature Review of SIGCSE and ITiCSE Conferences. Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (New York, NY, USA, 2020), 2–8.
[42]
Tahaei, M. and Vaniea, K. 2019. A Survey on Developer-Centred Security. 2019 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy Workshops (EuroS&PW) (2019), 129–138.
[43]
Tiefenau, C. 2020. Security, availability, and multiple information sources: Exploring update behavior of system administrators. Proceedings of the 16th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, SOUPS 2020 (2020), 239–258.
[44]
van de Ven, A.H. 1989. Nothing Is Quite so Practical as a Good Theory. The Academy of Management Review. 14, 4 (1989), 486–489.
[45]
Votipka, D. 2018. Hackers vs. Testers: A Comparison of Software Vulnerability Discovery Processes. Proceedings - IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (2018), 374–391.
[46]
Zhang-Kennedy, L. 2018. The aftermath of a crypto-ransomware attack at a large academic institution. Proceedings of the 27th USENIX Security Symposium (2018), 1061–1078.
[47]
Zhu, F. 2011. Reciprocity Attacks. Proceedings of the Seventh Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (New York, NY, USA, 2011).

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Human Factors in CybersecuritySmart and Agile Cybersecurity for IoT and IIoT Environments10.4018/979-8-3693-3451-5.ch011(235-256)Online publication date: 30-Jun-2024
  • (2024)Leveraging Human-Centric Cybersecurity to Improve Usage of National Digital Identity Systems in AustraliaComputer10.1109/MC.2024.339552357:7(87-98)Online publication date: Jul-2024
  • (2024)Evaluating privacy, security, and trust perceptions in conversational AIComputers in Human Behavior10.1016/j.chb.2024.108344159:COnline publication date: 1-Oct-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Human Factors in Cybersecurity: A Scoping Review
          Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Information & Contributors

          Information

          Published In

          cover image ACM Other conferences
          IAIT '21: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Advances in Information Technology
          June 2021
          281 pages
          ISBN:9781450390125
          DOI:10.1145/3468784
          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from Permissions@acm.org

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          Published: 20 July 2021

          Permissions

          Request permissions for this article.

          Check for updates

          Author Tags

          1. Culture
          2. Cybersecurity
          3. Human factors
          4. Theory

          Qualifiers

          • Research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed limited

          Conference

          IAIT2021

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate 20 of 47 submissions, 43%

          Contributors

          Other Metrics

          Bibliometrics & Citations

          Bibliometrics

          Article Metrics

          • Downloads (Last 12 months)668
          • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)69
          Reflects downloads up to 07 Aug 2024

          Other Metrics

          Citations

          Cited By

          View all
          • (2024)Human Factors in CybersecuritySmart and Agile Cybersecurity for IoT and IIoT Environments10.4018/979-8-3693-3451-5.ch011(235-256)Online publication date: 30-Jun-2024
          • (2024)Leveraging Human-Centric Cybersecurity to Improve Usage of National Digital Identity Systems in AustraliaComputer10.1109/MC.2024.339552357:7(87-98)Online publication date: Jul-2024
          • (2024)Evaluating privacy, security, and trust perceptions in conversational AIComputers in Human Behavior10.1016/j.chb.2024.108344159:COnline publication date: 1-Oct-2024
          • (2024)Educators’ Cybersecurity Vulnerabilities in Marginalised Schools in South AfricaSouth African Computer Science and Information Systems Research Trends10.1007/978-3-031-64881-6_20(347-360)Online publication date: 8-Jul-2024
          • (2024)Cybersecurity for Higher Education Institutions: General Strategy VisionInformation Technology and Systems10.1007/978-3-031-54235-0_13(139-148)Online publication date: 27-Feb-2024
          • (2023)Enhancing Microsoft 365 Security: Integrating Digital Forensics Analysis to Detect and Mitigate Adversarial Behavior PatternsForensic Sciences10.3390/forensicsci30300303:3(394-425)Online publication date: 19-Jul-2023
          • (2023)Exploring the Frontiers of Cybersecurity Behavior: A Systematic Review of Studies and TheoriesApplied Sciences10.3390/app1309570013:9(5700)Online publication date: 5-May-2023
          • (2023)The Intersectionality of Offensive Cybersecurity and Human Factors: A Position PaperScientific Bulletin10.2478/bsaft-2023-002228:2(215-233)Online publication date: 11-Dec-2023
          • (2023)Enhancing Cybersecurity Resilience: A Comprehensive Analysis of Human Factors and Security Practices Aligned with the NIST Cybersecurity FrameworkProceedings of the 13th International Conference on Advances in Information Technology10.1145/3628454.3629472(1-16)Online publication date: 6-Dec-2023
          • (2023)A Holistic Evaluation Model for Information Security Awareness Programs in Work Environment2023 Eighth International Conference On Mobile And Secure Services (MobiSecServ)10.1109/MobiSecServ58080.2023.10329041(1-4)Online publication date: 4-Nov-2023
          • Show More Cited By

          Media

          Figures

          Other

          Tables

          Share

          Share

          Share this Publication link

          Share on social media

          Get Access

          Get Access

          Get Access

          Login options

          References

          References

          [1]
          Acar, Y. 2017. Security Developer Studies with GitHub Users: Exploring a Convenience Sample. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2017) (2017), 81–95.
          [2]
          Acar, Y. 2016. You Get Where You're Looking for: The Impact of Information Sources on Code Security. Proceedings - 2016 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, SP 2016 (2016), 289–305.
          [3]
          Adams, D. 2019. Ethics emerging: The story of privacy and security perceptions in virtual reality. Proceedings of the 14th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, SOUPS 2018 (2019), 427–442.
          [4]
          Alomar, N. 2020. “You've got your nice list of bugs, now what?” Vulnerability discovery and management processes in the wild. Proceedings of the 16th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, SOUPS 2020 (2020), 319–340.
          [5]
          Angulo, J. 2015. “WTH.!?!” Experiences, reactions, and expectations related to online privacy panic situations. Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (2015), 19–38.
          [6]
          Baki, S. 2017. Scaling and effectiveness of email masquerade attacks: Exploiting natural language generation. ASIA CCS 2017 - Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Asia Conference on Computer and Communications Security (2017), 469–482.
          [7]
          Le Blond, S. 2018. On Enforcing the Digital Immunity of a Large Humanitarian Organization. Proceedings - IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (2018), 424–440.
          [8]
          Blythe, J.M. 2019. Unpacking security policy compliance: The motivators and barriers of employees’ security behaviors. SOUPS 2015 - Proceedings of the 11th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (2019), 103–122.
          [9]
          Chen, P. 2007. Finding scientific gems with Google's PageRank algorithm. Journal of Informetrics. 1, 1 (2007), 8–15.
          [10]
          Dunn, M.H. and Merkle, L.D. 2018. Assessing the Impact of a National Cybersecurity Competition on Students’ Career Interests. Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (New York, NY, USA, 2018), 62–67.
          [11]
          Enev, M. 2015. Automobile Driver Fingerprinting. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies (2015), 34–50.
          [12]
          Faklaris, C. 2019. A self-report measure of end-user security attitudes (SA-6). Proceedings of the 15th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, SOUPS 2019 (2019), 61–77.
          [13]
          Frik, A. 2019. Privacy and security threat models and mitigation strategies of older adults. Proceedings of the 15th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, SOUPS 2019 (2019), 21–40.
          [14]
          Frik, A. 2020. The impact of ad-blockers on product search and purchase behavior: A lab experiment. Proceedings of the 29th USENIX Security Symposium (2020), 163–179.
          [15]
          Hamm, P. 2019. A Systematic Analysis of User Evaluations in Security Research. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security (New York, NY, USA, 2019).
          [16]
          Humayun, M. 2020. Cyber Security Threats and Vulnerabilities: A Systematic Mapping Study. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering. 45, 4 (2020), 3171–3189.
          [17]
          Jayakrishnan, G.C. 2020. Passworld: A Serious Game to Promote Password Awareness and Diversity in an Enterprise. Proceedings of the 16th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, SOUPS 2020 (2020), 1–18.
          [18]
          Jeong, J. 2019. Towards an Improved Understanding of Human Factors in Cybersecurity. 2019 IEEE 5th International Conference on Collaboration and Internet Computing (CIC) (2019), 338–345.
          [19]
          Kitkowska, A. 2020. Enhancing privacy through the visual design of privacy notices: Exploring the interplay of curiosity, control and affect. Proceedings of the 16th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, SOUPS 2020 (2020), 437–456.
          [20]
          Lebeck, K. 2018. Towards Security and Privacy for Multi-user Augmented Reality: Foundations with End Users. 2018 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) (2018), 392–408.
          [21]
          Lee, I. 2020. Internet of Things (IoT) Cybersecurity: Literature Review and IoT Cyber Risk Management. Future Internet .
          [22]
          Li, F. 2019. Keepers of the machines: Examining how system administrators manage software updates. Proceedings of the 15th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, SOUPS 2019 (2019), 273–288.
          [23]
          van der Linden, D. 2020. Pets without PETs: on pet owners’ under-estimation of privacy concerns in pet wearables. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies (2020), 143–164.
          [24]
          Mathur, A. and Chetty, M. 2017. Impact of User Characteristics on Attitudes Towards Automatic Mobile Application Updates Impact of User Characteristics on Attitudes Towards. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2017) (2017), 175–193.
          [25]
          Michalec, O.A. 2020. Industry Responses to the European Directive on Security of Network and Information Systems ( NIS ): Understanding policy implementation practices across critical infrastructures This paper is included in the Proceedings of the Sixteenth Symposium on Usab. Soups (2020).
          [26]
          Minkov, M. and Hofstede, G. 2011. The evolution of Hofstede's doctrine. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal. 18, 1 (Jan. 2011), 10–20.
          [27]
          Mu, D. 2018. Understanding the reproducibility of crowd-reported security vulnerabilities. Proceedings of the 27th USENIX Security Symposium (2018), 919–936.
          [28]
          Munn, Z. 2014. Establishing confidence in the output of qualitative research synthesis: the ConQual approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 14, 1 (2014), 108.
          [29]
          Nurse, J.R.C.C. 2018. “ It ’ s Scary ... It ’ s Confusing ... It ’ s Dull ”: How Cybersecurity Advocates Overcome Negative Perceptions of Security This paper is included in the Proceedings of the " It ’ s Scary ... It ’ s Confusing ... It ’ s Dull ": How Cybersecurity Advocate. Risk Analysis (2018), 1337–1342.
          [30]
          Oates, M. 2018. Turtles, locks, and bathrooms: Understanding mental models of privacy through illustration. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies (2018), 5–32.
          [31]
          Oliveira, D.S. 2018. API Blindspots: Why Experienced Developers Write Vulnerable Code. Proceedings of the 14th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, SOUPS 2018 (2018), 315–328.
          [32]
          Palombo, H. 2020. An ethnographic understanding of software (In)security and a co-creation model to improve secure software development. Proceedings of the 16th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, SOUPS 2020 (2020), 205–220.
          [33]
          Palombo, H. 2020. An Ethnographic Understanding of Software (In)Security and a Co-Creation Model to Improve Secure Software Development. Sixteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security ({SOUPS} 2020) (Aug. 2020), 205–220.
          [34]
          Peters, M.D.J. 2015. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. International journal of evidence-based healthcare. 13, 3 (Sep. 2015), 141–146.
          [35]
          Redmiles, E.M. 2019. How Well Do My Results Generalize? Comparing Security and Privacy Survey Results from MTurk, Web, and Telephone Samples. Proceedings - IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (2019), 1326–1343.
          [36]
          Redmiles, E.M. 2019. “Should I Worry?” A Cross-Cultural Examination of Account Security Incident Response. 2019 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) (2019), 920–934.
          [37]
          Ruoti, S. 2019. A comparative usability study of key management in secure email. Proceedings of the 14th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, SOUPS 2018 (2019), 375–394.
          [38]
          Ruoti, S. 2019. Weighing Context and Trade-offs: How suburban adults selected their online security posture. Proceedings of the 13th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, SOUPS 2017 (2019), 211–228.
          [39]
          Sánchez-Gordón, M. and Colomo-Palacios, R. 2020. Security as Culture: A Systematic Literature Review of DevSecOps. Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering Workshops (New York, NY, USA, 2020), 266–269.
          [40]
          Suryotrisongko, H. and Musashi, Y. 2019. Review of Cybersecurity Research Topics, Taxonomy and Challenges: Interdisciplinary Perspective. 2019 IEEE 12th Conference on Service-Oriented Computing and Applications (SOCA) (2019), 162–167.
          [41]
          Švábenský, V. 2020. What Are Cybersecurity Education Papers About? A Systematic Literature Review of SIGCSE and ITiCSE Conferences. Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (New York, NY, USA, 2020), 2–8.
          [42]
          Tahaei, M. and Vaniea, K. 2019. A Survey on Developer-Centred Security. 2019 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy Workshops (EuroS&PW) (2019), 129–138.
          [43]
          Tiefenau, C. 2020. Security, availability, and multiple information sources: Exploring update behavior of system administrators. Proceedings of the 16th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, SOUPS 2020 (2020), 239–258.
          [44]
          van de Ven, A.H. 1989. Nothing Is Quite so Practical as a Good Theory. The Academy of Management Review. 14, 4 (1989), 486–489.
          [45]
          Votipka, D. 2018. Hackers vs. Testers: A Comparison of Software Vulnerability Discovery Processes. Proceedings - IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (2018), 374–391.
          [46]
          Zhang-Kennedy, L. 2018. The aftermath of a crypto-ransomware attack at a large academic institution. Proceedings of the 27th USENIX Security Symposium (2018), 1061–1078.
          [47]
          Zhu, F. 2011. Reciprocity Attacks. Proceedings of the Seventh Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (New York, NY, USA, 2011).