Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Saturday February 04 2017, @02:23PM   Printer-friendly
from the darned-monkey-brain dept.

Companies spend nearly $100 billion on securing computers each year, yet incidents such as ransomware crippling hospitals and personal data leaking online remain common. Anthony Vance thinks that defensive measures could be more effective if we paid more attention to the hardware between our ears.

"Security professionals need to worry not only about attackers but the neurobiology of their users," said Vance, an associate professor at Brigham Young University, this week at the Enigma security conference in Oakland, California. His lab uses functional MRI scans of people's brains to reveal the unconscious mechanisms behind the way they perceive—or ignore—security warnings.

One of Vance's studies led him to collaborate with Google on tests of a new approach to displaying security warnings in the Chrome Web browser that people were less likely to dismiss offhand. Vance says Google's engineers told him they plan to add the feature to an upcoming version of Chrome. Google did not respond to a request for confirmation of when it would be added.

Multitasking is partly to blame. Vance's collaboration with Google grew out of experiments that showed when people reacted to security warnings while also performing another task, brain activity in areas associated with fully engaging with a warning was significantly reduced. People were three times less likely to correctly interpret a message when they reacted to security warnings while also performing another task.

Vance's lab teamed up with Google to test a version of Chrome modified to deliver warnings about a person's computer possibly being infected by malware or adware only when they weren't deeply engaged in something. For example, it would wait until someone finished watching a video, or was waiting for a file to download or upload, to pop up the message.

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Sunday February 05 2017, @10:11AM

    by Scruffy Beard 2 (6030) on Sunday February 05 2017, @10:11AM (#463071)

    I had to look up the difference between a tool and an appliance:

    2 a a piece of equipment for adapting a tool or machine to a special purpose : attachment
    b an instrument or device designed for a particular use or function ; specifically : a household or office device (such as a stove, fan, or refrigerator) operated by gas or electric current.

    - Definition of appliance [merriam-webster.com]

    So the vibe I am getting from those definitions is that "tools" are general-purpose, while appliances are task-specific.

    But then, if you check the definition of "tool", you get the task-specific thing again:

    A device or implement, especially one held in the hand, used to carry out a particular function.

    - tool [oxforddictionaries.com]

    So I am confused again, but maybe I just need sleep.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by darkfeline on Sunday February 05 2017, @09:29PM

    by darkfeline (1030) on Sunday February 05 2017, @09:29PM (#463190) Homepage

    One does something with a tool, while an appliance does something for you. For example, you chop onions with a knife, while a food processor chops onions for you. Appliances can be adapted as tools to some extent, but not the other way around. (Hence why people who want computer tools can make do with computer apps, albeit unhappily, but people who want computer apps can't use computer tools.)

    Of course definitions aren't exact, so YMMV.

    --
    Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!