<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Can Johnny actually like security training?</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Joakim Kävrestad</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Evelina Friman</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Joacim Bohlander</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Marcus Nohlberg</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>University of Skövde</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Högskolevägen 1, 541 28 Skövde</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="SE">Sweden</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <fpage>76</fpage>
      <lpage>83</lpage>
      <abstract>
        <p>Information security is a socio technical domain where a lot of traditional e orts has been placed in the technical domain where security has been considered technical and the solutions has been technical. However, it is well know that human behavior plays a key role in information security and the user is often seen as the weakest link in the security chain. As such, information security is a socio-technical property where the social, or human, side needs increased attention. Security training is commonly suggested as the way to improve user behavior but the e ects of various training e orts is also underresearshed. This paper demonstrates how ContextBased MicroTraining (CBMT), a method for information security training, which has been developed over years of researched can be implemented and performs a usability evaluation of that implementation. The paper demonstrates that the CBMT method can aid in development of highly usable security training. The paper also emphasizes the need for user centered design in development of security software intended for end-users.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>eol&gt;CBMT</kwd>
        <kwd>ContextBased MicroTraining</kwd>
        <kwd>Usability</kwd>
        <kwd>Usable security</kwd>
        <kwd>Security training</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>
        1. Introduction
Usability and user-centred design of software is a key aspect of modern software development. Users
seems to be more likely to use software designed to be highly usable, and that is a truism that hardly
surprises anyone. Nevertheless, security functions that are developed to provide users with an added
layer of security often fall short in the usability department [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ]. A challenge when it comes to security
software is that an organisation will strive for an adoption rate of 100% amongst its users so that no
single user can be a weakness in the cybesecurity of that organisation. As such, usability testing of
security features that are supposed to be adopted by every single user is integral [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        Information security is, by its nature, socio-technical [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ] and proper security work must consider
social as well as technical aspects of security [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ]. [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ] describes that Social-Technical Systems
Design (STSD) considers human, social, organizational and technical factors and this is comparable to
how information security is commonly described. Our paper presents a usability evaluation of the
method ContextBased MicroTraining (CBMT), presented in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ], which provide guidelines for how
useful information security training can be performed. CBMT stipulates that information security
training should be delivered to users when they encounter a situation where the training is of direct
relevance. As such, it requires one component able of detecting such situations and one component
that provides the user with training with the goal of improving the users security behaviour, making
CBMT socio-technical in nature.
      </p>
      <p>The goal of the paper is to demonstrate how information security training can be performed
according to the CBMT method and to assess how the method support development of usable information
security training. The focus of this paper is on usability and thus, the social part of STSD. The paper
6th International Workshop on Socio-Technical Perspective in IS development (STPIS’20), June 08–09, 2020, Online
: joakim.kavrestad@his.se (J. Kävrestad); marcus.nohlberg@his.se (M. Nohlberg)
: 0000-0003-2084-9119 (J. Kävrestad); 0000-0001-5962-9995 (M. Nohlberg)</p>
      <p>© 2020 Copyright for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).</p>
      <p>
        CWPErooUrckResehdoinpgs hIStpN:/c1e6u1r3-w-0s.o7r3g CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)
is structured as follows; Section 2 introduces CBMT and brie y presents the ongoing research e ort
around CBMT. Section 3 outlines the methodology used in this paper, Section 4 describes the
usability analysis performed and section 5 relates the usability analysis to the CBMT method. The paper is
concluded in section 6 with a discussion on the papers contributions and directions for future work.
2. Description of CBMT and its development
ContextBased MicroTraining (CBMT) is a method for end user training developed for information
security and awareness training. This paper makes one part of an ongoing design science e ort.
The full research process is based on [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
        ], [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
        ] and[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
        ] and described in Figure 1, below. This paper is
connected to the evaluation phase of the second design cycle, as denoted in Figure 1. The previous
steps in the research is presented in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        CBMT is a method that provides goals and guidelines for implementation of information security
training. It is described as follow [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ]s:
      </p>
      <p>Goals:
• Provide training that users want to make use of, instead of forcing users to participate in the
training
• Include an awareness increasing mechanism
• Require no prior knowledge from the user
• Be short and easy to absorb
• Should minimize annoyance for all users, especially users already familiar with the subject
Guidelines:
• Delivered to users when it is relevant to their current situation. The situation can be constructed
or natural.
• Delivered in short sequences
• Relevant to the users’ current situation
• Include or directly relate to a practical element
• The information presented must in itself be easy to understand
• The most crucial points of the information should be highlighted
• Must be possible to opt-out or skip</p>
      <p>
        The CBMT method is based on the notion that users need motivation to learn [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>
        ] and that they
learn better if learning is combined with a practical element [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>
        ]. CBMT also stipulates that training
should be delivered in a situation where it is of direct relevance to the user, i.e. password training
should be provided to the user when the user is about to create a password, and in short sequences.
This approach is assumed to increase the likelihood that the user makes use of the provided
information and provides a awareness increasing mechanism comparable to security nudges.
      </p>
      <p>
        CBMT requires a technical element that is able to detect situations where a user needs training
and an element containing the training itself. The training is intended to improve the users security
behaviour, and ultimately increase organizational security culture, making CBMT an example of a
socio-technical system as described by [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ]. This paper aims at evaluating the social side of CBMT by
performing a usability analysis of an implementation of CBMT and connecting the results of that to
the theoretical method.
3. Methodology
This study is a multi-disciplinary e ort with researchers in information security working with User
Experience Designer(UXD) experts. The UXD experts performed a usability test of an
implementation of CBMT, hereafter refereed to as the implementation. The implementation was a software that
provided users of a web-site with training on how to create good passwords. It was activated, and
appeared as a pop-up, once a user clicked in the "Create Password" eld of an account registration
form1 and is demonstrated in Figure 2, below. The security researchers analysed the results of the
usability test in regards to the CBMT method.
      </p>
      <p>
        Due to the CoVid-19 situation that a ected the world during 2020, a user participatory usability
study was deemed hard to complete. Instead, the usability analysis was performed as an "individual
expert review" as described by [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
        ]. The "individual expert review" entails that the experts evaluate
the target software in order to nd problem areas that can decrease the users experience of the
software and thus hinder user adoption och correct use. The evaluation includes the experts using the
software and assessing the various steps in the software in great detail. Two UXD experts without
previous knowledge of the implementation or the underlying CBMT theories evaluated the
implementation individually and then combining their results. Having individual experts performing the
evaluation independently and then combine their results increase the validity of the results [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>
        ]. The
1The implementation is demonstrated at :https://rr222cy.github.io/SecurityAssistantWidget/
analysis identi ed problem areas that were categorised according to [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref14">14</xref>
        ] approach for
categorization of problem areas and ranked based on severity. The analysis was then complemented by a one
participant usability analysis, as suggested by [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
        ], that analyzed the following requirements:
• The software should be highly learnable meaning that the user should easily understand the
purpose of the software and how to use it
• The presented text should be understandable to the user meaning that the user should understand
all information presented while using the software
Taking the usability analysis outcomes as input, thematic coding, as described by [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">15</xref>
        ] was used
to identify information relating to the theoretical CBMT method and the identi ed information was
summarised as the result of this study. Information considering the particular implementation rather
than the CBMT method was disregarded in this study since it does not impact the theoretical
foundation of CBMT.
4. Usability analysis
4.1. Expert analysis
This section describes the steps in the performed usability analysis.
      </p>
      <p>
        The implementation was analyzed by two UXD experts using the expert analysis method described
by [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
        ]. To increase validity, the two experts performed the analysis individually and then compared
their results. The analysis revealed the following 22 problem areas:
1. The implementation presents a pop-up that cant be escaped and can be seen as interrupting the
users work ow
2. The "Create password now" button disappears it the user closes the implementation rendering
the user unable to create a password at all
3. The implementation is not expected by the user and forces the user into a work ow the user
did not expect
4. An option to navigate backwards is missing
5. The implementation cannot be closed by clicking outside of the implementation window
6. The user does not get visual feedback when selecting an answer in the Quiz-part of the
implementation
7. The implementation contains emojis that are displayed in di erent ways in di erent browsers
8. The ending "Use this password" button works even if the user did not type any password
9. The user is not made aware of the length of the quiz
10. The graphic included in the implementation does not match the actual implementation
11. The password typed by the user is censored and the censorship cannot be removed
12. The quiz do not provide feedback on correct answers
13. The implementation could include examples on "approved" passwords
14. The implementation could include, or link to, more information about the risks with bad
passwords
15. Some buttons appear to be far from text elements
16. The "Create you password" button is blue while other buttons with similar purpose are yellow
17. The last sentence on the "Create better passwords by making them longer" is confusing
18. The button used to move forwards from the last quiz question says "Next question"
19. Spelling error in question 3
20. The graphic is oddly cropped
21. The strength meter on the "Create password" page could be clari ed with levels
22. The module cannot recognize if a user follows of disregards the presented guidelines
The identi ed issues was further classi ed based on severity as suggested by [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref14">14</xref>
        ]. Issue 1-3 was
classi ed as catastrophic, 4-11 were classi ed as severe, 12 - 18 were classi ed as smaller issues and
19 - 22 was considered cosmetic.
4.2. Usability test
The expert review was followed by a usability test with one participant. The participants was not a
IT professional but considered himself to be a skilled computer user with general knowledge about
security practices. He did, for instance, claim to posses knowledge about how to create strong
passwords before the test started. The usability test was used to validate the results of the expert analysis
and assess the implementation in regards to the following established requirements:
• The software should be highly learnable
• The presented text should be understandable to the user
      </p>
      <p>The usability test suggest that the software ful lls the analyzed requirements. Another insight from
the usability test was that the participant, when asked to create an account using a standard account
creation form, was surprised by the appearance of the implementation. The participant also expressed
concerns about the quiz part of the implementation similar to the problems discovered by the expert
review. The participant did, however, not express any concerns with the software itself, nor did the
participant express any problems understanding the information presented by the implementation. To
summarize, the usability analysis suggests that the implantation ful lled the requirements established
for the usability test. Further, it validates the expert review since several problem areas was identi ed
by the participants, and one was contradicted.
5. Analysis of usability analysis in relation to the CBMT method
To relate the usability analysis to the CBMT method, the results of the usability analysis was analyzed
using thematic coding. The results was classi ed as related to the CBMT method or related to the
implementation itself. The Following bullets was considered to relate to the CBMT method:
• The implementation presents a pop-up that cant be escaped and can be seen as interrupting the
users work ow (From the expert analysis and the usability test)
• The implementation is not expected by the user and forces the user into a work ow the user
did not expect (From the expert analysis and the usability test)
• The implementation is easy to use and provides useful information (from the usability test)
The rst two bullets suggests that a usability hinder is the fact that CBMT states that the users
work ow should be intercepted under certain conditions, namely when a security situation occurs.
In this case, the user does not expect the implementation to be activated since he is not aware of it
and it deviates from the standard behaviour of registration forms. The nal bullet suggests that the
user does nd the implementation useful as tool for learning about security.</p>
      <p>
        The CBMT method, as well as many other common security functions, must interrupt the users
work ow in order to provide its intended function. As the usability analysis highlight this as a
problem it shows that developers of interrupting security functions must take special care to make those
functions as user friendly as possible. The CBMT method attempts to do this by suggesting that
the information presented to users should be in a short and easy-to-digest format. A conundrum
that should require further research it that previous research has shown that being interuptive can
improve security behaviour to the better[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref16">16</xref>
        ], but this analysis suggests that it hinders usability. A
question raised is inevitably how security behaviour can be increased with minimal negative impact
on usability, and what level of interruption that is optimal. that is, however, beyond the scope of this
paper.
6. Conclusions
This paper described the CBMT method developed for information security training and positions it as
a social-technical system that uses technical elements to identify situations where users need training
and then provides training designed to improve the users security related behaviour. We argue that
usability and user-centric design is a key factor in development of security software designed for
endusers as it will increase the adoption rate and acceptance amongst end-users, a pre-requisite in order
to achieve the security function the software is intended to provide.
      </p>
      <p>
        This paper subjects an implementation of CBMT to rigorous usability analysis using an expert
review method where the implementation is scrutinized by UXD experts. The expert review is
complemented by a usability test with one participant and the results are related back to the CBMT method.
The results of the study suggests that the CBMT method can support development of usable security
training algorithms that provide users with easy-to-understand information and serves as a validation
of the CBMT method. This notion aligns well with previous research reporting on user perception of
CBMT-based training [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref17 ref18">17, 18</xref>
        ]. The results contribute to increased knowledge around the human
element of STSD related to information security. The paper also contribute to the practical community
with a concrete demonstration of how information security training can be performed.
      </p>
      <p>
        The main negative nding in the usability analysis is that the implementation was unexpected by
the user and interrupted the users work ow. It is well known that security seldom is the users primary
target making most security functions perceived as interruption the users work ow [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref19 ref20 ref21">19, 20, 21</xref>
        ].
Nevertheless, security functions is a necessity in order to establish a healthy security behaviour. As such,
this study emphasises the need to employ a user-centric approach to development of security
functions in order to minimize annoyance to the greatest extent possible in order to maximize acceptance
and adoption.
      </p>
      <p>The usability analysis performed in this study relied on a methodology that did not require a large
sample of participants. The methodology was chosen since the Covid-19 pandemic made participant
based usability analysis hard to perform under social restrictions that applied world-wide during the
spring of 2020. One could even argue that such a study could contribute to the spread of infection and
thus, putting participants at risk in an unethical manner. Follow-up studies using a participant based
methodology is an obvious direction for future work. Another direction for future work could focus
on evaluation user perception and learning outcomes from using CBMT over en extended period of
time.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          [1]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
            <surname>Coles-Kemp</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R. B.</given-names>
            <surname>Jensen</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C. P.</given-names>
            <surname>Heath</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Too much information: Questioning security in a postdigital society</article-title>
          ,
          <source>in: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems</source>
          ,
          <year>2020</year>
          , pp.
          <fpage>1</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>14</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          [2]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Adams</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M. A.</given-names>
            <surname>Sasse</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Users are not the enemy</article-title>
          ,
          <source>Communications of the ACM</source>
          <volume>42</volume>
          (
          <year>1999</year>
          )
          <fpage>40</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>46</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          [3]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
            <surname>Al Sabbagh</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Kowalski</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>St(cs)2 - featuring socio-technical cyber security warning systems</article-title>
          ,
          <source>in: Proceedings Title: 2012 International Conference on Cyber Security, Cyber Warfare and Digital Forensic (CyberSec)</source>
          ,
          <year>2012</year>
          , pp.
          <fpage>312</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>316</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          [4]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>E.</given-names>
            <surname>Paja</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
            <surname>Dalpiaz</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
            <surname>Giorgini</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Managing security requirements con icts in socio-technical systems</article-title>
          , in: W.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ng</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>V. C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Storey</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J. C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          Trujillo (Eds.),
          <source>Conceptual Modeling</source>
          , Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg,
          <year>2013</year>
          , pp.
          <fpage>270</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>283</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          [5]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
            <surname>Baxter</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>I. Sommerville</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Socio-technical systems: From design methods to systems engineering, Interacting with computers 23 (</article-title>
          <year>2011</year>
          )
          <fpage>4</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>17</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          [6]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Kävrestad</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Nohlberg</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Contextbased microtraining: A framework for information security training</article-title>
          ,
          <source>in: International Symposium on Human Aspects of Information Security and Assurance</source>
          , Springer,
          <year>2020</year>
          , pp.
          <fpage>71</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>81</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          [7]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A. R.</given-names>
            <surname>Hevner</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>A three cycle view of design science research</article-title>
          ,
          <source>Scandinavian journal of information systems 19</source>
          (
          <year>2007</year>
          )
          <article-title>4</article-title>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          [8]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
            <surname>Pe ers</surname>
          </string-name>
          , T. Tuunanen,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M. A.</given-names>
            <surname>Rothenberger</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Chatterjee</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>A design science research methodology for information systems research</article-title>
          ,
          <source>Journal of management information systems 24</source>
          (
          <year>2007</year>
          )
          <fpage>45</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>77</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          [9]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S. T.</given-names>
            <surname>March</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>G. F.</given-names>
            <surname>Smith</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Design and natural science research on information technology, Decision support systems 15 (</article-title>
          <year>1995</year>
          )
          <fpage>251</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>266</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          [10]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Knowles</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Andragogy in action: applying modern principles of adult learning</article-title>
          ,
          <year>1984</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          [11]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Hedin</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Lärande på hög nivå, Uppsala universitet (</article-title>
          <year>2006</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          [12]
          <string-name>
            <surname>C. Wilson,</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>User interface inspection methods: a user-centered design method</article-title>
          ,
          <source>Newnes</source>
          ,
          <year>2013</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <mixed-citation>
          [13]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Hertzum</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>N. E.</given-names>
            <surname>Jacobsen</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Molich</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Usability inspections by groups of specialists: perceived agreement in spite of disparate observations, in: CHI'02 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems</article-title>
          ,
          <year>2002</year>
          , pp.
          <fpage>662</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>663</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref14">
        <mixed-citation>
          [14]
          <string-name>
            <surname>M. J. Kahn</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Prail</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Formal usability inspections</article-title>
          ,
          <source>in: Usability inspection methods</source>
          ,
          <year>1994</year>
          , pp.
          <fpage>141</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>171</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref15">
        <mixed-citation>
          [15]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>V.</given-names>
            <surname>Braun</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>V.</given-names>
            <surname>Clarke</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Using thematic analysis in psychology, Qualitative research in psychology 3 (</article-title>
          <year>2006</year>
          )
          <fpage>77</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>101</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref16">
        <mixed-citation>
          [16]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
            <surname>Parsons</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Butavicius</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Lillie</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
            <surname>Calic</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>McCormac</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Pattinson</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Which individual, cultural, organisational and interventional factors explain phishing resilience?</article-title>
          ,
          <source>in: International Symposium on Human Aspects of Information Security Assurance (HAISA</source>
          <year>2018</year>
          ), Dundee, Scotland,
          <string-name>
            <surname>UK</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <year>August</year>
          29-
          <issue>31</issue>
          ,
          <year>2018</year>
          ,
          <year>2018</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref17">
        <mixed-citation>
          [17]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Kävrestad</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Skärgård</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>M.</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Nohlberg, Users perception of using cbmt for informationsecurity training</article-title>
          ,
          <source>in: Human Aspects of Information Security &amp; Assurance (HAISA 2019) International Symposium on Human Aspects of Information Security &amp; Assurance (HAISA</source>
          <year>2019</year>
          ), Nicosia, Cyprus,
          <source>July 15-17</source>
          ,
          <issue>201</issue>
          ,
          <year>2019</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref18">
        <mixed-citation>
          [18]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Kävrestad</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Nohlberg</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Using context based micro training to develop oer for the bene t of all</article-title>
          ,
          <source>in: Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium on Open Collaboration</source>
          ,
          <year>2019</year>
          , pp.
          <fpage>1</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>10</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref19">
        <mixed-citation>
          [19]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
            <surname>Braz</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>A</surname>
          </string-name>
          . Se ah,
          <string-name>
            <surname>D.</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>M'Raihi, Designing a trade-o between usability and security: A metrics based-model</article-title>
          , in: C. Baranauskas,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
            <surname>Palanque</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Abascal</surname>
          </string-name>
          , S. D. J.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Barbosa</surname>
          </string-name>
          (Eds.),
          <source>HumanComputer Interaction - INTERACT 2007</source>
          , Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg,
          <year>2007</year>
          , pp.
          <fpage>114</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>126</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref20">
        <mixed-citation>
          [20]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Kainda</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>I. Fléchais</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A. W.</given-names>
            <surname>Roscoe</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Security and usability: Analysis and evaluation</article-title>
          , in: 2010 International Conference on Availability,
          <source>Reliability and Security</source>
          ,
          <year>2010</year>
          , pp.
          <fpage>275</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>282</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref21">
        <mixed-citation>
          [21]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
            <surname>Dhillon</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
            <surname>Oliveira</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Susarapu</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Caldeira</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Deciding between information security and usability: Developing value based objectives</article-title>
          ,
          <source>Computers in Human Behavior</source>
          <volume>61</volume>
          (
          <year>2016</year>
          )
          <fpage>656</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>666</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>