Information Systems Frontiers

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 377–396 | Cite as

Leader’s dilemma game: An experimental design for cyber insider threat research

Article

Abstract

One of the problems with insider threat research is the lack of a complete 360° view of an insider threat dataset due to inadequate experimental design. This has prevented us from modeling a computational system to protect against insider threat situations. This paper provides a contemporary methodological approach for using online games to simulate insider betrayal for predictive behavioral research. The Leader’s Dilemma Game simulates an insider betrayal scenario for analyzing organizational trust relationships, providing an opportunity to examine the trustworthiness of focal individuals, as measured by humans as sensors engaging in computer-mediated communication. This experimental design provides a window into trustworthiness attribution that can generate a rigorous and relevant behavioral dataset, and contributes to building a cyber laboratory that advances future insider threat study.

Keywords

Insider threats Trusted human computer interactions Sociotechnical systems Online game simulation Experimental design 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The first author wishes to thank National Science Foundation for the support of Secure and Trustworthy Cyberspace EAGER award #1347113 09/01/13-08/31/15, Florida Center for Cybersecurity award #2108-1072-00-O 03/01/15-02/28/16, and Conrad Metcalfe for his editing assistance.

References

  1. Abbink, K., Irlenbusch, B., & Renner, E. (2000). The moonlighting game: an experimental study on reciprocity and retribution. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 42(2), 265–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-Shaer, E. S., & Hamed, H. H. (2003). Firewall policy advisor for anomaly discovery and rule editing. IFIP/IEEE 8th International Symposium on Integrated Network Management 17–30. doi: 10.1109/INM.2003.1194157.
  3. Anderson, C. L., & Agarwal, R. (2010). Practicing safe computing: a multimethod empirical examination of home computer user security behavioral intentions. MIS Quarterly, 34(3), 613–643.Google Scholar
  4. Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995). Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and Economic Behavior, 10(1), 122–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. The Editorial Board of New Your Times. (2014). Edward Snowden, Whistle-Blower, The Opinion Pages, The New York Times.Google Scholar
  6. Bretton, H. L. (1980). The power of money: A political-economic analysis with special emphasis on the american political system: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bulgurcu, B., Cavusoglu, H., & Benbasat, I. (2010). Information security policy compliance: an empirical study of rationality-based beliefs and information security awareness. MIS Quarterly, 34(3), 523–548.Google Scholar
  8. Butler, J. M. (2012). Privileged password sharing: “root” of all evil SANS Analyst Program (February 2012 ed., pp. 1-12): Quest Software.Google Scholar
  9. Cappelli, D. (2012). The CERT top 10 list for winnign the battle against insider threats. Paper presented at the RSA Conference 2012. http://www.cert.org/insider_threat/.
  10. Chivers, H., Clark, J. A., Nobles, P., Shaikh, S., & Chen, H. (2013). Knowing who to watch: Identifying attackers whose actions are hidden within false alarms and backgroudn noise. Information Systems Frontiers, 15(1), 17–34. doi: 10.1007/s10796-010-9268-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cooper, J., & Brady, D. W. (1981). Institutional context and leadership style: the house from Cannon to Rayburn. The American Political Science Review, 75(2), 411–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Costa-Gomes, M., Crawford, V. P., & Broseta, B. (2001). Cognition and behavior in normal-form games: an experimental study. Journal of the Econometric Society, 69(5), 1193–1235. doi: 10.1111/1468-0262.00239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Croson, R., & Buchan, N. (1999). Gender and culture: international experimental evidence from tust games. The American Economic Review, 89(2), 386–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crossler, R. E., Johnston, A. C., Lowry, P. B., Hu, Q., Warkentin, M., & Baskerville, R. (2013). Future directions for behavioral information security research. Computers and Security, 32, 90–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. CSI. (2010-2011). 2010/2011 CSI Computer Crime and Security Survey. In Richardson, R. (Ed.), (2010-2011 ed., Vol. 2010-2011, pp. 1-42). New York, NY: Computer Security Institute.Google Scholar
  16. Dalberg-Acton, J. E. E. (1887). Power corrupts; absolute pwoer corrupts absolutely. The Phrase Finder. Google Scholar
  17. Denning, D. E. (1987). An intrusion-detection model. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE-13(2), 222–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Emonds, G., Declerck, C. H., Boone, C., Seurinck, R., & Achten, R. (2014). Establishing cooperation in a mixed-motive social dilemma. An fMRI study investigating the role of social value orientation and dispositional trust. Social Neuroscience, 9(1), 10–22. doi: 10.1080/17470919.2013.858080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Farahmand, F., & Spafford, E. H. (2013). Understanding insiders: an analysis of risk-taking behavior. Information Systems Frontiers, 15(1), 5–15. doi: 10.1007/s10796-010-9265-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. FBI. (2001). FBI history famous cases: Robert Philip Hanssen espionage case. Federal Bureau of Investigation Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/famcases/hanssen/hanssen.htm.
  21. Fodor, E. M., & Farrow, D. L. (1979). The power motive as an influence on use of power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2091–2097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goode, S., & Lacey, D. (2011). Detecting complex account fraud in the enterprise: the role of technical and non-technical controls. Decision Support Systems, 50, 702–714. doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2010.08.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gouda, M. G., & Liu, X. Y. A. (2004). Firewall design: consistency, completeness, and compactness. Proc 24th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, 320–327. doi: 10.1109/ICDCS.2004.1281597.
  24. Greitzer, F., Moore, A., Cappelli, D., Andrews, D., Carroll, L., & Hull, T. D. (2008). Combating the insider cyber threat. IEEE Security and Privacy, 6(1), 61–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Guo, K. H., Yuan, Y., Archer, N. P., & Connelly, C. E. (2011). Understanding nonmalicious security violations in the workplace: a composite behavior model. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28(2), 203–236. doi: 10.2753/MIS0742-1222280208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Herath, T., & Rao, H. R. (2009a). Encouraging information security behaviors in organizations: role of penalties, pressures and perceived effectiveness. Decision Support Systems, 47(2), 154–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Herath, T., & Rao, H. R. (2009b). Protection motivation and deterrence: a framework for security policy compliance in organizations. European Journal of Information Systems, 18, 106–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ho, S. M. (2014). Cyber insider threat: Trustworthiness in virtual organization. Germany: LAP Lambert Academic Publishing, 978-3-659-51702-0.Google Scholar
  30. Ho, S. M., & Benbasat, I. (2014). Dyadic attribution model: a mechanism to assess trustworthiness in virtual organizations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 65(8), 1555–1576. doi: 10.1002/asi.23074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ho, S. M., & Hollister, J. (2015). Cyber insider threat in virtual organizations In Khosrow-Pour, M. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, Third Edition, USA: IGI Global. 741–749, doi:  10.4018/978-1-4666-5888-2.ch145.
  32. Ho, S. M., Timmarajus, S. S., Burmester, M., & Liu, X. (2014). Dyadic attribution: a theoretical model for interpreting online words and actions. Social Computing Behavioral Cultural Modeling and Prediction Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 8393, 277–284. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-05579-4_34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ho, S. M., Fu, H., Timmarajus, S. S., Booth, C., Baeg, J. H., & Liu, M. (2015). Insider threat: Language-action cues in group dynamics. SIGMIS-CPR'15 (pp. 101–104). ACM, Newport Beach, CA. doi: 10.1145/2751957.2751978.
  34. Ho, S. M., Hancock, J. T., Booth, C., Burmester, M., Liu, X., & Timmarajus, S. S. (2016). Demystifying insider threat: Language-action cues in group dynamics. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-49) (pp. 1–10). IEEE, January 5-6, Kauai, Hawaii.Google Scholar
  35. Holmes, J. G., & Rempel, J. K. (1989a). Trust in close relationships. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 10). Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Holmes, J. G., & Rempel, J. K. (1989b). Trust in close relationships. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Close relationship (pp. 187–220). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Howard, E. S., Gardner, W. L., & Thompson, L. (2007). The role of the self-concept and the social context in determining the behavior of power holders: self-construal in intergroup versus dyadic dispute resolution negotiations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(4), 614–631. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.4.614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jarvenpaa, S. L., Dickson, G. W., & DeSanctis, G. (1985). Methodological issues in experimental IS research: experiences and recommendations. MIS Quarterly, 9(2), 141–156. doi: 10.2307/249115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Johnston, A. C., & Warkentin, M. (2010). Fear appeals and information security behaviors: an empirical study. MIS Quarterly, 34(3), 549–566.Google Scholar
  40. Keeney, M., Kowalski, E., Cappelli, D., Moore, A. P., Shimeall, T. J., & Rogers, S. (2005). Insider threat study: Computer system sabotage in critical infrastructure sectors. http://resources.sei.cmu.edu/library/asset-view.cfm?assetid=51934.
  41. Kelley, H. H., Holmes, J. G., Kerr, N. L., Reis, H. T., Rusbult, C. E., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (1973). The process of causal attribution. American Psychology, 28(2), 107–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Krueger, F., McCabe, K., Moll, J., Kriegeskorte, N., Zahn, R., Strenziok, Heinecke, A., & Grafman, J. (2007). Neural correlates of trust. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 20084–20089, PNAS. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0710103104.
  43. Kwon, J., & Johnson, M. E. (2011). An organizational learning perspective on proactive vs. reactive investment in information security. The 10th Workshop on Economics of Information Security (WEIS 2011), George Mason University, USA.Google Scholar
  44. Lee, A. S. (1999). Rigor and relevance in MIS research: beyond the approach of positivism alone. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 29–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lee, A. S., & Baskerville, R. L. (2003). Generalizing generalizability in information systems research. Information Systems Research, 14(3), 221–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lieberman, J. K. (1981). The litigious society. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  47. Lumension. (2010). Anatomy of insider risk (pp. 1–10). Scottsdale: Lumension.Google Scholar
  48. Magklaras, G. B., & Furnell, S. M. (2001). Insider threat prediction tool: evaluating the probability of IT misuse. Computers and Security, 21(1), 62–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Magklaras, G. B., & Furnell, S. M. (2005). A preliminary model of end user sophistication for insider threat prediction in IT systems. Computers and Security, 24(5), 371–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: a field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1), 123–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.Google Scholar
  52. McCabe, K. A., Rigdon, M. L., & Smith, V. L. (2003). Positive reciprocity and intentions in trust games. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 52(2), 267–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. McDermott, J., & Fox, C. (1999). Using abuse case models for security requirements analysis. Proceedings of the 15th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (ACSAC’99), Phoenix, AZ, 55–64.Google Scholar
  54. McGrath, J. E. (Ed.). (1995). Methodology matters: Doing research in the behavioral and social science. San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar
  55. Muthaiyah, S., & Kerschberg, L. (2007). Virtual organization security policies: an ontology-based integration approach. Information Systems Frontiers, 9(5), 505–514. doi: 10.1007/s10796-007-9050-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Myyry, L., Siponen, M., Pahnila, S., Vartiainen, T., & Vance, A. (2009). What levels of moral reasoning and values explain adherence to information security rules? An empirical study. European Journal of Information Systems, 18(2), 126–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Nash, J. (1950). Equilibrium points in n-person games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 36(1), 48–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Nash, J. (1951). Non-cooperative games. The Annals of Mathematics, 54(2), 286–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive. (2014). Insider Threat. Retrieved July 9, 2014, 2014.Google Scholar
  60. Pasmore, W. A. (1988). Designing effective organizations: The sociotechnical systems perspective (pp. 978–0471887850). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  61. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. M., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method variance in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ponemon Institute. (2011). Insecurity of privileged users Global survey of IT practitioners (pp. 1-33): Ponemon Institute Research Report.Google Scholar
  63. Predd, J., Pfleeger, S. L., Hunker, J., & Bulford, C. (2008). Insiders behaving badly. IEEE Security and Privacy, 6(4), 66–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Randazzo, M. R., Keeney, M., Kowalski, E., Cappelli, D., & Moore, A. P. (2004). Insider threat study: Illicit cyber activity in the banking and finance sector. http://resources.sei.cmu.edu/library/asset-view.cfm?assetid=50287.
  65. Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanba, M. D. (1985). Trust in close relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Roesch, M. (1999). Snort - Lightweight intrusion detection for networks. Proceedings of the LISA’99: 13th Systems Administration Conference, Seattle, Washington, USA, 229-238, USENIX Association.Google Scholar
  67. Siponen, M., & Vance, A. (2010). Neutralization: new insights into the problem of employee information systems security policy violations. MIS Quarterly, 34(3), 487–502.Google Scholar
  68. Siponen, M., & Vance, A. (2014). Guidelines for improving the contextual relevance of field surveys: the case of information security policy violations. European Journal of Information Systems, 23(3), 289–305. doi: 10.1057/ejis.2012.59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Straub, D. W. (1989). Validating instruments in MIS research. MIS Quarterly, 13(2), 147–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Toxen, B. (2014). The NSA and Snowden: securing the all-seeing eyes. Communication of the ACM, 57(5), 44–51. doi: 10.1145/2594502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. A., & Bala, H. (2013). Bridging the qualitative-quantitative divide: guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 37(1), 21–54.Google Scholar
  72. Warkentin, M., & Mutchler, L. A. (2014). Research in behavioral information security management. In H. Topi & A. Tucker (Eds.), Information systems and information technology (Computing Handbook Set (3rd ed., Vol. 2). Boca Raton: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  73. Warkentin, M., Straub, D., Malimage, K. (2012). Measuring secure behavior: A research commentary. Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Information Assurance, Albany, NY, 1–8.Google Scholar
  74. Whetten, D. A., & Mackey, A. (2002). A social actor conception of organizational identity and its implications for the study of organizational reputation. Business and Society, 41(4), 393–414. doi: 10.1177/0007650302238775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Willison, R., & Warkentin, M. (2013). Beyond deterrence: an expanded view of employee computer abuse. MIS Quarterly, 37(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
  76. Yan, H. (2015, August 19). Wikileaks source Chelsea Manning convicted over magazines, toothpaste, CNN. URL: http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/19/politics/chelsea-manning-new-convictions/.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Florida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA
  2. 2.Mississippi State UniversityMississippiUSA

Personalised recommendations