Advertisement

Stress and Workload Profiles of Network Analysis: Not All Tasks Are Created Equal

  • Eric T. GreenleeEmail author
  • Gregory J. Funke
  • Joel S. Warm
  • Ben D. Sawyer
  • Victor S. Finomore
  • Vince F. Mancuso
  • Matthew E. Funke
  • Gerald Matthews
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 501)

Abstract

Effective cyber defense depends upon intrusion detection, i.e., the process of monitoring, detecting, and reacting appropriately to cyber activity threatening network security. Intrusion detection requires the execution of multiple unique, interdependent network analysis tasks. The current study aimed to expand understanding of cyber defense by separately assessing task induced workload and stress for two key network analyst tasks, triage analysis and escalation analysis, which are the first and second lines of cyber defense, respectively. In separate studies, participants assumed the role of either a triage analyst or an escalation analyst, performed associated intrusion detection duties in simulated cyber task environments, and reported task induced workload and stress. Findings suggest that, even though triage and escalation analysts are both engaged in cyber defense, their tasks result in differentiable workload and stress profiles. This highlights the need for further human factors research examining operator performance and state across network analyst roles.

Keywords

Cyber defense Network analyst Workload Stress 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This project was supported in part by grant no. F4FGA05076J003 from the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (Benjamin Knott, Program Officer).

References

  1. 1.
    Maybury, M.: Toward the assured cyberspace advantage: Air Force cyber vision 2025. IEEE Secur. Priv. 13, 49–56 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    D’Amico, A., Whitley, K.: The real work of computer network defense analysts: the analysis roles and processes that transform network data into security situation awareness. In: Goodall, J.R., Conti, G., Ma, K.-L. (eds.) VizSEC 2007: Proceedings of the Workshop on Visualization for Computer Security, pp. 19–37. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Scarfone, K., Mell, P.: Guide to Intrusion Detection and Prevention Systems (IDPS): Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (Special Publication 800-94). National Institute of Standards and Technology, Technology Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Champion, M., Rajivan, P., Cooke, N., Janwala, S.: Team-based cyber defense analysis. In: IEEE International Multi-Disciplinary Conference on Cognitive Methods in Situation Awareness and Decision Support, pp. 218–221 (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chappelle, W., McDonald, K., Christensen, J., Prince, L., Goodman, T., Thompson, W., Hayes, W.: Sources of Occupational Stress and Prevalence of Burnout and Clinical Distress Among US Air Force Cyber Warfare Operators (No. AFRL-SA-WP-TR-2013-0006). School of Aerospace Medicine, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mancuso, V.F., Greenlee, E.T., Funke, G., Dukes, A., Menke, L., Brown, R., Miller, B.: Augmenting cyber defender performance and workload through sonified displays. Procedia Manufact. 3, 5214–5221 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sawyer, B.D., Finomore, V.S., Funke, G.J., Matthews, G., Mancuso, V.F., Funke, M.E., Warm, J.S., Hancock, P.A.: Cyber-vigilance: the human factor. Am. Intell. J. (2015) Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vieane, A., Funke, G., Mancuso, V., Greenlee, E., Dye, G., Borghetti, B., Miller, B., Menke, L., Brown, R.: Coordinated displays to assist cyber defenders. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 60th Annual Meeting. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA (in press)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Matthews, G., Campbell, S.E., Falconer, S., Joyner, L.A., Huggins, J. Gilliland, K.,… Warm, J.S.: Fundamental dimensions of subjective state in performance settings: task engagement, distress, and worry. Emotion 2, 315–340 (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hart, S.G., Staveland, L.E.: Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. In: Hancock, P.S., Meshkati, N. (eds.) Human Mental Workload, pp. 239–250. North Holland Press, Amsterdam (1988)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boles, D.B., Adair, L.P.: The multiple resources questionnaire. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 45th Annual Meeting, pp. 1790–1794 (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Boles, D.B., Dillard, M.B.: The measurement of perceptual resources and workload. In: Hoffman, R.R., Hancock, P.A., Scerbo, M.W., Parasuraman, R., Szalma, J.L. (eds.) The Cambridge Handbook of Applied Perception Research, vol. 1, pp. 39–59. Cambridge University Press, New York (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Warm, J.S., Finomore, V.S., Vidulich, M.A., Funke, M.E.: Vigilance: A perceptual challenge. In: Hoffman, R.R., Hancock, P.A., Scerbo, M.W., Parasuraman, R., Szalma, J.L. (eds.) The Cambridge Handbook of Applied Perception Research, vol. 1, pp. 241–283. Cambridge University Press, New York (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Xie, B., Salvendy, G.: Prediction of mental workload in single and multiple tasks environments. Int. J. Cogn. Ergon. 4(3), 213–242 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric T. Greenlee
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gregory J. Funke
    • 2
  • Joel S. Warm
    • 2
    • 3
  • Ben D. Sawyer
    • 4
  • Victor S. Finomore
    • 5
  • Vince F. Mancuso
    • 6
  • Matthew E. Funke
    • 7
  • Gerald Matthews
    • 8
  1. 1.National Research CouncilWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Air Force Research LaboratoryFairbornUSA
  3. 3.University of Dayton Research InstituteDaytonUSA
  4. 4.AgeLabMassachussets Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA
  5. 5.United States Air Force AcademyColorado SpringsUSA
  6. 6.Lincoln LabMassachussets Institute of TechnologyLexingtonUSA
  7. 7.Naval Medical Research UnitDaytonUSA
  8. 8.Institute for Simulation and TrainingOrlandoUSA

Personalised recommendations