Cited by 194Information and Cyber SecuritySpam and Phishing DetectionUser Authentication and Security Systems

Social engineering attack examples, templates and scenarios

Open access
Mouton, Francois, Leenen, Louise, Venter, H.S.·2016·Computers & Security

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cose.2016.03.004

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The common pattern of social engineering attacks involves four phases: (1) collect information about the target; (2) develop relationship with the target; (3) exploit the available information and execute the attack; and (4) exit with no traces.

    “The common pattern involves four phases: (1) collect information about the target; (2) develop relationship with the target; (3) exploit the available information and execute the attack; and (4) exit with no traces [12].”

    From Social Engineering Attacks: A Survey (2019) · cites this paper as [12]

    Section 2, “Defining Social Engineering Attacks” (page unavailable), describes a commonly known four-phase model involving research, rapport, exploitation of trust, and use of information. But it does not give “exit with no traces” as the fourth phase; the paper’s own six-phase framework ends with debriefing, in which the attacker reassures the target and checks whether the goal was met. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [6]6. R.-M. Åhlfeldt, P. Backlund, B. Wangler, E. Söderström, Security issues in health care process inte- gration? a research-in-progress report., in: EMOI-INTEROP, 2005, pp. 1-4.
  2. [11]11. A. Kingsley Ezechi, Detecting and combating malware, Master's thesis, University of Debrecen, Hun- gary (June 2011). URL http://hdl.handle.net/2437/105305
  3. [19]19. F. Mohd Foozy, R. Ahmad, M. Abdollah, R. Yusof, M. Mas'ud, Generic taxonomy of social engineering attack, in: Malaysian Technical Universities International Conference on Engineering & Technology, Batu Pahat, Johor, 2011, pp. 1-7.
  4. [40]40. URL http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1201/1086.1065898X/46353.15.4.20060901/ 95427. · DOI
  5. [43]43. U. Rao, U. Nayak, Social engineering, in: The InfoSec Handbook, Apress, 2014, pp. 307-323.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mouton, F., Leenen, L., & Venter, H. S.
Affiliations
  • Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (ZA)
  • University of Pretoria (ZA)
Corresponding author
Mouton, Francois
Venue
Computers & Security
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-06
Volume
59
Pages
186-209
ISSN
0167-4048 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2304927286
Cited by
194
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 2 · 2014: 1
FWCI
36.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Computers & Security (publishedVersion)
  • UpSpace Institutional Repository (University of Pretoria) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information and Cyber Security
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › User Authentication and Security Systems
Keywords
social engineering attacks, attack scenarios, human factors in information security, manipulation techniques, two-way communication, one-way communication, indirect communication

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review