Dissecting social engineering
Abstract
In information security terms, social engineering (SE) refers to incidents in which an information system is penetrated through the use of social methods. The literature to date (40 texts), which was reviewed for this article, emphasises individual techniques in its description of SE. This leads to a very scattered, anecdotal, and vague notion of SE. In addition, due to the lack of analytical concepts, research conducted on SE encounters difficulties in explaining the success of SE. In such explanations, the victim's psychological traits are overemphasised, although this kind of explanation can cover only a small portion of SE cases. In this article, we have sought to elaborate the concept of SE through analysis of the functions of different techniques. In this way, we have been able to extrapolate three dimensions of SE: persuasion, fabrication, and data gathering. By utilising these dimensions, SE can be grasped in all its aspects instead of through individual techniques. Furthermore, research can benefit from our multidimensional approach as each of the dimensions pertains to a different theory. Therefore, the victim's personal traits cannot function as the only explanation. All in all, the analysis, understanding, and explanation of the success of SE can be furthered using our new approach.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Tetri and Vuorinen [2013] introduced a dynamic classification framework that addresses high-level attack behaviours involved in the creation of a semantic attack: persuasion, fabrication and data gathering.
“More recently, Tetri and Vuorinen [2013] introduced a dynamic classification framework that addresses high-level attack behaviours involved in the creation of a semantic attack: persuasion, fabrication and data gathering.”
From A Taxonomy of Attacks and a Survey of Defence Mechanisms for Semantic Social Engineering Attacks (2016) · cites this paper as Tetri and Vuorinen 2013
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Taxonomy of Attacks and a Survey of Defence Mechanisms for Semantic Social Engineering Attacks
Heartfield, R., & Loukas, G. (2016) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/2835375 · Cited by 202 · see citing works
Social engineering attack examples, templates and scenarios
Mouton, F., Leenen, L., & Venter, H. S. (2016) · Computers & Security · doi:10.1016/j.cose.2016.03.004 · Cited by 194 · see citing works
Vulnerability to social engineering in social networks: a proposed user-centric framework
Albladi, S., & Weir, G. R. S. (2016) · 2016 IEEE International Conference on Cybercrime and Computer Forensic (ICCCF) · doi:10.1109/icccf.2016.7740435 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
- Authors
- Tetri, P., & Vuorinen, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Oulu (FI)
- University of Turku (FI)
- Corresponding author
- Tetri, Pekka
- Vuorinen, Jukka
- ORCID
- Vuorinen, Jukka
- Venue
- Behaviour & Information Technology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2013-02-25
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1014-1023
- ISSN
- 0144-929X (ISSN-L)
- 1362-3001
- OpenAlex
- W2028111869
- Cited by
- 69
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 14.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Behaviour and Information Technology (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (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 › Cybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
- Keywords
- social engineering, information security, persuasion, fabrication, data collection, victim psychology, multidimensional framework
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