Cited by 69Information and Cyber SecuritySpam and Phishing DetectionCybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies

Dissecting social engineering

Tetri, Pekka, Vuorinen, Jukka·2013·Behaviour & Information Technology

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

Crossref · 10.1080/0144929x.2013.763860

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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.”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tetri, P., & Vuorinen, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Oulu (FI)
  • University of Turku (FI)
Corresponding author
  • Tetri, Pekka
  • Vuorinen, Jukka
Venue
Behaviour & Information Technology
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