The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Understanding the Efficacy of Phishing Training in Practice
Abstract
This paper empirically evaluates the efficacy of two ubiquitous forms of enterprise security training: annual cybersecurity awareness training and embedded anti-phishing training exercises. Specifically, our work analyzes the results of an 8-month randomized controlled experiment involving ten simulated phishing campaigns sent to over 19,500 employees at a large healthcare organization. Our results suggest that these efforts offer limited value. First, we find no significant relationship between whether users have recently completed cybersecurity awareness training and their likelihood of failing a phishing simulation. Second, when evaluating recipients of embedded phishing training, we find that the absolute difference in failure rates between trained and untrained users is extremely low across a variety of training content. Third, we observe that most users spend minimal time interacting with embedded phishing training material in-the-wild; and that for specific types of training content, users who receive and complete more instances of the training can have an increased likelihood of failing subsequent phishing simulations. Taken together, our results suggest that anti-phishing training programs, in their current and commonly deployed forms, are unlikely to offer significant practical value in reducing phishing risks.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 28 · Cited by 37
Research works printed but not linked: 46
- 10.1145/3054926 · DOI
- Alder, 2024, Security Breaches in Healthcare in 2023
- 10.1177/10439862211001628 · DOI
- 10.14722/usec.2022.23075 · DOI
- Brunken, “To Do This Properly, You Need More Resources”: The Hidden Costs of Introducing Simulated Phishing Campaigns, 4105
- 10.14722/usec.2015.23009 · DOI
- 10.1109/MSP.2013.106 · DOI
- Chen, What Motivates and Discourages Employees in Phishing Interventions: An Exploration of Expectancy-Value Theory, 487
- 2024, 45 CFR § 164.530 - Adminis-trative requirements
- 2023, Technical Volume 2: Cyber-security Practices for Medium and Large Healthcare Organizations
- 2024, Ransomware and Healthcare
- 10.1145/1124772.1124861 · DOI · Paper page
- 2022, Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 20 14
- Franz, SoK: Still Plenty of Phish in the Sea-A Taxonomy of User-Oriented Phishing Interventions and Avenues for Future Research, 339
- 10.1017/CBO9780511790942 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/jamia/ocz005 · DOI
- 10.1145/1719030.1719050 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.cose.2023.103364 · DOI
- 10.1002/SERIES1345 · DOI
- 2023, Cost of a Data Breach Report 2023
- 10.1186/s13673-020-00237-7 · DOI
- 10.1145/1572532.1572536 · DOI
- 10.1145/1240624.1240760 · DOI
- 10.1109/ECRIME.2008.4696970 · DOI
- 10.1145/1754393.1754396 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10796-019-09977-z · DOI
- 10.1145/3658644.3690348 · DOI
- 10.1109/SP46214.2022.9833766 · DOI
- McLennan, Using data to prioritize cybersecurity investments
- 10.1016/j.cose.2023.103695 · DOI
- 2023, Security and Privacy Controls for Information Systems and Organizations. NIST 800–53 Rev. 5.1.1
- 10.14722/usec.2023.233129 · DOI
- 2024, RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R. Posit Software, PBC, Boston, MA, USA
- Reese, A Usability Study of Five Two-Factor Authentication Methods, 357
- Reinheimer, An investigation of phishing awareness and education over time: When and how to best remind users, 259
- 10.1109/ESEM56168.2023.10304861 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jss.2023.111899 · DOI
- 10.1145/3658644.3690212 · DOI
- Schops, Simulated Stress: A Case Study of the Effects of a Simulated Phishing Campaign on Employees’ Perception, Stress and Self-Efficacy, 4589
- 10.1145/1280680.1280692 · DOI
- Siadati, Measuring the Effectiveness of Embedded Phishing Exercises, 1
- 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02010 · DOI
- 10.1007/978-3-319-98385-1_9 · DOI
- 10.1007/978-3-030-66504-3_19 · DOI
- Alex Wen, What. Hack: Engaging Anti - Phishing Training Through a Role-playing Phishing Simulation Game, 108, 1
- Zhang, Knowledge Expiration in Security Awareness Training, 197
Metadata
- Authors
- Ho, G., Mirian, A., Luo, E., Tong, K., Lee, E., Liu, L., Longhurst, C. A., Dameff, C., Savage, S., & Voelker, G. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Chicago (US)
- University of California San Diego (US)
- UC San Diego Health System (US)
- UC San Diego Health
- Venue
- 2025 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2025-05-12
- Pages
- 37-54
- ISSN
- 1081-6011 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4411337905
- Cited by
- 37
- References
- 28
- Citations by year
- 2026: 28 · 2025: 9
- FWCI
- 33.61
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P) (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- University of California Office of the President (UCOP) (CNS-2152644)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information and Cyber Security
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › User Authentication and Security Systems
- Keywords
- security awareness training, phishing simulation, employee security behavior, training effectiveness, healthcare organizations, human factors in cybersecurity, training engagement
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Understanding the Efficacy of Phishing Training in Practice. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/sp61157.2025.00076
- The paper
- Ho, G., Mirian, A., Luo, E., Tong, K., Lee, E., Liu, L., Longhurst, C. A., Dameff, C., Savage, S., & Voelker, G. M. (2025). Understanding the Efficacy of Phishing Training in Practice. 2025 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). https://doi.org/10.1109/sp61157.2025.00076