The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Divide and conquer: the role of trust and assurance in the design of secure socio-technical systems
Abstract
In order to be effective, secure systems need to be both correct (i.e. effective used as intended) and dependable (i.e. actually being used as intended). Given that most secure systems involve people, a strategy for achieving dependable security must address both people and technology. Current research in Human-Computer Interactions in Security (HCISec) aims to increase dependability of the human element by reducing mistakes (e.g. through better user interfaces to security tools). We argue that a successful strategy also needs to consider the impact of social interaction on security, and in this respect is a central concept. We compare the understanding of in secure systems with the more differentiated models of in social science research. The security definition of turns out to map onto strategies that would be correctly described as in the more differentiated model. We argue that distinguishing between and assurance yields a wider range of strategies for ensuring dependability of the human element in a secure socio-technical system. Furthermore, correctly placed can also benefit an organisation's culture and performance. We conclude by presenting design principles to help security designers decide when to trust and when to assure, and give examples of how both strategies would be implemented in practice.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
Some human overseers may simply become tired and bored by their task.
“Some may simply become tired and bored by their task ((Cranor 2008: 1); drawing on: (Flechais et al. 2005)).”
From Institutionalised distrust and human oversight of artificial intelligence: towards a democratic design of AI governance under the European Union AI Act (2024) · cites this paper as Flechais et al. 2005
Citations
Cites
The mechanics of trust: A framework for research and design
Riegelsberger, J., Sasse, M. A., & McCarthy, J. D. (2005) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.01.001 · Cited by 508
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Laux, J. (2024) · AI & SOCIETY · doi:10.1007/s00146-023-01777-z · Cited by 127
“Some may simply become tired and bored by their task ((Cranor 2008: 1); drawing on: (Flechais et al. 2005)).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Flechais, I., Riegelsberger, J., & Sasse, M. A.
- Affiliations
- University College London (GB)
- ORCID
- Sasse, M. Angela
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 2005 workshop on New security paradigms - NSPW '05
- Publisher
- ACM Press
- Published
- 2005
- Pages
- 33
- OpenAlex
- W2137025806
- Cited by
- 46
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 1.97
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- New Security Paradigms Workshop (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information and Cyber Security
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › User Authentication and Security Systems
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
- Keywords
- socio-technical systems, trust, assurance, human error, security design principles, organizational culture
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