The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
You've been warned: an empirical study of the effectiveness of web browser phishing warnings
Abstract
Many popular web browsers are now including active phishing warnings after previous research has shown that passive warnings are often ignored. In this laboratory study we examine the effectiveness of these warnings and examine if, how, and why they fail users. We simulated a spear phishing attack to expose users to browser warnings. We found that 97% of our sixty participants fell for at least one of the phishing messages that we sent them. However, we also found that when presented with the active warnings, 79% of participants heeded them, which was not the case for the passive warning that we tested---where only one participant heeded the warnings. Using a model from the warning sciences we analyzed how users perceive warning messages and offer suggestions for creating more effective warning messages within the phishing context.
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
Cites
What makes Web sites credible?: a report on a large quantitative study
Fogg, B. J., Marshall, J., Laraki, O., Osipovich, A., Varma, C., Fang, N., Paul, J., Rangnekar, A., Shon, J., Swani, P., et al. (2001) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/365024.365037 · Cited by 685 · cited 3×
“found that the “look and feel” of a website is often most important for gaining a user’s trust [10].”
BackgroundInfluentialThe Emperor's New Security Indicators
Schechter, S. E., Dhamija, R., Ozment, A., & Fischer, I. (2007) · 2007 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP '07) · doi:10.1109/sp.2007.35 · Cited by 405
Decision strategies and susceptibility to phishing
Downs, J. S., Holbrook, M. B., & Cranor, L. F. (2006) · Proceedings of the second symposium on Usable privacy and security - SOUPS '06 · doi:10.1145/1143120.1143131 · Cited by 352
Self-citation
Cited by
Android permissions: user attention, comprehension, and behavior
Felt, A. P., Ha, E., Egelman, S., Haney, A., Chin, E., & Wagner, D. (2012) · Proceedings of the Eighth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security · doi:10.1145/2335356.2335360 · Cited by 1,022
Self-citationSo long, and no thanks for the externalities: the rational rejection of security advice by users
Herley, C. (2009) · Proceedings of the 2009 workshop on New security paradigms workshop · doi:10.1145/1719030.1719050 · Cited by 524
Why eve and mallory love android: an analysis of android SSL (in)security
Fahl, S., Harbach, M., Muders, T., Baumgärtner, L., Freisleben, B., & Smith, M. (2012) · Proceedings of the 2012 ACM conference on Computer and communications security · doi:10.1145/2382196.2382205 · Cited by 490
Design Frictions for Mindful Interactions: The Case for Microboundaries
Cox, A. L., Gould, S. J. J., Cecchinato, M. E., Iacovides, I., & Renfree, I. (2016) · Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2851581.2892410 · Cited by 218
A survey of phishing attack techniques, defence mechanisms and open research challenges
Jain, A. K., & Gupta, B. B. (2022) · Enterprise Information Systems · doi:10.1080/17517575.2021.1896786 · Cited by 192
Metadata
- Authors
- Egelman, S., Cranor, L. F., & Hong, J.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2008-04-06
- Pages
- 1065-1074
- OpenAlex
- W2099889974
- Cited by
- 607
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 20.98
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: You've been warned: an empirical study of the effectiveness of web browser phishing warnings. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/1357054.1357219
- The paper
- Egelman, S., Cranor, L. F., & Hong, J. (2008). You've been warned: an empirical study of the effectiveness of web browser phishing warnings. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357219
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
