Human errors in performing security-critical tasks are typically blamed on the complexity of those tasks. However, such errors can also occur because of (possibly unexpected) sensory distractions. A sensory distraction that produces negative effects can be abused by the adversary that controls the environment. Meanwhile, a distraction with positive effects can be artificially introduced to improve user performance. The goal of this work is to explore the effects of visual stimuli on the performance of security-critical tasks. To this end, we experimented with a large number of subjects who were exposed to a range of unexpected visual stimuli while attempting to perform Bluetooth Pairing. Our results clearly demonstrate substantially increased task completion times and markedly lower task success rates. These negative effects are noteworthy, especially, when contrasted with prior results on audio distractions which had positive effects on performance of similar tasks. Experiments were conducted in a novel (fully automated and completely unattended) experimental environment. This yielded more uniform experiments, better scalability and significantly lower financial and logistical burdens. We discuss this experience, including benefits and limitations of the unattended automated experiment paradigm.
@cite_1 discovered that subject's performance in secure device pairing could be improved if it were to be scored. In other words, notifying subjects about their performance score resulted in fewer errors.
@cite_1
15257636
We explore the use of extrinsic motivation to improve the state of user-centered security mechanisms. Specifically, we study applications of scores as user incentives in the context of secure device pairing. We develop a scoring functionality that can be integrated with traditional pairing approaches. We then report on a usability study that we performed to evaluate the effect of scoring on the performance of users in comparison operations. Our results demonstrate that individuals are likely to commit fewer errors and show more acceptance when working with the scoring based pairing approach. Framing pairing as a game and providing feedback to users in the form of a score is an efficient way to improve pairing security, particularly among users such as children who may not be aware of the consequences of their decisions while performing security tasks. Face recognition technologies have seen dramatic improvements in performance over the past decade, and such systems are now widely used for security and commercial applications. Since recognizing faces is a task that humans are understood to be very good at, it is common to want to compare automatic face recognition (AFR) and human face recognition (HFR) in terms of biometric performance. This paper addresses this question by: 1) conducting verification tests on volunteers (HFR) and commercial AFR systems and 2) developing statistical methods to support comparison of the performance of different biometric systems. HFR was tested by presenting face-image pairs and asking subjects to classify them on a scale of ldquoSame,rdquo ldquoProbably Same,rdquo ldquoNot sure,rdquo ldquoProbably Different,rdquo and ldquoDifferentrdquo; the same image pairs were presented to AFR systems, and the biometric match score was measured. To evaluate these results, two new statistical evaluation techniques are developed. The first is a new way to normalize match-score distributions, where a normalized match score is calculated as a function of the angle from a representation of [false match rate, false nonmatch rate] values in polar coordinates from some center. Using this normalization, we develop a second methodology to calculate an average detection error tradeoff (DET) curve and show that this method is equivalent to direct averaging of DET data along each angle from the center. This procedure is then applied to compare the performance of the best AFR algorithms available to us in the years 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2006, in comparison to human scores. Results show that algorithms have dramatically improved in performance over that time. In comparison to the performance of the best AFR system of 2006, 29.2 of human subjects performed better, while 37.5 performed worse. How accurately are people able to use the absolute category rating (ACR) 5-level scale? Put another way, how repeatable are an individual subject’s scores? Several subjective experiments have asked subjects to rate the same sequences a couple of times. Analyses indicate that none of the subjects exactly repeated their prior scores for these sequences. We would like to better understand this imperfection. This paper uses ACR subjective video quality tests to explore the precision of subjective ratings. To make formal measurements possible, we propose a theoretical subject model that is the main contribution of this paper. The proposed subject model indicates three major factors that influence accuracy: subject bias, subject inaccuracy, and stimulus scoring difficulty. These appear to be separate random effects and their existence is a reason why none of the subjects were able to perfectly repeat scores. There are three key consequences. First, subject scoring behavior includes a random component that spans approximately half of the rating scale. Second, the sensitivity and accuracy of most subjective analyses can be improved if the subject scores are normalized by removing subject bias. Third, to some extent, multiple subjects can be replaced with a single subject who rates each sequence multiple times. The question of aggregating pair-wise comparisons to obtain a global ranking over a collection of objects has been of interest for a very long time: be it ranking of online gamers (e.g. MSR's TrueSkill system) and chess players, aggregating social opinions, or deciding which product to sell based on transactions. In most settings, in addition to obtaining a ranking, finding scores' for each object (e.g. player's rating) is of interest for understanding the intensity of the preferences. In this paper, we propose Rank Centrality, an iterative rank aggregation algorithm for discovering scores for objects (or items) from pair-wise comparisons. The algorithm has a natural random walk interpretation over the graph of objects with an edge present between a pair of objects if they are compared; the score, which we call Rank Centrality, of an object turns out to be its stationary probability under this random walk. To study the efficacy of the algorithm, we consider the popular Bradley-Terry-Luce (BTL) model (equivalent to the Multinomial Logit (MNL) for pair-wise comparisons) in which each object has an associated score which determines the probabilistic outcomes of pair-wise comparisons between objects. In terms of the pair-wise marginal probabilities, which is the main subject of this paper, the MNL model and the BTL model are identical. We bound the finite sample error rates between the scores assumed by the BTL model and those estimated by our algorithm. In particular, the number of samples required to learn the score well with high probability depends on the structure of the comparison graph. When the Laplacian of the comparison graph has a strictly positive spectral gap, e.g. each item is compared to a subset of randomly chosen items, this leads to dependence on the number of samples that is nearly order-optimal.