Downloads

Insider Risk Management

  1. Security Policy Reform Council. Insider Threat Subcommittee. (2017). Assessing the Mind of the Malicious Insider: Using a Behavioural Model and Data Analytics to Improve Continuous Evaluation. Intelligence and National Security Alliance (INSA).
  2. Kont, M., Osula, A, Pihelgas, M., Wojtkowiak, J., Trinberg, L. (2018). Insider Threat Detection Study. NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence (CCDCOE).
  3. Luckey, D., Stebbins, D., Orrie, R., Rebhan, E., Bhatt, S., Beaghley, S. (2019). Assessing Continuous Evaluation Approaches for Insider Threats. RAND Corporation.
  4. Theis, M., Trzeciak, R., Costa, D., Moore, A., Millier, A., Cassidy, T., Claycomb, W. (2019). Common Sense Guide to Mitigating Insider Threats, Sixth Edition. Carnegie Mellon University – Software Engineering Institute.
  5. National Insider Threat Task Force. (2018). Insider Threat Program – Maturity Framework. Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
  6. Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure. (2020). Insider Risk Mitigation Framework.
  7. Shaw, E., Fischer, L., Rose, A., (2009). Insider Risk Evaluation and Audit. Defense Personnel Security Research Center.
  8. Wetzel, J. (2017). Insider Threats to Financial Services: Uncovering Evidence With External Intelligence. Recorded Future.
  9. Scott, J., Spaniel, D. (2017). In 2017, The Insider Threat Epidemic Begins. Institute for Critical Infrastructure Technology.
  10. Costa, D., Albrethsen, M., Collins, M., Perl, S., Silowash, G., Spooner, D. (2016). An Insider Threat Ontology. Carnegie Mellon University – Software Engineering Institute.
  11. Moore, A., Perl, S., Cowley, J., Collins, M., Cassidy, T., Van Houdnos, N. (2016). The Critical Role of Positive Incentives for Reducing Insider Threats. Carnegie Mellon University – Software Engineering Institute.
  12. Moore, A., Novak, M., Collins, M., Trzeciak, R., Theis, M. (2015). Effective Insider Threats Programs: Understanding and Avoiding Potential Pitfalls. Carnegie Mellon University – Software Engineering Institute.
  13. Shaw, E., Sellers, L. (2015). Applications of the Critical-Path Method to Evaluate Insider Risks. Journal of Internal Security and Counterintelligence (59.2).
  14. Cole, E. (2015). Insider Threats and the Need for Fast and Directed Response. SANS Institute – Information Security Reading Room.
  15. Software Engineering Institute. (2015). Analytic Approaches to Detect Insider Threats. Carnegie Mellon University.
  16. Moore, A., Collins, M., Mundie, D., Ruefle, R., McIntire, D. (2014). Pattern-Based Design of Insider Threat Programs. Carnegie Mellon University – Software Engineering Institute.
  17. Upton, D., Creese, S. (2014). The Danger from Within. Harvard Business Review.
  18. Shaw, E., Payri, M., Cohen, M., Shaw, I. (2013). How Often Is Employee Anger An Insider Risk II? Detecting and Measuring Negative Sentiment versus Insider Risk in Digital Communications-Comparison between Human Raters and Psycholinguistic Software. Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law.
  19. Flynn, L., Huth, C., Trzeciak, R., Buttles, P. (2013). Best Practices Against Insider Threats in All Nations. Carnegie Mellon University – Software Engineering Institute.
  20. Cummings, A., Lewellen, T., McIntire, D., Moore, A., Trzeciak, R. (2012). Insider Threat Study: Illicit Cyber Activity Involving Fraud in the U.S. Financial Services Sector. Carnegie Mellon University – Software Engineering Institute.
  21. Lockheardt, C. (2012). The Human Factor: Using Behavioral Science to Counter Insider Threats. MITRE.
  22. Moore, A., Cappelli, D., Caron, T., Shaw, E., Spooner, D. (2011). A Preliminary Model of Insider Theft of Intellectual Property. Journal of Wireless Mobile Networks, Ubiquitous Computing, and Dependable Applications (2.1).
  23. Shaw, E. and Stock, H. (2011). Behavioral Risk Indicators of Malicious Insider Theft of Intellectual Property: Misreading the Writing on the Wall. Symantec.
  24. Defense Personnel Security Research Center. (2009). Espionage and Other Compromises of National Security. PERSEREC.
  25. Band, S., Cappelli, D., Fischer, L., Moore, A., Shaw, E., Trzeciak, R. (2006). Comparing Insider IT Sabotage and Espionage: A Model-Based Analysis. Carnegie Mellon University – Software Engineering Institute.
  26. Shaw, E., Ruby, K., and Post, J. (1998). The Insider Threat to Information Systems. Security Awareness Bulletin (2-98).
  27. Intelligence Community Staff. (1990). Subject: Project SLAMMER Interim Report. Director of Central Intelligence.

CYBER SECURE BEHAVIOURS

  1. How to Manage the Computer-Security Threat. (2017) The Economist
  2. CREST Security Review. (2016). Cyber Security. Centre for Research and Evidence on Security Threats (CREST issue 2).
  3. Chelly, M. (2017). Employees’ Impact on Cyber Security: Human Behavior Consequences on Security Measures. Responsible Cyber.
  4. Closing Security Gaps to Protect Corporate Data: A Study of US and European Organizations – Release I. (2016) Ponemon Institute LLC.
  5. Closing Security Gaps to Protect Corporate Data: A Study of US and European Organizations – Release 2: The Widening Gap Between IT and End Users. (2016) Ponemon Institute.
  6. Closing Security Gaps to Protect Corporate Data: A Study of US and European Organizations – Release 3: Differences in Security Practices and Vigilance Across UK, France Germany and US. (2016) Ponemon Institute LLC.
  7. Evans, M., Maglaras, L., He, Y., Janicke, H. (2016). Human Behaviour as an Aspect of Cyber Security Assurance. De Montfort Univrsity – School of Computer Sciences and Informatics.
  8. Bada, M. and Sasse, A. (2014). Cyber Security Awareness Campaigns: Why do they Fail to Change Behaviour? Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre.
  9. Nurse, J., Legg, P., Buckley, O., Agrafiotis, I., Wright, G., Whitty, M., Upton, D., Goldsmith, M., Creese, S. (2014). A Critical Reflection on the Threat from Human Insiders – its Nature, Industry Perceptions, and Detection Approaches. University of Oxford – Department of Computer Science.
  10. Pfleeger, S. and Caputo, D. (2012). Leveraging Behavioral Science to Mitigate Cyber Security Risk. The MITRE Corporation.

BEHAVIOURAL THREAT ASSESSMENT

  1. National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime – Behavioral Analysis Unit. (2017). Making Prevention a Reality: Identifying, Assessing, and Managing the Threat of Targeted Attacks. Federal Bureau of Investigations.
  2. Varazzani, C. (2017). The Brains Behind Behavioral Science. Behavioral Scientist.
  3. Davis, J. (2016). Stalking Crimes and Victim Protection. Psychology Today.
  4. Richtel, M. (2014). That Devil on Your Shoulder Likes to Sleep In. The New York Times.
  5. Glasgow, K. and Schouten, R. (2014). Assessing Violence Risk in Threatening Communications. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  6. Miller, A. (2014). Threat Assessment in Action. American Psychological Association.
  7. Slonje, R., Smith, P., Frisén, A. (2012). The Nature of Cyberbullying, and Strategies for Prevention. Computers in Human Behavior. Elsevier.

COGNITIVE BIASES AND FAKE NEWS

  1. Jack, C. (2017). Lexicon of Lies: Terms for Problematic Information. Data and Society Research Institute.
  2. Heuer, R. (1999). The Psychology of Intelligence Analysis. Central Intelligence Agency – Center for the Study of Intelligence.
  3. Brown, S. (2017). I Read the News, Therefore I am (Prejudiced). Psychology Today.
  4. Gu, L., Kropotov, V., Yarochkin, F., Leopando, J., Estialbo, J. (2017). Fake News and Cyber Propaganda: The Use and Abuse of Social Media. TREND MICRO.
  5. Franganillo, J., (2016). Information Overload, Why it Matters and How to Combat It. Interaction Design Foundation.
  6. Callagher, B. (2016). What Impact does Fake News have on the Real World. Merry Jane.
  7. Benson, B., and Manoogian III, J., (2016). The Cognitive Bias Codex.