Inverting human factors can aid in cyber defense by flipping well-known guidelines and using them to de-grade and disrupt the performance of a cyber attacker. There has been significant research on how we perform cyber defense tasks and how we should present information to operators, cyber defenders, and analysts to make them more efficient and more effective. We can actually create these situations just as easily as we can mitigate them. Oppositional human factors are a new way to apply well-known research on human attention allocation to disrupt potential cyber attackers and provide much-needed asymmetric benefits to the defender.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AltmannE. M. (2004). The preparation effect in task switching: carryover of SOA. Memory & Cognition, 32(1), 153–63.
2.
AltmannE. M. (2005). Repetition priming in task switching: do the benefits dissipate? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(3), 535–540.
3.
ArringtonC. M.LoganG. D. (2004). The cost of a voluntary task switch. Psychological Science, 15(9), 610–615.
4.
ArringtonC. M.LoganG. D. (2005). Voluntary task switching: chasing the elusive homunculus. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 31(4), 683–702.
5.
ChouC.MadhavanD.FunkK. (1996). Studies of cockpit task management errors. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 6(4), 307– 320.
6.
D’AmicoA.WhitleyK.TesoneD.O’BrienB.RothE. (2005). Achieving cyber defense situational awareness: a cognitive task analysis of information assurance analysts. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 49, 229–233.
7.
DismukesR.BermanB. (2010). Checklists and monitoring in the cockpit: Why crucial defenses sometimes fail. National Aeronautics and Space Administration Technical Memorandum NASA/TM-2010-216396.
8.
FunkK. (1991). Cockpit Task Management : Preliminary Definitions, Nonnative Theory, Error Taxonomy, and Design Recommendations. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 1(4), 271–285.
9.
Ferguson-WalterK. J.LafonD. S.ShadeT. B. (2017). Friend or faux: deception for cyber defense. Journal of Information Warfare, 16(2), 28-42.
10.
GutzwillerR. S.FugateS.SawyerB. D.HancockP. A. (2015). The human factors of cyber network defense. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 59(1), 322–326.
11.
GutzwillerR. S.WickensC. D.CleggB. A. (2015). The role of individual differences in executive attentional networks and switching choices in multi-task management. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 59, 632–636.
12.
GutzwillerR. S.WickensC. D.CleggB. A. (2016). The role of time on task in multi-task management. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 5, 176–184.
13.
HameedS.FerrisT.JayaramanS.SarterN. B. (2009). Using informative peripheral visual and tactile cues to support task and interruption management. Human Factors, 51(2), 126–135.
14.
HutchinsE.M.CloppertM.J.AminR.M. (2010). Intelligence-Driven Computer Network Defense Informed by Analysis of Adversary Campaigns and Intrusion Kill Chains. Proceedings 6th Int’l Conf. Information Warfare and Security (ICIW 11), Academic Conferences Ltd., 113–125.
15.
International Ergonomics Association (IEA). (2000). Definition of human factors. Retrieved from http://www.iea.cc/whats/.
16.
JajodiaS.GhoshA. K.SwarupV.WangC.WangX. S. (2011). Moving Target Defense: Creating Asymmetric Uncertainty for Cyber Threats. Springer Publishing Company, Inc.
17.
KieselA.SteinhauserM.WendtM.FalkensteinM.JostK.PhilippA. M.KochI. (2010). Control and interference in task switching-A review. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 849–874.
18.
LatorellaK. (1998). Effects of modality on interrupted flight deck performance: Implications for data link. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting.
19.
LiaoJ.MorayN. (1993). A simulation study of human performance deterioration and mental workload. Le Travail Humain, 56(4), 321-344
20.
LoukopoulosL.DismukesR.BarshiI. (2009). The multitasking myth. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
21.
McDanielM. A.EinsteinG. O. (2007). Prospective memory: An overview and synthesis of an emerging field. SAGE Publications, Inc.
22.
McFarlaneD. (2002). Comparison of Four Primary Methods for Coordinating the Interruption of People in Human-Computer Interaction. Human-Computer Interaction, 17(1), 63–139.
23.
MonsellS. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(3),134-40
24.
RogersR.MonsellS. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(2), 207–231.
25.
SalvucciD.TaatgenN. A. (2011). The multitasking mind. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.
26.
SarterN. B. (2005). Graded and multimodal interruption cueing in support of preattentive reference and attention management. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 478–481.
27.
SarterN. B. (2013). Multimodal Support for Interruption Management: Models, Empirical Findings, and Design Recommendations. Proceedings of the IEEE, 1–8.
28.
WickensC. D. (2002). Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3(2), 159–177.
29.
WickensC. D. (2008). Multiple resources and mental workload. Human Factors, 50(3), 449–455.
30.
WickensC. D.GutzwillerR. S. (2017). The Status of the Strategic Task Overload Model (STOM) for Predicting Multi-Task Management. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 61, 757– 761.
31.
WickensC. D.GutzwillerR. S.SantamariaA. (2015). Discrete task switching in overload: A meta-analysis and a model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 79, 79–84.
32.
WickensC. D.GutzwillerR. S.VieaneA.CleggB. A.SebokA.JanesJ. (2016). Time sharing between robotics and process control: Validating a model of attention switching. Human Factors, 58(2), 322– 343.
33.
ZijlstraF. R. H.RoeR. A.LeonoraA. B.KredietI. (1999). Temporal factors in mental work: Effects of interrupted activities. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 163–185.
