Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Angelique Moscicki

dblp:144/5331 · also Angelika Moscicki · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2019
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Security and privacy · 1Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Network and information security
3 papers
Authentication and access control · 77% Network security · 17% Usable security · 7%
Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Usability and user experience research · 100%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 7, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Authentication and access control › authentication
risk-based authentication
0.522019
Evaluating Login Challenges as aDefense Against Account Takeover · WWW 2019
Data Breaches, Phishing, or Malware?: Understanding the Risks of Stolen Credentials · CCS 2017
Authentication and access control › authentication › authentication attack
credential theft
0.312017
Data Breaches, Phishing, or Malware?: Understanding the Risks of Stolen Credentials · CCS 2017
Usability and user experience research
usability evaluation
0.212014
Easy does it: more usable CAPTCHAs · CHI 2014
Authentication and access control › human interactive proofs
CAPTCHA
0.212014
Easy does it: more usable CAPTCHAs · CHI 2014
Usable security
authentication usability
0.112019
Evaluating Login Challenges as aDefense Against Account Takeover · WWW 2019

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

field study · 0.4empirical measurement · 0.4survey · 0.4production deployment · 0.4crowdsourced evaluation · 0.4phishing kit analysis · 0.3longitudinal measurement study · 0.3keylogger analysis · 0.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2019 Evaluating Login Challenges as aDefense Against Account Takeover
abstract
In this paper, we study the efficacy of login challenges at preventing account takeover, as well as evaluate the amount of friction these challenges create for normal users. These secondary authentication factors-presently deployed at Google, Microsoft, and other major identity providers as part of risk-aware authentication-trigger in response to a suspicious login or account recovery attempt. Using Google as a case study, we evaluate the effectiveness of fourteen device-based, delegation-based, knowledge-based, and resource-based challenges at preventing over 350,000 real-world hijacking attempts stemming from automated bots, phishers, and targeted attackers. We show that knowledge-based challenges prevent as few as 10% of hijacking attempts rooted in phishing and 73% of automated hijacking attempts. Device-based challenges provide the best protection, blocking over 94% of hijacking attempts rooted in phishing and 100% of automated hijacking attempts. We evaluate the usability limitations of each challenge based on a sample of 1.2M legitimate users. Our results illustrate that login challenges act as an important barrier to hijacking, but that friction in the process leads to 52% of legitimate users failing to sign-in-though 97% of users eventually access their account in a short period.
Periwinkle Doerfler, Kurt Thomas, Maija Marincenko, Juri Ranieri, Angelique Moscicki, Damon McCoy
WWW6
2017 Data Breaches, Phishing, or Malware?: Understanding the Risks of Stolen Credentials
abstract
In this paper, we present the first longitudinal measurement study of the underground ecosystem fueling credential theft and assess the risk it poses to millions of users. Over the course of March, 2016--March, 2017, we identify 788,000 potential victims of off-the-shelf keyloggers; 12.4 million potential victims of phishing kits; and 1.9 billion usernames and passwords exposed via data breaches and traded on blackmarket forums. Using this dataset, we explore to what degree the stolen passwords---which originate from thousands of online services---enable an attacker to obtain a victim's valid email credentials---and thus complete control of their online identity due to transitive trust. Drawing upon Google as a case study, we find 7--25% of exposed passwords match a victim's Google account. For these accounts, we show how hardening authentication mechanisms to include additional risk signals such as a user's historical geolocations and device profiles helps to mitigate the risk of hijacking. Beyond these risk metrics, we delve into the global reach of the miscreants involved in credential theft and the blackhat tools they rely on. We observe a remarkable lack of external pressure on bad actors, with phishing kit playbooks and keylogger capabilities remaining largely unchanged since the mid-2000s.
Kurt Thomas, Frank Li 0001, Ali Zand, Jacob Barrett, Juri Ranieri, Luca Invernizzi, Yarik Markov, Oxana Comanescu, Vijay Eranti, Angelique Moscicki, Dan Margolis, Vern Paxson, Elie Bursztein
CCS10
2014 Easy does it: more usable CAPTCHAs
abstract
Websites present users with puzzles called CAPTCHAs to curb abuse caused by computer algorithms masquerading as people. While CAPTCHAs are generally effective at stopping abuse, they might impair website usability if they are not properly designed. In this paper we describe how we designed two new CAPTCHA schemes for Google that focus on maximizing usability. We began by running an evaluation on Amazon Mechanical Turk with over 27,000 respondents to test the usability of different feature combinations. Then we studied user preferences using Google's consumer survey infrastructure. Finally, drawing on the insights gleaned during those studies, we tested our new captcha schemes first on Mechanical Turk and then on a fraction of production traffic. The resulting scheme is now an integral part of our production system and is served to millions of users. Our scheme achieved a 95.3% human accuracy, a 6.7.
Elie Bursztein, Angelique Moscicki, Celine Fabry, Steven Bethard, John C. Mitchell, Daniel Jurafsky
CHI2