Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Julie S. Downs
dblp:78/1081 · also Julie Downs
· DBLP profile ↗
9ranked-venue papers
2as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
0000-0003-2405-6837ORCID · verified
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 5 · 2 first-authorSecurity and privacy · 4 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 2
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 |
Usable security · 79% Systems and software security · 9% Authentication and access control · 9% | |
| Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
2 papers |
Collaborative and social computing · 100% | |
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper |
Empirical software engineering · 100% |
Topics — the 7 heaviest of 11, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Usable security
authentication usability |
0.1 | 1 | 2012 | Operating system framed in case of mistaken identity: measuring the success of web-based spoofing attacks on OS password-entry dialogs · CCS 2012 |
Authentication and access control › authentication › authentication attack
credential theft |
0.1 | 1 | 2012 | Operating system framed in case of mistaken identity: measuring the success of web-based spoofing attacks on OS password-entry dialogs · CCS 2012 |
Systems and software security
operating system security |
0.1 | 1 | 2012 | Operating system framed in case of mistaken identity: measuring the success of web-based spoofing attacks on OS password-entry dialogs · CCS 2012 |
Usable security › social engineering
phishing susceptibility |
0.1 | 1 | 2010 | Who falls for phish?: a demographic analysis of phishing susceptibility and effectiveness of interventions · CHI 2010 |
Usable security
security education |
0.1 | 1 | 2010 | Who falls for phish?: a demographic analysis of phishing susceptibility and effectiveness of interventions · CHI 2010 |
Collaborative and social computing
crowdsourcing |
0.0 | 1 | 2010 | Are your participants gaming the system?: screening mechanical turk workers · CHI 2010 |
Usable security › authentication usability
user authentication behavior |
0.0 | 1 | 2010 | Who falls for phish?: a demographic analysis of phishing susceptibility and effectiveness of interventions · CHI 2010 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
survey · 0.2screening questions · 0.2user study · 0.1roleplay survey · 0.1mediation analysis · 0.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | The Kids Are All Right: Investigating the Susceptibility of Teens and Adults to YouTube Giveaway Scams
Elijah Robert Bouma-Sims, Lily Klucinec, Mandy Lanyon, Julie S. Downs, Lorrie Faith Cranor |
NDSS | 4 |
| 2015 | Evaluating Consumer m-Health Services for Promoting Healthy Eating: A Randomized Field Experiment
Yi-Chin Kato-Lin, Rema Padman, Julie S. Downs, Vibhanshu Abhishek |
AMIA | 3 |
| 2013 | Your attention please: designing security-decision UIs to make genuine risks harder to ignoreabstractWe designed and tested attractors for computer security dialogs: user-interface modifications used to draw users' attention to the most important information for making decisions. Some of these modifications were purely visual, while others temporarily inhibited potentially-dangerous behaviors to redirect users' attention to salient information. We conducted three between-subjects experiments to test the effectiveness of the attractors. Cristian Bravo-Lillo, Saranga Komanduri, Lorrie Faith Cranor, Robert W. Reeder, Manya Sleeper, Julie S. Downs, Stuart E. Schechter |
SOUPS | 6 |
| 2012 | Operating system framed in case of mistaken identity: measuring the success of web-based spoofing attacks on OS password-entry dialogsabstractWhen asking users to enter credentials, today's desktop operating systems often use windows that provide scant evidence that a trusted path has been established; evidence that would allow a user to know that a request is genuine and that the password will not be read by untrusted principals. We measure the efficacy of web-based attacks that spoof these operating system credential-entry windows to steal users' device-login passwords. We recruited 504 users of Amazon's Mechanical Turk to evaluate a series of games on third-party websites. The third such website indicated that it needed to install software from the publisher that provided the participants' operating system: Microsoft's Silverlight for Windows Vista/7 users and Apple's QuickTime for Mac OS users. The website then displayed a spoofed replica of a window the participant's client operating system would use to request a user's device credentials. In our most effective attacks, over 20% of participants entered passwords that they later admitted were the genuine credentials used to login to their devices. Even among those who declined to enter their credentials, many participants were oblivious to the spoofing attack. Participants were more likely to confirm that they were worried about the consequences of installing software from a legitimate source than to report that they thought the credential-entry window might have appeared as a result of an attempt to steal their password. Cristian Bravo-Lillo, Lorrie Faith Cranor, Julie S. Downs, Saranga Komanduri, Stuart E. Schechter, Manya Sleeper |
CCS | 3 |
| 2011 | Improving Computer Security Dialogs
Cristian Bravo-Lillo, Lorrie Faith Cranor, Julie S. Downs, Saranga Komanduri, Manya Sleeper |
INTERACT (4) | 3 |
| 2010 | Are your participants gaming the system?: screening mechanical turk workersabstractIn this paper we discuss a screening process used in conjunction with a survey administered via Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk. We sought an easily implementable method to disqualify those people who participate but don't take the study tasks seriously. By using two previously pilot tested screening questions, we identified 764 of 1,962 people who did not answer conscientiously. Young men seem to be most likely to fail the qualification task. Those that are professionals, students, and non-workers seem to be more likely to take the task seriously than financial workers, hourly workers, and other workers. Men over 30 and women were more likely to answer seriously. Julie S. Downs, Mandy B. Holbrook, Steve Sheng, Lorrie Faith Cranor |
CHI | 1 |
| 2010 | Who falls for phish?: a demographic analysis of phishing susceptibility and effectiveness of interventionsabstractIn this paper we present the results of a roleplay survey instrument administered to 1001 online survey respondents to study both the relationship between demographics and phishing susceptibility and the effectiveness of several anti-phishing educational materials. Our results suggest that women are more susceptible than men to phishing and participants between the ages of 18 and 25 are more susceptible to phishing than other age groups. We explain these demographic factors through a mediation analysis. Educational materials reduced users' tendency to enter information into phishing webpages by 40% percent; however, some of the educational materials we tested also slightly decreased participants' tendency to click on legitimate links. Steve Sheng, Mandy B. Holbrook, Ponnurangam Kumaraguru, Lorrie Faith Cranor, Julie S. Downs |
CHI | 5 |
| 2008 | The Impact Of Web-Based Diabetes Risk Calculators On Information Processing and Risk Perceptions
Christopher A. Harle, Rema Padman, Julie S. Downs |
AMIA | 3 |
| 2006 | Decision strategies and susceptibility to phishingabstractPhishing emails are semantic attacks that con people into divulging sensitive information using techniques to make the user believe that information is being requested by a legitimate source. In order to develop tools that will be effective in combating these schemes, we first must know how and why people fall for them. This study reports preliminary analysis of interviews with 20 non-expert computer users to reveal their strategies and understand their decisions when encountering possibly suspicious emails. One of the reasons that people may be vulnerable to phishing schemes is that awareness of the risks is not linked to perceived vulnerability or to useful strategies in identifying phishing emails. Rather, our data suggest that people can manage the risks that they are most familiar with, but don't appear to extrapolate to be wary of unfamiliar risks. We explore several strategies that people use, with varying degrees of success, in evaluating emails and in making sense of warnings offered by browsers attempting to help users navigate the web. Julie S. Downs, Mandy B. Holbrook, Lorrie Faith Cranor |
SOUPS | 1 |