Incident response playbooks provide step-by-step guidelines to help security operations personnel quickly respond to specific threat scenarios. Although playbooks are common in the security industry, they have not been empirically evaluated for effectiveness. This paper takes a first step toward measuring playbooks and the frameworks used to design them, using two studies conducted in an enterprise environment. In the first study, twelve security professionals created two playbooks each, using two standard playbook design frameworks; the resulting playbooks were evaluated by experts for accuracy. In the second, we observed five personnel using the created playbooks in no-notice threat exercises within a live security-operations center. We find that playbooks can help simplify and support incident response efforts. However, playbooks designed using the frameworks we examined often lack sufficient detail for real-world use, particularly for more junior technicians. We provide recommendations for improving playbooks, playbook frameworks, and organizational processes surrounding playbook use.

Elissa Redmiles, Lisa Maszkiewicz, Emily Hwang, Dhruv Kuchhal, Everest Liu, Miraida Morales, Denis Peskov, Sudha Rao, Rock Stevens, Kristina Gligorić, Sean Kross, Michelle Mazurek, Hal Daumé III. Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP). 2019.

Identifying security vulnerabilities in software is a critical task that requires significant human effort. Currently, vulnerability discovery is often the responsibility of software testers before release and white-hat hackers (often within bug bounty programs) afterward. This arrangement can be ad-hoc and far from ideal; for example, if testers could identify more vulnerabilities, software would be more secure at release time. Thus far, however, the processes used by each group - and how they compare to and interact with each other - have not been well studied. This paper takes a first step toward better understanding, and eventually improving, this ecosystem: we report on a semi-structured interview study (n=25) with both testers and hackers, focusing on how each group finds vulnerabilities, how they develop their skills, and the challenges they face. The results suggest that hackers and testers follow similar processes, but get different results due largely to differing experiences and therefore different underlying knowledge of security concepts. Based on these results, we provide recommendations to support improved security training for testers, better communication between hackers and developers, and smarter bug bounty policies to motivate hacker participation.

Android and other mobile operating systems ask users for authorization before allowing apps to access sensitive resources such as contacts and location. We hypothesize that such authorization systems could be improved by becoming more integrated with the app's user interface. In this paper, we conduct two studies to test our hypothesis. First, we use apptracer{}, a dynamic analysis tool we developed, to measure to what extent user interactions and sensitive resource use are related in existing apps. Second, we conduct an online survey to examine how different interactions with the UI affect users' expectations about whether an app accesses sensitive resources. Our results suggest that user interactions such as button clicks can be interpreted as authorization, reducing the need for separate requests; but that accesses not directly tied to user interactions should be separately authorized, possibly when apps are first launched.