F for fake: four studies on how we fall for phish

Mark Blythe, Helen Petrie, John Clark

    Research output: Contribution to conferencePaperpeer-review

    76 Citations (Scopus)


    This paper reports findings from a multi-method set of four studies that investigate why we continue to fall for phish. Current security advice suggests poor spelling and grammar in emails can be signs of phish. But a content analysis of a phishing archive indicates that many such emails contain no obvious spelling or grammar mistakes and often use convincing logos and letterheads. An online survey of 224 people finds that although phish are detected approximately 80% of the time, those with logos are significantly harder to detect. A qualitative interview study was undertaken to better understand the strategies used to identify phish. Blind users were selected because it was thought they may be more vulnerable to phishing attacks, however they demonstrated robust strategies for identifying phish based on careful reading of emails. Finally an analysis was undertaken of phish as a literary form. This identifies the main literary device employed as pastiche and draws on critical theory to consider why security based pastiche may be currently very persuasive.
    Original languageEnglish
    Publication statusPublished - May 2011
    EventCHI 2011 (ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems) - Vancouver, Canada
    Duration: 1 May 2011 → …


    ConferenceCHI 2011 (ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems)
    Period1/05/11 → …


    Dive into the research topics of 'F for fake: four studies on how we fall for phish'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this