Potential Acts Of Human Error Or Failure
Contents |
on Slideshare Security Intelligence Analysis and Insight for Information Security Professionals Toggle navigation Search for: Search Expand News Topics Industries X-Force Research
What Is Human Error In Computers
Media Events & Webinars Home > Topics > CISO > human error in information security How to Reduce Human Error in Information Security Incidents How to Reduce Human Error in Information
Human Error In Information Technology
Security Incidents January 13, 2015 | By Nicole van Deursen Share How to Reduce Human Error in Information Security Incidents on Twitter Share How to Reduce examples of human error in information technology Human Error in Information Security Incidents on Facebook Share How to Reduce Human Error in Information Security Incidents on LinkedIn Share How to Reduce Human Error in Information Security Incidents on Twitter Share How to Reduce Human Error in Information Security Incidents on Facebook Share How to Reduce Human Error in Information human error cyber security Security Incidents on LinkedIn According to the 2014 IBM Chief Information Security Officer Assessment, 95 percent of information security incidents involve human error. Human error is not only the most important factor affecting security, but it is also a key factor in aviation accidents and in medical errors. Information security risk managers and chief information security officers can benefit from the insights of studies on the human factor within these industries to reduce human error related to security. What Is Human Error? Human errors are usually defined as circumstances in which planned actions, decisions or behaviors reduce — or have the potential to reduce — quality, safety and security. Examples of human error involved in information security include the following: System misconfiguration; Poor patch management; Use of default usernames and passwords or easy-to-guess passwords; Lost devices; Disclosure of information via an incorrect email address; Double-clicking on an unsafe URL or attachment; Sharing passwords with
security Review: 6 Python IDEs go to the mat The march toward exascale computers
Data Breach Human Error
Buyer's guide explores data analytics software More Insider Sign Out "human error" cyber attack Search for Suggestions for you Insider email Big Data CIO 100 Symposium and Awards Careers/Staffing Cloud
Human Error Vs Computer Error
Computing Consumer Technology Developers Hardware Healthcare IT Industry IT Strategy All IT Strategy CIO Role CMO Role Innovation Leadership and Management Outsourcing Infrastructure All Infrastructure Data https://securityintelligence.com/how-to-reduce-human-error-in-information-security-incidents/ Center Networking Storage Virtualization Insider Threats Internet All Internet Marketing Mobile All Mobile Mobile Apps Mobile Management Smartphones Tablets Wearables Operating Systems All Operating Systems Linux Windows Security All Security Cybersecurity Disaster Recovery Malware Privacy Regulation Software Contact Us Magazine Subscription Services Archive News Opinion Resources Slideshows Video More CIO Executive Council CIO http://www.cio.com/article/2437201/it-strategy/human-error-tops-the-list-of-security-threats.html Events Newsletters RSS Blogs × Close Home IT Strategy News Human Error Tops the List of Security Threats More like this The Future of Information Security: 2008 and Beyond Can Mid-Market Merchants Comply with PCI Standards In Time? Trendlines: New, Hot, Unexpected Majority of companies list "human error" as root cause of security failures, well ahead of operations and technology, new Deloitte survey says. Email a friend To Use commas to separate multiple email addresses From Privacy Policy Thank you Your message has been sent. Sorry There was an error emailing this page. Comments By Diann Daniel Follow CIO | Feb 5, 2008 7:00 AM PT RELATED TOPICS IT Strategy Comments When it comes to security, human threats score much higher than those posed by technology. So says a new survey by consulting firm Deloitte of more
Island accident), aviation (see pilot error), space exploration (e.g., the Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster and Space Shuttle Columbia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_error disaster), and medicine (see medical error). Prevention of human error https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/des_s99/human/ is generally seen as a major contributor to reliability and safety of (complex) systems. Contents 1 Definition 2 Performance 3 Categories 4 Sources 5 Controversies 6 See also 7 References Definition[edit] Human error means that something has been done that was "not intended by human error the actor; not desired by a set of rules or an external observer; or that led the task or system outside its acceptable limits".[1] In short, it is a deviation from intention, expectation or desirability.[1] Logically, human actions can fail to achieve their goal in two different ways: the actions can go as planned, but human error in the plan can be inadequate (leading to mistakes); or, the plan can be satisfactory, but the performance can be deficient (leading to slips and lapses).[2][3] However, a mere failure is not an error if there had been no plan to accomplish something in particular.[1] Performance[edit] Human error and performance are two sides of the same coin: "human error" mechanisms are the same as "human performance" mechanisms; performance later categorized as 'error' is done so in hindsight:[4][5] therefore actions later termed "human error" are actually part of the ordinary spectrum of human behaviour. The study of absent-mindedness in everyday life provides ample documentation and categorization of such aspects of behavior. While human error is firmly entrenched in the classical approaches to accident investigation and risk assessment, it has no role in newer approaches such as resilience engineering.[6] Categories[edit] There are many ways to categorize human error.[7][8] exogenous versus endogenous (i.e., originating outside versus inside the individual)[9] situation assessment versus response planning[10] and rel
are attributed to a poorly designed human-computer interface (HCI). However, human beings are often needed to be the fail-safe in an otherwise automated system. Even the most highly trained and alert operators are prone to boredom when they are usually not needed for normal operation, and panic when an unusual situation occurs, stress levels are raised, and lives are at stake. The HCI must give appropriate feedback to the operator to allow him or her to make well informed decisions based on the most up to date information on the state of the system. High false alarm rates will make the operator ignore a real alarm condition. Methods for determining the effectiveness of an HCI, such as heuristic evaluation, cognitive walkthroughs, and empirical evaluations like protocol analysis, exist, but are often cumbersome and do not provide conclusive data on the safety and usability of an HCI. System designers must insure that the HCI is easy and intuitive for human operators to use, but not so simple that it lulls the operator into a state of complacency and lowers his or her responsiveness to emergency situations. Contents: Introduction Key Concepts Sources of Human Error HCI Problems Available tools, techniques, and metrics HCI Design Heuristic Evaluation Cognitive Walkthrough Protocol Analysis MetriStation Relationship to other topics Conclusions Annotated Reference List & Further Reading Introduction In any complex system, most errors and failures in the system can be traced to a human source. Incomplete specifications, design defects, and implementation errors such as software bugs and manufacturing defects, are all caused by human beings making mistakes. However, when looking at human errors in the context of embedded systems, we tend to focus on operator errors and errors caused by a poor human-computer interface (HCI). Human beings have common failure modes and certain conditions will make it more likely for a human operator to make a mistake. A good HCI design can encourage the operator to perform correctly and protect the system from common operator errors. However, there is no well defined procedure for constructing an HCI for safety critical systems. In an embedded system, cost, size, power, and complexity are especially li