<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>behavioral detection &#8211; Noise</title>
	<atom:link href="https://noise.getoto.net/tag/behavioral-detection/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://noise.getoto.net</link>
	<description>The collective thoughts of the interwebz</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 May 2025 04:09:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>More AIs Are Taking  Polls and Surveys</title>
		<link>https://noise.getoto.net/2025/05/21/more-ais-are-taking-polls-and-surveys/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bruce Schneier]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 May 2025 11:03:59 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[AI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[behavioral detection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.schneier.com/?p=70280</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>I already knew about the declining response rate for polls and surveys. The percentage of AI bots that <a href="https://laurenleek.substack.com/p/the-quiet-collapse-of-surveys-fewer">respond to surveys</a> is also increasing.</p>
<p>Solutions are hard:</p>
<blockquote><p>1. <em>Make surveys less boring.</em><br>
We need to move past bland, grid-filled surveys and start designing experiences people actually want to complete. That means mobile-first layouts, shorter runtimes, and maybe even a dash of storytelling. TikTok or dating app style surveys wouldn’t be a bad idea or is that just me being too much Gen Z?</p>
<p>2. <em>Bot detection.</em><br>
There’s a growing toolkit of ways to spot AI-generated responses—using things like response entropy, writing style patterns or even metadata like keystroke timing. Platforms should start integrating these detection tools more widely. Ideally, you introduce an element that only humans can do, e.g., you have to pick up your price somewhere in-person. Btw, note that these bots can easily be designed to find ways around the most common detection tactics such as Captcha’s, timed responses and postcode and IP recognition. Believe me, way less code than you suspect is needed to do this...</p></blockquote>]]></description>
		
		
		<enclosure url="" length="0" type="" />

			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Detecting Phishing Emails</title>
		<link>https://noise.getoto.net/2020/11/06/detecting-phishing-emails/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bruce Schneier]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2020 12:28:20 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[academic papers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[behavioral detection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[e-mail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Phishing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scams]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.schneier.com/?p=60420</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Research paper: Rick Wash, &#8220;<a href="https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3415231">How Experts Detect Phishing Scam Emails</a>&#8220;:</p>
<blockquote><p><b>Abstract:</b> Phishing scam emails are emails that pretend to be something they are not in order to get the recipient of the email to undertake some action they normally would not. While technical protections against phishing reduce the number of phishing emails received, they are not perfect and phishing remains one of the largest sources of security risk in technology and communication systems. To better understand the cognitive process that end users can use to identify phishing messages, I interviewed 21 IT experts about instances where they successfully identified emails as phishing in their own inboxes. IT experts naturally follow a three-stage process for identifying phishing emails. In the first stage, the email recipient tries to make sense of the email, and understand how it relates to other things in their life. As they do this, they notice discrepancies: little things that are &#8220;off&#8221; about the email. As the recipient notices more discrepancies, they feel a need for an alternative explanation for the email. At some point, some feature of the email &#8212; usually, the presence of a link requesting an action &#8212; triggers them to recognize that phishing is a possible alternative explanation. At this point, they become suspicious (stage two) and investigate the email by looking for technical details that can conclusively identify the email as phishing. Once they find such information, then they move to stage three and deal with the email by deleting it or reporting it. I discuss ways this process can fail, and implications for improving training of end users about phishing...</p></blockquote>]]></description>
		
		
		<enclosure url="" length="0" type="" />

			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!--
Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: https://www.boldgrid.com/w3-total-cache/

Object Caching 31/61 objects using Memcached
Page Caching using Disk: Enhanced 
Lazy Loading (feed)
Database Caching using Memcached

Served from: noise.getoto.net @ 2025-12-09 22:30:59 by W3 Total Cache
-->