The consensus among most security professionals is that either traditional training methods do not work or that company officers do not value the needs of such training.  Although I do believe that both have merit, the latter of the two has improved in the last three years, primarily due to some high profile public breaches. 

But maybe we are asking the wrong questions.  Maybe the approach of “how effective is security training” should be “what can we do to make security awareness training more effective.”

It starts by accepting the fact that a one size fits all mentality does not exist when it comes to teaching.  People learn differently and to apply the same methodology to everyone is not the best approach. 

Some people learn better using an auditory style, while others learn best physically or logically.   We need to start taking a more methodical approach and incorporate a variety of learning styles and, this is probably the most important method, tie it to a performance metric that is important to the employee.  What do I mean by that? 

In many of the call centers that I have been involved with over the years, they implemented a QAT or Quality Assurance Team.  They were involved with primarily checking the work of the employees to ensure that there were no critical mistakes made with their work.  Critical mistakes could lead to costly impacts to a businesses’ bottom line. Each employee would be evaluated approximately 5 or 6 times a quarter and their overall score would be weighed against the rest of their metrics. 

So why would this matter, you might say?  If quality metrics are weighed high enough, it could impact an employee’s potential for an incentive plan.  I recall the days of my fellow colleagues getting heated every time they received a quality score they felt like they didn’t deserve.  Despite the difference in opinions, the thing I always remember is that it changed the behavior of that person.  Whenever my colleague had to close the call, they did it the right way because it impacted something that they care about, their incentive eligibility.

Coming full circle, why wouldn’t we want to make security awareness training a part of an employee’s performance or quality score?  It is just as important to make employees aware of security threats as it is to ensure that they verify a caller or prevent someone from walking into sensitive areas without credentials.  Now that we have secured a reason why they should care it time to focus on learning methods.

As I stated prior, people learn differently and the best way to teach people about security is not just focusing on computer based training or videos to get the point across, but incorporating real-life simulations with targeted employees and giving immediate feedback as it happens.  A universal example would be tailgating. 

Tailgating is when an employee badges into a sensitive area, like an employee entrance or production area and allows someone without a badge to piggyback or “tailgate” without using their own access credentials.  So when the Simulator has successfully tailgated an employee, they should pull them aside and explain to them with a security guard or a manager present, the importance of ensuring they do not become a victim and suggest mitigation techniques.  In turn, the security guard should report the incident directly to the employee’s manager for record and the manager should update the employee’s quality or performance file. 

Conversely, if the tailgating attempt is unsuccessful by an employee, it is important to let the employee know they passed the simulation for two reasons.  One, it reinforces positive behavior and two, undoubtedly, that employee will echo their experience with other teammates giving off a vigilance effect.  This type of experience will appease to those that learn physically, visually, verbally as well as socially (to others).  The same thing can be achieved by phishing attempts.

Phishing is a social engineering attack that focuses on deceiving an individual by pretending to be a reputable person or organization.  It is commonly deployed by email but other methods include by phone or in person.  The goal is for the target to give up their credentials or critical information so that the perpetrator can gain access to sensitive information worth value.  

One of the most common simulations available is sending an employee a well-crafted email from a source that appears to be legitimate.  When the employee clicks on it, the screen opens a series of web pages with loud alert sounds.  A splash page follows with the company emblem letting them know that they have just participated in phishing simulation.  After they review the information and submit their acknowledgement of the simulation, QAT updates the employee file and the manager is copied for additional follow up. 

On the flip side, if the phishing attempt is reported to the appropriate party (i.e. Designated Security Team or Manager) by the employee or expires (due to employee deleting the email), then the employee and the QAT are made aware.  This should appease to those that learn verbally, visually, physically, socially and logically.

Now I know that there are many other learning styles that I may not have accounted for; to my defense, there are many other methods of attack that contribute to cyber security.  The point is, that it is important to incorporate different methods with the mindset of what works with a multitude of learning styles.  Equally important, is to tie the importance of security with a metric that impacts the employee so that it matters to them. 

As security professionals, it may be ideal to inquire with the organization if this is currently in place.  If not, this would be a powerful recommendations.  One of my favorite quotes is by Steve Conrad formally of MediaPro, “it’s not just about providing security training, it’s about providing educational experiences that change behaviors.”