Joseph Hallett

Nikhil Patnaik, Andrew C. Dwyer, Joseph Hallett et al.

Producing secure software is challenging. The poor usability of security APIs makes this even harder. Many recommendations have been proposed to support developers by improving the usability of cryptography libraries and APIs; rooted in wider best practice guidance in software engineering and API design. In this SLR, we systematize knowledge regarding these recommendations. We identify and analyze 65 papers spanning 45 years, offering a total of 883 recommendations.We undertake a thematic analysis to identify 7 core ways to improve usability of APIs. We find that most of the recommendations focus on helping API developers to construct and structure their code and make it more usable and easier for programmers to understand. There is less focus, however, on documentation, writing requirements, code quality assessment and the impact of organizational software development practices. By tracing and analyzing paper ancestry, we map how this knowledge becomes validated and translated over time.We find evidence that less than a quarter of all API usability recommendations are empirically validated, and that recommendations specific to usable security APIs lag even further behind in this regard.

Benjamin Shreeve, Joseph Hallett, Matthew Edwards et al.

Cyber security requirements are influenced by the priorities and decisions of a range of stakeholders. Board members and CISOs determine strategic priorities. Managers have responsibility for resource allocation and project management. Legal professionals concern themselves with regulatory compliance. Little is understood about how the security decision-making approaches of these different stakeholders contrast, and if particular groups of stakeholders have a better appreciation of security requirements during decision-making. Are risk analysts better decision makers than CISOs? Do security experts exhibit more effective strategies than board members? This paper explores the effect that different experience and diversity of expertise has on the quality of a team's cyber security decision-making and whether teams with members from more varied backgrounds perform better than those with more focused, homogeneous skill sets. Using data from 208 sessions and 948 players of a tabletop game run in the wild by a major national organization over 16 months, we explore how choices are affected by player background (e.g.,~cyber security experts versus risk analysts, board-level decision makers versus technical experts) and different team make-ups (homogeneous teams of security experts versus various mixes). We find that no group of experts makes significantly better game decisions than anyone else, and that their biases lead them to not fully comprehend what they are defending or how the defenses work.