Download and Read online, DOWNLOAD EBOOK, [PDF EBOOK EPUB ], Ebooks

download, Read Ebook EPUB/KINDE, Download Book Format PDF

Advances in Human Factors in Cybersecurity:

Proceedings of the AHFE 2019 International
Conference on Human Factors in Cybersecurity, July
24-28, 2019, Washington D.C., USA Tareq Ahram

OR CLICK LINK
https://textbookfull.com/product/advances-in-
human-factors-in-cybersecurity-proceedings-of-the-
ahfe-2019-international-conference-on-human-
factors-in-cybersecurity-
july-24-28-2019-washington-d-c-usa-tareq-ahram/
Read with Our Free App Audiobook Free Format PFD EBook, Ebooks dowload PDF
with Andible trial, Real book, online, KINDLE , Download[PDF] and Read and Read
Read book Format PDF Ebook, Dowload online, Read book Format PDF Ebook,
[PDF] and Real ONLINE Dowload [PDF] and Real ONLINE
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Advances in Human Factors of Transportation:

Proceedings of the AHFE 2019 International Conference
on Human Factors in Transportation, July 24-28, 2019,
Washington D.C., USA Neville Stanton
https://textbookfull.com/product/advances-in-human-factors-of-
transportation-proceedings-of-the-ahfe-2019-international-
conference-on-human-factors-in-transportation-
july-24-28-2019-washington-d-c-usa-neville-stanton/

Advances in Human Factors and Simulation: Proceedings

of the AHFE 2019 International Conference on Human
Factors and Simulation, July 24-28, 2019, Washington
D.C., USA Daniel N. Cassenti
https://textbookfull.com/product/advances-in-human-factors-and-
simulation-proceedings-of-the-ahfe-2019-international-conference-
on-human-factors-and-simulation-july-24-28-2019-washington-d-c-
usa-daniel-n-cassenti/

Advances in Physical Ergonomics and Human Factors:

Proceedings of the AHFE 2019 International Conference
on Physical Ergonomics and Human Factors, July 24-28,
2019, Washington D.C., USA Ravindra S. Goonetilleke
https://textbookfull.com/product/advances-in-physical-ergonomics-
and-human-factors-proceedings-of-the-ahfe-2019-international-
conference-on-physical-ergonomics-and-human-factors-
july-24-28-2019-washington-d-c-usa-ravindra-s-go/

Advances in Safety Management and Human Factors:

Proceedings of the AHFE 2019 International Conference
on Safety Management and Human Factors, July 24-28,
2019, Washington D.C., USA Pedro M. Arezes
https://textbookfull.com/product/advances-in-safety-management-
and-human-factors-proceedings-of-the-ahfe-2019-international-
conference-on-safety-management-and-human-factors-
Advances in Usability and User Experience: Proceedings
of the AHFE 2019 International Conferences on Usability
& User Experience, and Human Factors and Assistive
Technology, July 24-28, 2019, Washington D.C., USA
Tareq Ahram
https://textbookfull.com/product/advances-in-usability-and-user-
experience-proceedings-of-the-ahfe-2019-international-
conferences-on-usability-user-experience-and-human-factors-and-
assistive-technology-july-24-28-2019-washingt/

Advances in Human Factors in Robots and Unmanned

Systems: Proceedings of the AHFE 2019 International
Conference on Human Factors in Robots and Unmanned
Systems, July 24-28, 2019, Washington D.C., USA Jessie
Chen
https://textbookfull.com/product/advances-in-human-factors-in-
robots-and-unmanned-systems-proceedings-of-the-
ahfe-2019-international-conference-on-human-factors-in-robots-
and-unmanned-systems-july-24-28-2019-washington-d-c-usa/

Advances in Human Factors in Training, Education, and

Learning Sciences: Proceedings of the AHFE 2019
International Conference on Human Factors in Training,
Education, and Learning Sciences, July 24-28, 2019,
Washington D.C., USA Waldemar Karwowski
https://textbookfull.com/product/advances-in-human-factors-in-
training-education-and-learning-sciences-proceedings-of-the-
ahfe-2019-international-conference-on-human-factors-in-training-
education-and-learning-sciences-july-24-2/

Advances in Human Factors in Cybersecurity AHFE 2020

Virtual Conference on Human Factors in Cybersecurity
July 16 20 2020 USA Isabella Corradini

https://textbookfull.com/product/advances-in-human-factors-in-
cybersecurity-ahfe-2020-virtual-conference-on-human-factors-in-
cybersecurity-july-16-20-2020-usa-isabella-corradini/

Advances in Human Factors and Ergonomics in Healthcare

and Medical Devices: Proceedings of the AHFE 2019
International Conference on Human Factors and
Ergonomics in Healthcare and Medical Devices, July
24-28, 2019, Washington D.C., USA Nancy J. Lightner
https://textbookfull.com/product/advances-in-human-factors-and-
ergonomics-in-healthcare-and-medical-devices-proceedings-of-the-
ahfe-2019-international-conference-on-human-factors-and-
Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing 960

Tareq Ahram
Waldemar Karwowski Editors

Advances in
Human Factors
in Cybersecurity
Proceedings of the AHFE 2019
International Conference on Human
Factors in Cybersecurity, July 24–28,
2019, Washington D.C., USA
Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing

Volume 960

Series Editor
Janusz Kacprzyk, Systems Research Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences,
Warsaw, Poland

Advisory Editors
Nikhil R. Pal, Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata, India
Rafael Bello Perez, Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Computing,
Universidad Central de Las Villas, Santa Clara, Cuba
Emilio S. Corchado, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain
Hani Hagras, School of Computer Science & Electronic Engineering,
University of Essex, Colchester, UK
László T. Kóczy, Department of Automation, Széchenyi István University,
Gyor, Hungary
Vladik Kreinovich, Department of Computer Science, University of Texas
at El Paso, El Paso, TX, USA
Chin-Teng Lin, Department of Electrical Engineering, National Chiao
Tung University, Hsinchu, Taiwan
Jie Lu, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology,
University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Patricia Melin, Graduate Program of Computer Science, Tijuana Institute
of Technology, Tijuana, Mexico
Nadia Nedjah, Department of Electronics Engineering, University of Rio de Janeiro,
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Ngoc Thanh Nguyen, Faculty of Computer Science and Management,
Wrocław University of Technology, Wrocław, Poland
Jun Wang, Department of Mechanical and Automation Engineering,
The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong
The series “Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing” contains publications
on theory, applications, and design methods of Intelligent Systems and Intelligent
Computing. Virtually all disciplines such as engineering, natural sciences, computer
and information science, ICT, economics, business, e-commerce, environment,
healthcare, life science are covered. The list of topics spans all the areas of modern
intelligent systems and computing such as: computational intelligence, soft comput-
ing including neural networks, fuzzy systems, evolutionary computing and the fusion
of these paradigms, social intelligence, ambient intelligence, computational neuro-
science, artificial life, virtual worlds and society, cognitive science and systems,
Perception and Vision, DNA and immune based systems, self-organizing and
adaptive systems, e-Learning and teaching, human-centered and human-centric
computing, recommender systems, intelligent control, robotics and mechatronics
including human-machine teaming, knowledge-based paradigms, learning para-
digms, machine ethics, intelligent data analysis, knowledge management, intelligent
agents, intelligent decision making and support, intelligent network security, trust
management, interactive entertainment, Web intelligence and multimedia.
The publications within “Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing” are
primarily proceedings of important conferences, symposia and congresses. They
cover significant recent developments in the field, both of a foundational and
applicable character. An important characteristic feature of the series is the short
publication time and world-wide distribution. This permits a rapid and broad
dissemination of research results.

** Indexing: The books of this series are submitted to ISI Proceedings,

EI-Compendex, DBLP, SCOPUS, Google Scholar and Springerlink **

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/11156

Tareq Ahram Waldemar Karwowski
•

Editors

Advances in Human Factors

in Cybersecurity
Proceedings of the AHFE 2019 International
Conference on Human Factors
in Cybersecurity, July 24–28, 2019,
Washington D.C., USA

123
Editors
Tareq Ahram Waldemar Karwowski
Institute for Advanced Systems Engineering University of Central Florida
University of Central Florida Orlando, FL, USA
Orlando, FL, USA

ISSN 2194-5357 ISSN 2194-5365 (electronic)

Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing
ISBN 978-3-030-20487-7 ISBN 978-3-030-20488-4 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20488-4
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard
to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Advances in Human Factors
and Ergonomics 2019

AHFE 2019 Series Editors

Tareq Ahram, Florida, USA
Waldemar Karwowski, Florida, USA

10th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics and the
Affiliated Conferences

Proceedings of the AHFE 2019 International Conference on Human Factors in

Cybersecurity, held on July 24–28, 2019, in Washington D.C., USA

Advances in Affective and Pleasurable Design Shuichi Fukuda

Advances in Neuroergonomics Hasan Ayaz
and Cognitive Engineering
Advances in Design for Inclusion Giuseppe Di Bucchianico
Advances in Ergonomics in Design Francisco Rebelo and Marcelo M. Soares
Advances in Human Error, Reliability, Resilience, Ronald L. Boring
and Performance
Advances in Human Factors and Ergonomics in Nancy J. Lightner and Jay Kalra
Healthcare and Medical Devices
Advances in Human Factors and Simulation Daniel N. Cassenti
Advances in Human Factors and Systems Isabel L. Nunes
Interaction
Advances in Human Factors in Cybersecurity Tareq Ahram and Waldemar Karwowski
Advances in Human Factors, Business Jussi Ilari Kantola and Salman Nazir
Management and Leadership
Advances in Human Factors in Robots Jessie Chen
and Unmanned Systems
Advances in Human Factors in Training, Waldemar Karwowski, Tareq Ahram
Education, and Learning Sciences and Salman Nazir
Advances in Human Factors of Transportation Neville Stanton
(continued)

v
vi Advances in Human Factors and Ergonomics 2019

(continued)
Advances in Artificial Intelligence, Software Tareq Ahram
and Systems Engineering
Advances in Human Factors in Architecture, Jerzy Charytonowicz and Christianne
Sustainable Urban Planning and Infrastructure Falcão
Advances in Physical Ergonomics and Human Ravindra S. Goonetilleke and Waldemar
Factors Karwowski
Advances in Interdisciplinary Practice in Industrial Cliff Sungsoo Shin
Design
Advances in Safety Management and Human Pedro M. Arezes
Factors
Advances in Social and Occupational Ergonomics Richard H. M. Goossens and Atsuo
Murata
Advances in Manufacturing, Production Waldemar Karwowski, Stefan
Management and Process Control Trzcielinski and Beata Mrugalska
Advances in Usability and User Experience Tareq Ahram and Christianne Falcão
Advances in Human Factors in Wearable Tareq Ahram
Technologies and Game Design
Advances in Human Factors in Communication Amic G. Ho
of Design
Advances in Additive Manufacturing, Modeling Massimo Di Nicolantonio, Emilio Rossi
Systems and 3D Prototyping and Thomas Alexander
Preface

Our daily life, economic vitality, and national security depend on a stable, safe, and
resilient cyberspace. We rely on this vast array of networks to communicate and
travel, power our homes, run our economy, and provide government services. Yet,
cyber intrusions and attacks have increased dramatically over the last decade,
exposing sensitive personal and business information, disrupting critical operations,
and imposing high costs on the economy. The human factor at the core of
cybersecurity provides greater insight into this issue and highlights human error and
awareness as key factors, in addition to technical lapses, as the areas of greatest
concern. This book focuses on the social, economic, and behavioral aspects of
cyberspace, which are largely missing from the general discourse on cybersecurity.
The human element at the core of cybersecurity is what makes cyberspace the
complex, adaptive system that it is. An inclusive, multi-disciplinary, holistic
approach that combines the technical and behavioral element is needed to enhance
cybersecurity. Human factors also pervade the top cyber threats. Personnel
management and cyber awareness are essential for achieving holistic cybersecurity.
This book will be of special value to a large variety of professionals, researchers,
and students focusing on the human aspect of cyberspace, and for the effective
evaluation of security measures, interfaces, user-centered design, and design for
special populations, particularly the elderly. We hope this book is informative, but
even more than that it is thought-provoking. We hope it inspires, leading the reader
to contemplate other questions, applications, and potential solutions in creating safe
and secure designs for all.
This book includes two main sections:
Section 1 Cybersecurity Applications and Privacy Research
Section 2 Awareness and Cyber-Physical Security

vii
viii Preface

Each section contains research papers that have been reviewed by members
of the International Editorial Board. Our sincere thanks and appreciation to the
Board members as listed below:
Ritu Chadha, USA
Grit Denker, USA
Frank Greitzer, USA
Jim Jones, USA
Denise Nicholson, USA
Anne Tall, USA
Mike Ter Louw, USA
Elizabeth Whitaker, USA

July 2019 Tareq Ahram

Waldemar Karwowski
Contents

Cybersecurity Applications and Privacy Research

Attempting to Reduce Susceptibility to Fraudulent Computer Pop-Ups
Using Malevolence Cue Identification Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Phillip L. Morgan, Robinson Soteriou, Craig Williams, and Qiyuan Zhang
Cyber Resilient Behavior: Integrating Human Behavioral Models
and Resilience Engineering Capabilities into Cyber Security . . . . . . . . . 16
Rick van der Kleij and Rutger Leukfeldt
An International Extension of Sweeney’s Data Privacy Research . . . . . . 28
Wayne Patterson and Cynthia E. Winston-Proctor
The Human Factor in Managing the Security of Information . . . . . . . . 38
Malgorzata Wisniewska, Zbigniew Wisniewski, Katarzyna Szaniawska,
and Michal Lehmann
Beyond Passwords: Enforcing Username Security as the First
Line of Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Thaier Fandakly and Nicholas Caporusso
Social Engineering and the Value of Data: The Need of Specific
Awareness Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Isabella Corradini and Enrico Nardelli

Awareness and Cyber-Physical Security

Human Centered Cyber Situation Awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Vincent Mancuso, Sarah McGuire, and Diane Staheli
Over-the-Shoulder Attack Resistant Graphical Authentication
Schemes Impact on Working Memory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Jeremiah D. Still and Ashley A. Cain

ix
x Contents

Comparative Evaluation of Security and Convenience Trade-Offs

in Password Generation Aiding Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Michael Stainbrook and Nicholas Caporusso
Perceiving Behavior of Cyber Malware with
Human-Machine Teaming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Yang Cai, Jose A. Morales, William Casey, Neta Ezer, and Sihan Wang
HackIT: A Human-in-the-Loop Simulation Tool for Realistic
Cyber Deception Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Palvi Aggarwal, Aksh Gautam, Vaibhav Agarwal, Cleotilde Gonzalez,
and Varun Dutt
Mathematical Model of Intrusion Detection Based on Sequential
Execution of Commands Applying Pagerank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Cesar Guevara, Jairo Hidalgo, Marco Yandún, Hugo Arias,
Lorena Zapata-Saavedra, Ivan Ramirez-Morales,
Fernando Aguilar-Galvez, Lorena Chalco-Torres,
and Dioselina Pimbosa Ortiz
Investigation and User’s Web Search Skill Evaluation for Eye
and Mouse Movement in Phishing of Short Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Takeshi Matsuda, Ryutaro Ushigome, Michio Sonoda, Hironobu Satoh,
Tomohiro Hanada, Nobuhiro Kanahama, Masashi Eto, Hiroki Ishikawa,
Katsumi Ikeda, and Daiki Katoh
Author Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Cybersecurity Applications and Privacy
Research
 Attempting to Reduce Susceptibility
to Fraudulent Computer Pop-Ups Using
Malevolence Cue Identification Training

Phillip L. Morgan1,2(&), Robinson Soteriou1,2, Craig Williams1,2,

and Qiyuan Zhang1,2
1
Cognitive Science and Human Factors, School of Psychology,
Cardiff University, Cardiff CF10 3AT, UK
{morganphil,soteriourm,williamsc131,
zhangq47}@cardiff.ac.uk
2
Cyber Psychology and Human Factors, Airbus Central R&T,
The Quadrant, Celtic Springs Business Park, Newport NP10 8FZ, UK

Abstract. People accept a high number of computer pop-ups containing cues

that indicate malevolence when they occur as interrupting tasks during a cog-
nitively demanding memory-based task [1, 2], with younger adults spending
only 5.5–6-s before making an accept or decline decision [2]. These findings
may be explained by at least three factors: pressure to return to the suspended
task to minimize forgetting; adopting non-cognitively demanding inspection
strategies; and, having low levels of suspicion [3]. Consequences of such
behavior could be potentially catastrophic for individuals and organizations
(e.g., in the event of a successful cyber breach), and thus it is crucial to develop
effective interventions to reduce susceptibility. The current experiment (N = 50)
tested the effectiveness of malevolence cue identification training (MCIT)
interventions. During phase 1, participants performed a serial recall task with
some trials interrupted by pop-up messages with accept or cancel options that
either contained cues (e.g., missing company name, misspelt word) to malev-
olence (malevolent condition) or no cues (non-malevolent condition). In phase 2,
participants were allocated to one of three groups: no MCIT/Control, non-
incentivized MCIT/N-IMCIT, or incentivized MCIT/IMCIT. Control group
participants only had to identify category-related words (e.g., colors). Partici-
pants in intervention conditions were explicitly made aware of the malevolence
cues in Phase 1 pop-ups before performing trying to identify malevolence cues
within adapted passages of text. The N-IMCIT group were told that their
detection accuracy was being ranked against other participants, to induce social
comparison. Phase 3 was similar to phase 1, although 50% of malevolent pop-
ups contained new cues. MCIT did lead to a significant reduction in the number
of malevolent pop-ups accepted under some conditions. Incentivized training
did not (statistically) improve performance compared to non-incentivized
training. Cue novelty had no effect. Ways of further improving the MCIT
training protocol used, as well as theoretical implications, are discussed.

Keywords: Cyber-security
Susceptibility
Task interruption

Intervention training

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

T. Ahram and W. Karwowski (Eds.): AHFE 2019, AISC 960, pp. 3–15, 2020.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20488-4_1
4 P. L. Morgan et al.

1 Introduction

The prevalence of malevolent online communications (MOCs), such as phishing

attempts, is growing at a rapid pace. Recent statistics indicate that 264,483 phishing
reports were made in the third quarter of 2018, which is markedly higher than the same
quarter in 2016 [4]. The UK Government commissioned a report with the research
revealing a staggering 46% of UK businesses reporting a breach of cyber-security,
including phishing attempts, in the 12-months prior to being surveyed [5]. Such MOCs
are targeted at individuals and organizations. Examples include fake pop-ups claiming
to be from well-known companies that if clicked/accepted result in malware infection
and/or payment demands [6]. Recent large-scale disruptive attacks include Sony Pic-
tures, 2015, where employees clicked fake links resulting in login details & passwords
being stolen, allowing fraudsters to hack-in [7]. The significance of this problem,
together with other cyber threats, has been reflected by worldwide investments in
cybersecurity with the likes of the UK Government and Bank of America committing
funds to improve cybersecurity prevention and protection [8, 9]. Whilst much of this
investment is being dedicated to improvements in the protection of networks, systems
and software, computer users are seen as the main weakness in effective prevention of
successful cyber-attack breaches [10], due to multiple fallibilities related to e.g., per-
ception, attention, memory, decision making, and risk. Many cyber hackers are aware
of these and will exploit them when developing MOCs. The current paper examines
(1) susceptibility to MOCs delivered when humans are under short-term memory
pressure and (2) the efficacy of an intervention training method to reduce susceptibility.
Pop-up messages occur regularly on networked computer devices, often unex-
pectedly and during engagement in another task(s) [11, 12]. Many contain information
on and/or links to updates that are essential to maintain efficient performance of the
computer system and/or software [13]. However, there are growing numbers of fake
computer updates that mimic trusted companies and brands, with hackers’ intent on
encouraging people to clink on links which can result in cyber breaches.
Pop-ups at times will act as a distractor (e.g., if the user is able to ignore or deal
with it without disengaging from an ongoing task) but are more likely to initiate an
interruption (e.g., if the user is not able to ignore it and has to disengage from the
ongoing task). Even short interruptions (as short as 2.8-s) can shift the focus of
attention and memory and lead to increased errors within a suspended task [14] with
factors such as interruption duration and demand exacerbating the extent of disruption
[15, 16], as predicted by a leading model [17, 18]. However, few have considered how
individuals choose to engage with interrupting tasks when there is no time constraint on
their completion, i.e., when their response (which could be a few seconds) to the
interrupting task determines when they will resume the suspended task (see [1, 2]).
In considering pop-up messages as task interruptions, how individuals allocate
resources to verify authenticity will likely depend on factors outside the usual task
parameters often studied, such as time costs and possible performance impairments.
According to the Suspicion, Cognition, Automaticity Model/SCAM [3], whether
malevolent cues are noticed within fraudulent communications depends on the depth of
processing an individual engages in. The less suspicious and more trusting an
 Attempting to Reduce Susceptibility to Fraudulent Computer Pop-Ups 5

individual is, the more likely they are to process the content of pop-up messages using
automatic heuristic processing compared to someone who is more suspicious and less
trusting who will likely engage in more cognitively effortful and time-consuming
processing. Similarly, those who have a higher need for cognitive stimulation [19], will
be more susceptible to influence techniques used within pop-up messages such as
urgency, compliance with authority and avoidance of loss; at the expense of looking for
suspicious aspects, such as message authenticity cues (e.g., correct spelling and
grammar, company name). This leads to a prediction that an intervention training
protocol that increases suspicion and encourages more effortful processing of pop-up
message content should have carryover effects to a subsequent task performed with
malevolent pop-up interruptions.
To our knowledge, only two published studies have considered human suscepti-
bility to fraudulent pop-up interruptions occurring during a demanding memory-based
task. [2] developed a paradigm where young adult participants were interrupted by one
of three different types of pop-up message during a serial recall memory recall task.
One third of pop-ups were designed to look genuine (genuine condition) and high in
authority with no cues to potential malevolence. Another third (mimicked condition)
were also high in authority but contained cues to suggest malevolence. The other third
were also of a malevolent nature and low authority (i.e., contained no authority details
relating to the source of the pop-up such as company name, logo, or website link).
Participants had to decide whether to accept or decline pop-ups, at which point the
primary task would be reinstated at the point of interruption. Predictions informed by
parameters of SCAM [3] were supported, with an alarming 63% of mimicked pop-ups
accepted compared with 66% in the genuine condition. Even more worrying was that
56% of low authority pop-ups were accepted. Participants spent on average
only *5.5–6-s viewing pop-up message content before committing to a response.
When there were no time constraints to resume an interrupted task, participants
accepted a slightly higher percentage (72%) of genuine pop-ups and slightly fewer
(55%) mimicked pop-ups. This suggests that even without other cognitive and time
pressures, people are still not very good at detecting malevolent cues within mimicked
pop-up interruptions. [1] reported similar findings with older adults. Participants
demonstrated higher levels of susceptibility to malevolent pop-ups during an inter-
rupted memory recall phase, despite spending significant more time (*10.5–11-s)
viewing them than in [1]. Fitting with SCAM-based low suspicion and automaticity
predictions [3], both studies demonstrate very high levels of human susceptibility to
malevolent pop-up interruptions that occur during a demanding memory-based task.
However, concerns remain as neither study showed marked malevolent detection
improvements when time pressure was not a factor.
Given these results, it is important further develop and test interventions to reduce
susceptibility to computer-based communications such as malevolent pop-up messages.
Education-based training interventions are not always effective [20] with some finding
that people are more suspicious of scams that they are familiar with versus those that
are less familiar [21]. [22] tested the effectiveness of emails containing cues to
malevolence although found that not all people read and processed the content to a
deep enough level to identify them effectively. These findings fit SCAM parameters
regarding the use of automatic heuristic processing strategies, especially when
6 P. L. Morgan et al.

suspicion is low. It could be that training effectiveness is dependent on the extent of

encouragement to engage in and cognitively process training materials. Another factor
that could potentially increase engagement in training is competition, which has been
shown to facilitate motivation and performance in some instances [23]. Short term
improvements were found when testing a competitive e-learning interface that dis-
played a rank order for the best performing students [24]. Competitive ranking may
encourage individuals to engage more in the task to gain an accurate appraisal of their
own performance compared to others, and thus improve upon such performances. The
social process of evaluating one’s accuracy in relation to their ability may encourage a
desire to improve performance to increase own sense of self-worth [25]. Thinking more
about the content of the training, as well as gaining satisfaction from it, may increase
the likelihood of the information being remembered and utilized subsequently.
The current experiment has four main aims. One is to attempt to replicate the
findings of [1] and [2] on susceptibility to pop-ups with cues to malevolence when they
occur as interruptions to a memory-based task. Second, to examine whether, and if so
to what extent, susceptibility can be alleviated through an intervention involving
malevolent cue identification training (abbreviated to MCIT hereafter). The training
was designed not to only increase suspicion and awareness of cues to malevolence but
also to encourage more effortful cognitive processing of message content. Third, we
examined whether a form of incentivized MCIT that encourages competitiveness
through social comparison might further increase the intervention effectiveness.
A fourth aim was to establish whether beneficial effects of MCIT transfer to conditions
involving novel cues to malevolence that have not been experienced as part of the
training intervention.

2 Method

2.1 Participants
Fifty Cardiff University Psychology undergraduate students (age: 19.32; SD 1.06) were
recruited, via opportunity sampling, in return for course credits with adequate a priori
power (.8 detect medium to large effect sizes (Cohen’s f .25 −.4). Participants were
first-language English or highly proficient in English as a second language and had
normal/correct vision. They were assigned to one of three cue identification training
groups. There were 16 in the Non-Malevolent Cue Identification (N-MCIT)/Control
group (M age: 19.63-years, four male), 17 in the Non-Incentivized Malevolent Cue
Identification (N-IMCIT) group (M age: 19.06-years, six male), and 17 in the Incen-
tivized Malevolent Cue Identification (IMCIT) group (M age: 19.29-years, two male).

2.2 Design
A mixed factorial design was employed. The between-participants’ independent vari-
able (IV) was CIT Group with three levels: Control, N-IMCIT, and IMCIT. There were
three repeated measures IVs. One was serial recall phase with two levels: Phase 1/Pre-
Intervention 1, and, Phase 3/Post-Intervention. Another was the malevolency (Message
 Attempting to Reduce Susceptibility to Fraudulent Computer Pop-Ups 7

Type) of the pop-up with two levels: Non-Malevolent/Genuine, and, Non-

Genuine/Malevolent. The third (Phase 3 only) was whether malevolent pop-ups con-
tained the same (Malevolent-Old) or different malevolence cues than in Phase 1. There
were two main dependent variables (DVs). The first was decision response to the pop-
up request where two responses were possible: Accept, or, Decline. The second was the
time to make a response. During the intervention phase, participant performance was
recorded in two stages. The first stage required participants to respond to whether they
identified at least one cue to indicate a category exemplar (Control group) or cue to
malevolence (other groups), by choosing Yes or No. If choosing Yes, participants then
had to record the number of cues identified (maximum 3 per passage of text with five
passages in total).

2.3 Materials

Phase 1 and 3 Serial Recall and Interruption Pop-Up Tasks

Tasks were programmed on run on Intel® Core™ i5 PCs connected to 1920  1080
iiyama 24″ flat-panel monitors. The serial recall task was created using PsychoPy2
software [26]. There were 18 trials in Phase 1 and 30 in Phase 3. During each trial, a
different string of nine letters and numbers, e.g., 96KJ3785H were presented in the
center of the screen for 9-s before disappearing. An instruction (‘enter code’) appeared
after a 2-s retention interval to inform participants that they should try and recall and
write down letters and numbers in the order in which they were presented.
Twelve trials were interrupted in Phase 1: six with non-malevolent and six with
malevolent pop-ups. Six trials were not interrupted. Twenty-four trials were interrupted
in Phase 3: twelve with non-malevolent and twelve with malevolent pop-ups, with six
of these containing the same (Old) malevolency cues as in Phase 1 and six containing
New cues. Pop-up messages appeared in the center of the screen after the letter/number
string had disappeared and before the recall instruction appeared and remained on the
screen until either an accept (‘A’ key) or cancel (‘C’) response was registered.
Immediately after this response, the serial recall task was reinstated from the point in
which it had been suspended (i.e., ‘enter code’ would appear next). Each new trial was
initiated after the spacebar was pressed. Each pop-up contained text describing the
scenario, plus an extra line of text with an instruction (e.g., ‘Click ‘accept’ to download
the [XXXX: name] pop -p’) with boxes for Accept and Cancel. All non-malevolent and
some malevolent pop-ups also contained a company logo in the top right corner and a
hyperlink to a related website underneath text that read ‘Further information can be
found here:’.
Non-malevolent pop-ups contained cues (or indeed not lack of) to suggest that they
were genuine (Fig. 1, left). These included a company logo, name (corresponding to
logo), and website link, and accurate grammar and accurate spelling. Malevolent pop-
ups (Fig. 1, right) contained three of six cues to malevolence: lack of company logo,
name, website link, and an instance of inaccurate grammar or a misspelt word(s).
During Phase 3, malevolent pop-ups contained either three Old or three New cues. New
cues included: misspelling within website link, non-capitalization of company names,
missing a key detail, having a fake logo, or capitalization of a word that should not be.
8 P. L. Morgan et al.

Fig. 1. Examples of a non-malevolent pop-up (left) and malevolent pop-up (right)

Prior to the start of Phase 1 and 3 trials, the following message was displayed in the
middle of the computer screen for 15-s:
‘This system is protected by virus protection software and pop-ups are installed on a regular
basis. However, please be vigilant about the security of this system by ensuring that any
attempts by applications to access system information of data are legitimate.’

Phase 2 Intervention and Control Non-Intervention Tasks

Participants in the intervention conditions were given explicit information on the
errors/cues to malevolence contained in Phase 1 malevolent pop-ups. They were also
given a small whiteboard and marker pen to make notes on these if they wished to do
so. All participants were required to read a set of five passages of text, with 5-min
(*60-s per passage) from fictitious companies. The passages each contained textual
information relating to five nominal categories (drinks, transport, sport, clothes, color).
Passages were adapted for the N-IMCIT and IMCIT conditions to contain the same
errors/cues to malevolence as in Phase 1. Participants in the Control group were
required to first indicate whether category (e.g., color) words were present within the
passage by clicking ‘yes’ or ‘no’ within an online answer sheet, and if choosing Yes,
they then had to type the number of instances they could find (max = three per pas-
sage) before moving to the next passage. Participants in the intervention groups had to
do this for cues indicating malevolence (max = 3 per passage) rather than category
instances. Answer sheets were set out as a separate tab containing a table to be com-
pleted in relation to each passage. For the IMCIT group, each tab was followed by a
leader board with performance appearing to be ranked against all previous participants
with their position increasing after completion of each passage. Leaderboard positions
were preset with the intention of encouraging (through social comparison) participants
to try harder and apply more cognitive effort for each new passage.

2.4 Procedure
Before providing consent, participants read through an information sheet and experi-
mental instructions (which were also verbally read by the experimenter) before com-
pleting two practice trials: one with a non-interrupted serial recall task, and another
with a serial recall task interrupted by a non-malevolent pop-up. They were not
informed about the cyber security element of the experiment during this process. At the
beginning of Phase 1, participants were presented with the computer security message
(see Materials). After this disappeared, they were able to press the spacebar to start trial
one of 18, with 12 of the trials interrupted (see Materials). Phase 2 was the intervention
phase. Participants read an instruction sheet appropriate for their group. All were
instructed they had 5-min to read 5-passages (one-at-a-time) and complete the cue
 Attempting to Reduce Susceptibility to Fraudulent Computer Pop-Ups 9

identification task relevant to their group. The Control group had to indicate (Yes or
No) whether the passage of text contained at least one cue relating to its category
description (e.g., color: look for color words). If answering yes, they then had to
indicate how many category words they could identify within the passage (i.e., 1–3). N-
IMCIT and IMCIT groups were first given written information pertaining to the
malevolency cues contained within pop-ups experienced in Phase 1. These were
explained verbally by the experimenter who checked participants’ understanding. As
with the Control group, participants in the MCIT groups were then presented with 5-
passages of text, one-at-a-time, and had to indicate (Yes or No) whether the passage it
contained at least one trained cue indicating potential malevolence. Participants were
also provided with a small whiteboard and marker to make notes, if desired. Phase 3
(post-intervention) involved 30 serial recall trials with 24 interrupted. After Phase 3,
participants completed demographics and pop-up awareness questionnaires. Partici-
pants were debriefed, with information about cyber-security and awareness aims.

3 Results and Discussion

All analyses are two-tailed with a = .05. One dataset was excluded, as it was found to
be a statistical outlier (z-scores > 3.29, ps < .001) on more than one measure.
Percentage of Pop-Up Messages Accepted/Declined
First, we consider mean percentages of ‘malevolent’ pop-ups accepted across Phases 1
(pre-intervention) and 3 (post-intervention), collapsing across New and Old cue
malevolent pop-ups in Phase 3 (Table 1). The percentage of malevolent pop-ups
accepted looks to have decreased in Phase 3 for both MCIT groups, although increased
for the Control group. Somewhat surprisingly, the mean percentage is markedly lower
in the Control versus the N-IMCIT and IMCIT groups.

Table 1. Percentage of Malevolent and Genuine pop-ups accepted during Phases 1 and 2 and
across each Training Group. Note. SD = Standard Deviation.
Malevolent Pop-Ups Genuine Pop-Ups
Phase Condition Mean SD Mean SD
1 Control 56.30 .34 63.54 .39
N-IMCIT 73.41 .31 84.31 .30
IMCIT 81.29 .29 87.25 .29
3 Control 67.69 .33 70.83 .35
N-IMCIT 60.35 .31 85.29 .24
IMCIT 70.12 .31 92.65 .11

A mixed 3  2 analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Training Group as the between-

subjects variable (Control, N-IMCIT, IMCIT) and Phase (pre-intervention, post-
intervention) revealed non-significant main effects of Training Group, F(2, 47) = 1.07,
MSE = .08, p = .35, and, Phase, F(1, 47) = 1.03, MSE = .04, p = .32. There was
10 P. L. Morgan et al.

however a significant interaction, F(2, 47) = 3.44, MSE = .04, p = .04. Bonferroni pot-
hoc tests revealed a non-significant (although trend) reduction in the percentage of
malevolent pop-ups accepted in Phase 3 compared with Phase 1 for the IMCIT group
(p = .07). However, the significant interaction might be better explained by the per-
centage of malevolent pop-ups accepted by the Control group in Phase 1 being sig-
nificantly lower than in the N-IMCIT and IMCIT groups within Phase 1 (ps < .025).
Given this unexpected difference (discussed later), another mixed ANOVA, this time 2
(Training Group: MCIT, IMCIT)  2 (Phase: 1, 3), was conducted. This revealed a
significant main effect of Phase, F(1, 32) = 5.63, MSE = .04, p = .02 with a lower
percentage of malevolent pop-ups accepted in Phase 3 than in Phase 1. There was a non-
significant main effect of Training Group, F(1, 32) = .96, MSE = .08, p = .33, and a
non-significant interaction, F(1, 32) = .03, MSE = .04, p = .86.
Taken together, these findings suggest that: (1) MCIT worked in terms of reducing
the percentage of malevolent pop-up messages accepted post-intervention, (2) IMCIT
did not lead to better performance than N-IMCIT, and, (3) participants in the Control
group, in Phase 1 at least, performed differently (i.e., chose to accept far less malev-
olent pop-ups) to those in MCIT conditions. In relation to (1), findings are in line with
SCAM predictions that heightening suspicion will lead to increased cognitive and less
automatic processing of stimuli [3], thus improving the likelihood of identifying
malevolence cues. However, the percentage of malevolent pop-ups accepted was still
very high, even after the intervention. In relation to (2), incentivized MCIT through
social comparison (using an onscreen leaderboard technique), was not effective enough
to cause even more suspicion and increased cognitive processing of potential cues to
suggest malevolence within pop-up messages compared to non-incentivized MCIT.
This finding (despite there being a trend) is not in line with [22] and possible reasons
are considered in the Limitations section. Considering (3), the only difference was
when the groups were tested: The Control group were tested after the MCIT groups.
Next, we consider mean percentages of ‘genuine’ pop-ups accepted in Phases 1 and
3, noting again that both New and Old cue malevolent pop-up data are collapsed across
(Table 1). The percentage of genuine pop-ups accepted increased marginally in Phase 3
across all groups. However, and as with malevolent pop-ups, the mean percentage of
genuine pop-ups accepted in Phase 1 was markedly lower in the Control versus MCIT
groups. A mixed 3  2 analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Training Group as the
between-subjects variable and Phase revealed a marginally non-significant main effect
of Training Group, F(2, 47) = 3.12, MSE = .07, p = .054, and a non-significant main
effect of Phase, F(1, 47) = 2.57, MSE = .02, p = .12. There was a non-significant
interaction. However, these findings might again be affected by the unusual pattern of
data in the Control condition during Phase 1 compared to the MCIT condition.
Therefore, a 2 (Training Group: MCIT, IMCIT)  2 (Phase: 1, 3) mixed ANOVA was
conducted. There were non-significant main effects of Training Group, F(1, 32) < 1,
p = .50, and Phase, F(1, 32) < 1, p = .39, and a non-significant interaction, F(1,
32) < 1, p = .55.
Taken together, these findings suggest that (1) the ability to identify genuine pop-
up messages was high, (2) MCIT did not have any effect on this, and (3) participants in
the Control group, in Phase 1 at least, performed quite differently (i.e., accepted fewer
 Attempting to Reduce Susceptibility to Fraudulent Computer Pop-Ups 11

genuine pop-ups) to those in the MCIT conditions. It is difficult to determine why

participants in MCIT groups seemed to be very good at classifying most genuine pop-
ups as genuine and then chose to accept rather than decline. It might have been
relatively easier to check whether pop-ups contained no cues to malevolence than to
check and register a cue(s) to malevolence. Although, and given the very high (and
somewhat worrying) percentages of malevolent pop-ups accepted, it could be that
participants, particularly in Phase 1, were more inclined to adopt a trusting stance [3]
and accept most pop-ups as being genuine unless they noted at least one cue that was
enough to raise suspension and cause them to respond in a different way (i.e., decline
the pop-up. In order to speak to these possibilities, we will later examine the amount of
time participants took before making a decision to accept/decline messages.
Next, we examine for possible differences between the percentage of Old (i.e.,
contained same cue types as in Phase 1, trained on these cues in MCIT conditions in
Phase 2) versus New (i.e., contained different cue types as in Phase 1, not trained on
these cues in MCIT conditions in Phase 2) malevolent pop-ups in Phase 3 only
(Table 2). Whilst there is no difference within the Control Group, participants in the
MCIT groups appear to have accepted marginally more New than Old malevolent
messages, particularly in the IMCIT condition. However, a 3 (Training Group)  2
(Cue Familiarity: Old, New) mixed ANOVA revealed non-significant main effects of
Training Group, F(2, 47) < 1, p = .64, Cue Familiarity, F(1, 47) < 1, p = .92, and a
non-significant interaction, F(2, 47) < 1, p = .33. Given the unusual accept/decline
behavior of the Control Group in Phase 1 (see above), an additional analysis (2  2
mixed ANOVA) was conducted with the Control group excluded. There were still non-
significant main effects of Training Group, F(1, 32) < 1, p = .36, Cue Familiarity, F(1,
32) = 1.61, p = .21, and a non-significant interaction, F(1, 32) < 1, p = .62.

Table 2. Percentage of Old and New pop-ups accepted during Phase 3 across each Training
Group. Note. SD = Standard Deviation.
Malevolent
Pop-Ups
Phase Condition Mean SD
Old Control 67.75% .34
N-IMCIT 58.82% .35
IMCIT 66.65% .34
New Control 67.75% .36
N-IMCIT 61.79% .31
IMCIT 73.35% .30

We anticipated that participants in both MCIT groups, and in particular the I-MCIT
group would be less likely to spot new cues. However, there is no statistical evidence to
suggest that any form of MCIT led to participants accepting more New messages,
despite an *11.5% higher acceptance of these in the IMCIT versus the N-IMCIT
condition in Phase 3. Of course, this could be a power issue, and future studies should
12 P. L. Morgan et al.

consider this before ruling out the possibility that MCIT will not put people at a dis-
advantage in terms of spotting malevolent cues that they have not be trained to identify,
Time to Accept/Decline Pop-Up Messages
Next, we consider the time taken at make an accept/decline response. Noting that the
time to accept/decline malevolent pop-ups was 5.37-s for younger adults in the [2]
study, and 10-92-s for older adults in the [1] study. In the same studies, the times to
accept genuine pop-ups were 5.47-s and 10.45-s respectively. Mean pop-up
accept/decline times for the current study are displayed in Table 3 (with one outlier
removed: z-scores > 3.29, p < .001). Malevolent and genuine pop-ups, accept/decline
times are noticeably lower (*1–2-s) than in e.g., [2]. Also, response times appear to
reduce for each Group in Phase 3 versus Phase 1. The third, and somewhat counter-
intuitive observation, is that response times are noticeably lowest (and very short) for
the Control Group (M 3.39 Phase 1, M 2.97 Phase 3).

Table 3. Time (seconds) before making an accept/decline response to Malevolent and Genuine
pop-ups during Phases 1 and 2 and across each Training Group. Note. SD = Standard Deviation.
Malevolent Genuine
Pop-Ups Pop-Ups
Phase Condition Mean SD Mean SD
1 Control 3.45 2.65 3.33 2.23
N-IMCIT 4.41 2.49 4.26 2.15
IMCIT 4.77 2.99 4.57 3.05
3 Control 3.08 1.82 2.85 1.87
N-IMCIT 3.66 1.57 3.51 1.55
IMCIT 4.54 3.07 4.05 2.31

A 3 (Training Group)  2 (Phase)  2 (Message Type) mixed factorial ANOVA

revealed a significant main effect of Phase, F(1, 46) = 4.55, MSE = 2.87, p = .038,
with less time taken in Phase 3 (M = 3.62-s) than Phase 1 (M 4.13). There was a
significant main effect of Message Type, F(1, 46) = 5.46, MSE = .45, p = .024, with
more time spent before making an accept/decline response for malevolent (M 3.99)
than genuine (M 3.76-s) messages. There was a non-significant main effect of Training
Group, F(2, 46) = 1.55, MSE = 4.47, p = .22, and none of the interactions were sig-
nificant (ps > .08).
Contrary to our prediction, participants were faster to respond to pop-up messages in
Phase 3 than Phase 1, and despite a non-significant Phase  Training Group interaction,
this was the case for the IMCIT (M Diff −0.23-s) and N-IMCIT (M Diff −0.75-s) groups.
Given that participants in the MCIT groups did not take additional time to try and
identify cues to malevolence in malevolent pop-up messages, the improved detection
performance must have been due to increased suspicion [3] and making better use of the
very short inspection times to identify at least one cue to rouse suspicion.
Given much lower acceptance rates of malevolent pop-ups amongst the Control
group in Phase 1 (Table 1), it was expected that those participants took more time to try
 Attempting to Reduce Susceptibility to Fraudulent Computer Pop-Ups 13

and identify cues than in the MCIT groups. This was not the case. Also, their accep-
tance rate for malevolent pop-ups in Phase 3 increased by over 10% and the time taken
to accept/decline messages reduced by almost half a second. Upon closer inspection of
the data, three Control group participants almost always declined malevolent messages
compared with the others whose performance was largely in line with those in the
MCIT groups. However, they were not statistical outliers the p < .001 (z-
scores > 3.29) level.

4 Limitations

There are limitations. First, there was no statistical evidence to suggest that those in the
IMCIT group were better at identifying malevolent pop-ups than those in the N-IMCIT
group, despite a trend. Perhaps using a leaderboard with individual position increasing
after each task (e.g., 19th/20 after the first task, 1st after the last task) was not effective
enough. This may be influenced by some participants potentially being aware that they
were performing optimally and met with incongruent feedback to suggest otherwise.
Competing with other people in situ may have promoted stronger social comparison
and led to more intense cognitive processing strategies [3]. Second, within both MCIT
conditions, participants had to identify whether they detected malevolent cues and then
type a number corresponding to how many. This method meant that accuracy of
malevolent cue identical could not be measured. Third, participants had one-minute per
training task, only five tasks to complete, with each passage containing only three
malevolent cues. They were also aware that there would be a maximum of three
malevolent cues. This may not have been cognitively engaging enough. Finally,
Control group participants were treating pop-ups with higher levels of suspicion in
Phase 1. Ideally, this condition would be re-run to check for a possibly anomalous
effect.

5 Implications

We successfully demonstrated that MCIT can be used as an intervention to reduce

susceptibility to potentially fraudulent computer pop-ups. More cognitively engaging
and demanding versions of the intervention might be even more effective. Whilst an
incentivized version of this intervention did not quite result in further improvements in
identifying fraudulent pop-ups, an improved version that better encourages social
comparison might work better. Whilst there was no statistical evidence to suggest that
MCIT can impair the ability to detect malevolence cues that participants had not been
trained on, trends indicated a performance deficit, and methods to mitigate this need to
be considered in the future development of MCIT interventions. Finally, it is important
to note that time spent viewing malevolent pop-up messages was incredibly low and
the propensity to accept (rather than decline) them was alarmingly high, both pre- and
post- intervention, and even higher than in the studies by [1 and 2]. This further
emphasises the vital need to develop interventions to help alleviate such susceptibility.
14 P. L. Morgan et al.

References
1. Morgan, P.L., Williams, E.J., Zook, N.A., Christopher, G.: Exploring older adult
susceptibility to fraudulent computer pop-up interruptions. In: International Conference on
Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, pp. 56–68. Springer, Cham (2018)
2. Williams, E.J., Morgan, P.L., Joinson, A.N.: Press accept to update now: individual
differences in susceptibility to malevolent interruptions. Decis. Support Syst. 96, 119–129
(2017)
3. Vishwanath, A., Harrison, B., Ng, Y.J.: Suspicion, cognition, and automaticity model of
phishing susceptibility. Commun. Res. 45(8), 1–21 (2016)
4. Anti-Phishing Working Group (APWG). https://www.antiphishing.org/resources/apwg-
reports/
5. Department for Culture, Media & Sport.: Cyber security breaches survey 2017. https://www.
gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/609186/Cyber_Security_
Breaches_Survey_2017_main_report_PUBLIC.pdf
6. National Cyber Security Centre.: Weekly threat report, 30 June 2017. https://www.ncsc.gov.
uk/report/weekly-threat-report-30th-june2017
7. Perera, D.: Researcher: Sony hackers used fake emails, Politico. https://www.politico.com/
story/2015/04/sony-hackers-fake-emails-117200
8. Forbes Cyber Security report. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellistalton/2018/04/23/the-u-s-
governments-lack-of-cybersecurity-expertise-threatens-our-infrastructure/#20d248be49e0
9. HM Government. National cyber security strategy 2016–2021. https://www.gov.uk/
government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/567242/national_cyber_security_
strategy_2016.pdf
10. Conteh, N.Y., Schmick, P.J.: Cybersecurity: risks, vulnerabilities and countermeasures to
prevent social engineering attacks. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Res. 6(23), 31 (2016)
11. Downing, D., Covington, M., Covington, M., Barrett, C.A., Covington, S.: Dictionary of
Computer and Internet Terms. Barron’s Educational Series, New York (2000)
12. Daintith, J., Wright, E.: A Dictionary of Computing. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2008)
13. Norton How To 2018. https://us.norton.com/internetsecurity-how-to-the-importance-of-
general-software-updates-and-patches.html
14. Altmann, E.M., Trafton, J.G., Hambrick, D.Z.: Momentary interruptions can derail the train
of thought. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 143(1), 215–226 (2014)
15. Hodgetts, H.M., Jones, D.M.: Interruption of the Tower of London task: support for a goal-
activation approach. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 135(1), 103–115 (2006)
16. Monk, C.A., Trafton, J.G., Boehm-Davis, D.A.: The effect of interruption duration and
demand on resuming suspended goals. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 14(4), 299–313 (2008)
17. Altmann, E.M., Trafton, J.G.: Memory for goals: an activation-based model. Cogn. Sci. 26,
39–83 (2002)
18. Altmann, E.M., Trafton, J.G.: Timecourse of recovery from task interruption: data and a
model. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 14(6), 1079–1084 (2017)
19. Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., Feng Kao, C.: The efficient assessment of need for cognition.
J. Pers. Assess. 48(3), 306–307 (1984)
20. Anandpara, V., Dingman, A., Jakobsson, M., Liu, D., Roinestad, H.: Phishing IQ tests
measure fear, not ability. In: International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data
Security, pp. 362–366. Springer, Berlin (2007)
21. Downs, J.S., Holbrook, M.B., Cranor, L.F.: Decision strategies and susceptibility to
phishing. In: Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security,
pp. 79–90. ACM (2006)
 Attempting to Reduce Susceptibility to Fraudulent Computer Pop-Ups 15

22. Kumaraguru, P., Sheng, S., Acquisti, A., Cranor, L.F., Hong, J.: Teaching Johnny not to fall
for phish. ACM Trans. Internet Technol. (TOIT). 10(2), 1–30 (2010)
23. Clifford, M.M.: Effects of competition as a motivational technique in the classroom. Am.
Educ. Res. J. 9(1), 123–137 (1972)
24. Aleman, J.L.F., de Gea, J.M.C., Mondéjar, J.J.R.: Effects of competitive computer-assisted
learning versus conventional teaching methods on the acquisition and retention of
knowledge in medical surgical nursing students. Nurse Educ. Today 31(8), 866–871 (2011)
25. Festinger, L.: A theory of social comparison processes. Hum. Relat. 7(2), 117–140 (1954)
26. Peirce, J.W.: PsychoPy—psychophysics software in Python. J. Neurosci. Methods 162(2),
8–13 (2007)
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
not so clean-looking as Playmate Place. Lamoir lived in the garden and the
park. I met Hugh and Lamoir in the last years of their life together, and
whenever I went to stay at Langton Weaver I would find Lamoir in the
park. She would generally be standing just off a path, quite still, wearing
gardening-gloves, and looking thoughtfully down at the flowers. Then she
would touch one here and there. She was gardening.
So, Hugh said, ten years passed; and he, when he thought of it at all,
would think theirs a happy enough marriage, as marriages go. Reality, after
all, couldn’t be so good as dreams, ever. That is what he thought. And he
loved Lamoir. He was a collector of fine things, and so it was bred in his
bone to love Lamoir. She loved him, too. Sometimes in quite a strange
abandoned way, for a woman who had been married so long. In quite an un-
English way, when you came to think of it—although it can’t be in the least
“un-English” to be passionate, but one gets into the habit of saying the
idiotic things that English novelists say. Lamoir would say things
unmentionable and beautiful, in the rare moments. But, somehow, those
rarest moments would never be of Hugh’s contriving, not after the first year
or so. They would come suddenly, out of the night of ordinary marriage,
they would come like angels with silent wings. And Lamoir would be the
voice of the angel with silent wings, and Lamoir in those rarest moments
would be the very body and soul of love. But Hugh couldn’t woo those
moments. Perhaps no man ever can. It may be, Hugh said, that there’s a
frontier to any woman’s love for any man, and beyond that frontier is the
unknowable darkness and unknowable light, and from that secret place can
leap a passion that no man in the world is worthy to woo. It just comes or it
doesn’t come.
These moments did not come when he thought they would, when he
expected them. She would somehow be passive then, somehow there yet
not there. Then suddenly, when he had got used to the hurt of her
“coldness,” out of the night of ordinary marriage would sweep the angel
with the silent wings in the body and the voice of Lamoir. Hugh said that
sometimes the song of the sirens was in Lamoir’s voice, but if Hugh was
right about that Ulysses must have been just a silly old man and the sirens
darlings.

IV
 For Hugh, his pleasure in travelling was given an exquisite point by
returning to Lamoir. That was when he seemed to love her most, as he
returned to her. One gets out of the habit of being desirous if one stays in
the home all the time. And Lamoir would be waiting for him, sweet and
still. He thought of her all the time, as he returned towards her.
Once, nine years ago, he returned to her by night. He had been away
from England for four or five months, and, arriving that evening in London,
he had dined quickly and taken the first train down to Langton Weaver. It
was a cool July night, loaded with stars. He had walked the two miles from
the railway station.
Hugh was happy as he walked. He was conscious of his happiness, of his
health, of his strength. Hugh was forty then, a dry, taut forty. And the idea
of Lamoir, white and supple, was like a temptation that exalted and
ennobled. The sky was almost Italian, Hugh said, the stars were so
unusually clear and bright. He walked, not up the drive towards the door,
but across the lawn towards the three French windows of the drawing-room.
They showed a faint bronze light. Lamoir was there. She was sitting in a
Dorothy chair of old blue velvet, reading. A lamp in a bowl of yellow
amber lit the book, but her face was only a frail whiteness, and her hair was
as though veiled. He pushed open a window which was unlatched. He
called: “Lamoir!”
She made that gesture he knew so well, loved so well. Lamoir would not
be Lamoir without that gesture. Always, at first sight of him returning to
her, she would make that gesture. It was delicious with a lure which he
never could explain. It was as though she was afraid of her love for him.
Towards her heart, the gesture was: but faint, not definite: a hand like a
white bird, fluttering, fluttering vainly, fluttering out of stillness, fluttering
back into stillness—all in a second. Lamoir, you see, had a weak heart, and
that was why, maybe, she was born so still, to balance the weakness of her
heart.
And it was always the same with him when he saw her after an absence.
The world stood still, no living thing moved but Lamoir’s hand and his
infinite desire. The pleasure of seeing her was exquisite, like a pain. In all
his life Hugh had known no woman but Lamoir. Seeing her now, the earth
and sky held only himself and her and the thing that was between them.
That vivid thing with eyes of fire which can be beautiful or beastly. She
troubled him and exalted him, and somehow his love for her would be
stabbed by a queer sense of terror, which he never could explain. And she
was so still, so passive, unknowable. But her eyes, as he made to touch her,
adored him.
She lay beside him a long time in the delicious silence of love before she
spoke and said: “Good-bye, Hugh.”
He thought she must have gone mad. He stared at her, through the
darkness. “Good-bye?” he echoed.
“Yes,” she said, and that was all she said.
He had put out the light in the bowl of yellow amber. He lay in the
darkness, understanding nothing. Then his mind grew darker than the room,
and he just managed to say:
“But, Lamoir, are you mad? Good-bye! What do you mean?”
She did not answer for what seemed a long time. She was a soft darkness
in the dark room, beside him. The night was a blue curtain over the
windows, hung with stars like toys. He touched her, as though to prove to
himself that he was not dreaming. He must be dreaming. But she was there,
beside him, soft, warm: Lamoir, his wife. And the stars on the windows
were as though at his finger-tips, but Lamoir was untouchable. She was
untouchable, suddenly. She was most untouchable when he touched her. It
seemed wrong to touch her. That made him angry. He laughed.
“I’m damned,” he said, “if I understand what all this is about! I come
home after months away, and you say good-bye!”
“I don’t think,” she said, “that I can explain. Not now....”
He laughed. She was going away, and she didn’t trouble to explain why!
He wanted her to say: “Don’t be bitter, please!” But she was silent. She
was beside him, yet her breath came from across the universe. And what on
earth was it all about?
“But do you mean you want to leave me?” he asked, astounded, angry.
She said: “Yes.”
“Lamoir!”
She said: “I can’t bear it any longer, Hugh. I love you too much.”
He repeated idiotically: “You love me too much?”
 Now she was standing, a shadow in the darkness, away from him, a
million miles away from him. He was silent. All the inside of him went
silent. Suddenly there were no words, no need for words, no Lamoir, no
Hugh, nothing but the primal nothingness before Adam. He would not hold
her for a moment if she wished to leave him.
“You will understand,” she said. “You see, I want to be free to love you,
and you won’t let me. You will understand that, too. God has given me no
children, Hugh. He has given me only my love for you. That is all I have,
and I have been sacrificing it to you for ten years; but now I am growing
afraid for it, it’s become such a poor, beaten, wretched bit of a thing, and so
I must leave you. I owe that to myself, dear—and to the you inside you.”
And he said, despite himself, that he loved her. What was so strange was
that, suddenly, he had ceased to feel like her husband, suddenly it seemed to
him inconceivable that he had possessed her countless times. Inconceivable
that he and she had been one, when now they were so apart! It had seemed
so easy then to touch her—now, not a lifetime would surmount the barriers
she had raised between them. He suddenly thought: “Good Lord, how lucky
I’ve been in the past—and I never knew it!”
He was going to touch her, when like a blow on the face he realised that
to touch her would be indecent. She was not his wife. Suddenly, absurdly,
he thought of Soames Forsyte, of John Galsworthy. Hugh had always
disliked Galsworthy for his creation of Forsyte, a man who could rape his
wife.
Lamoir said suddenly: “There will be another chance later on....”
He leapt at that. “Later on? Lamoir, you mean you will come back?”
“No,” she said. “I didn’t mean that. I shall never come back.”
“You will,” he said between his teeth, and with a great effort of will he
took her in his arms.
But afterwards she went away, and she never came back.

We were silent for a long time after Hugh had spoken of the way Lamoir
had left him. And then he said: “Of course she was right. I did understand,
later on. That is why I have made no attempt to see her these last nine years.
Love, you see, has many masks. We slip on one or other of them, and we
say, ‘This is love,’ but really it’s only a fraction of love. And a fraction of
love can be the negation of love. Love is enormous and difficult. We must
learn how to love, as we must learn how to play music. I did not know how.
But I shall see Lamoir soon. I am going to Algeria next week. I have been
wanting to go for a long time, but I must just wait another few days....”
“But, Hugh, why do you wait even one day?” I protested. “Lamoir is
longing to see you, I know she is.”
“Yes. But I must wait four or five days or so. For a sort of anniversary.
My idea, if you won’t laugh at me too much, is to see Playmate Place again,
and then that will give me a clue as to how to deal with Lamoir when I see
her in the flesh. I’m sure it will give me a clue. And I’m sure I shall see it
again, in three or four days from to-day. I’d like to, immensely. Of course it
won’t have changed one bit, but I wonder if Lamoir and I will have grown
up. If we have, it will be rather a feat to climb that tree, won’t it? Or maybe
the tree will have grown too, though it seemed huge enough at the time.
You see, the thing seems to go in cycles of twenty years, more or less. I saw
the garden for the first time on a June day in my ninth year. I met Lamoir
for the first time on a June day, perhaps the same one, in my twenty-ninth
year. And now I’m forty-nine, and the day falls in three or four or five days’
time. Either, I’m quite sure, I see that garden again on that day, or I see
Lamoir herself, or....”
“Or?” I said. “Or what?”
“Well, God knows!” Hugh smiled, pulling at that stiff grey thing on his
upper lip, and on the dawn of the fourth day from that night Hugh was
found by one of the keepers of Hyde Park lying at the foot of a great tree
near the Albert Gate, dead of a broken neck. At the inquest there was read
out a letter from his wife’s lawyers, which had been delivered at Hugh’s
house on the morning of his death and which he couldn’t, therefore, have
read, saying that they had heard by wire from Algeria that his wife had died
of heart-failure the day before.
 X: THE GHOUL OF GOLDERS GREEN

I T is fortunate that the affair should have happened to Mr. Ralph

Wyndham Trevor and be told by him, for Mr. Trevor is a scholar of some
authority. It is in a spirit of almost ominous premonition that he begins
the tale, telling how he was walking slowly up Davies Street one night
when he caught a cab. It need scarcely be said that Davies Street owes its
name to that Mary Davies, the heiress, who married into the noble house of
Grosvenor. That was years and years ago, of course, and is of no
importance whatsoever now; but it may be of interest to students.
It was very late on a winter’s night, and Mr. Trevor was depressed, for he
had that evening lost a great deal more than he could afford at the card
game of auction bridge. Davies Street was deserted; and the moon and Mr.
Trevor walked alone towards Berkeley Square. It was not the sort of moon
that Mr. Trevor remembered having seen before. It was, indeed, the sort of
moon one usually meets only in books or wine. Mr. Trevor was sober.
Nothing happened, Mr. Trevor affirms, for quite a while: he just walked;
and, at that corner where Davies Street and Mount Street join together the
better to become Berkeley Square, stayed his walking upon an idea that he
would soothe his depression with the fumes of a cigarette. His cigarette-
case, however, was empty. All London, says Mr. Trevor, appeared to be
empty that night. Berkeley Square lay pallid and desolate: looking clear, not
as though with moonlight, but with dead daylight; and never a voice to put
life into the still streets, never a breeze to play with the bits of paper in the
gutters or to sing among the dry boughs of the trees. Berkeley Square
looked like nothing so much as an old stage property that no one had any
use for. Mr. Trevor had no use at all for it; and became definitely
antagonistic to it when a taxicab crawled wretchedly across the waste white
expanse and the driver, a man in a Homburg hat of green plush, looked into
his face with a beseeching look.
“Taxi, sir?” he said.
Mr. Trevor says that, not wanting to hurt the man’s feelings, he just
looked another way.
 “Nice night, sir,” said the driver miserably, “for a drive in an ’ackney-
carriage.”
“I live,” said Mr. Trevor with restraint, “only a few doors off. So
hackney-carriage to you.”
“No luck!” sighed the driver and accelerated madly away even as Mr.
Trevor changed his mind, for would it not be an idea to drive to the nearest
coffee-stall and buy some cigarettes? This, however, he was not to do, for
there was no other reply to his repeated call of “Taxi!” but certain heavy
blows on the silence of Davies Street behind him.
“Wanting a taxi, sir?” said a voice which could only belong to a
policeman.
“Certainly not,” said Mr. Trevor bitterly. “I never want a taxi. But now
and then a taxi-driver thrusts himself on me and pays me to be seen in his
cab, just to give it a tone. Next question.”
“Ho!” said the policeman thoughtfully.
“I beg your pardon?” said Mr. Trevor.
“Ho!” said the policeman thoughtfully.
“The extent of your vocabulary,” said Mr. Trevor gloomily, “leads me to
conclude that you must have been born a gentleman. Have you, in that case,
a cigarette you could spare?”
“Gaspers,” said the policeman.
“Thank you,” said Mr. Trevor, rejecting them. “I am no stranger to
ptomaine poisoning.”
“That’s funny,” said the policeman, “your saying that. I was just thinking
of death.”
“Death?” said Mr. Trevor.
“You’ve said it,” said the policeman.
“I’ve said what?” said Mr. Trevor.
“Death,” said the policeman.
“Oh, death!” said Mr. Trevor. “I always say ‘death,’ constable. It’s my
favourite word.”
“Ghoulish, I calls it, sir. Ghoulish, no less.”
“That entirely depends,” said Mr. Trevor, “on what you are talking
about. In some things, ghoulish is as ghoulish does. In others, no.”
 “You’ve said it,” said the policeman. “But ghoulish goes, in this ’ere
affair. One after the other lying in their own blood, and not a sign as to
who’s done it, not a sign!”
“Oh, come, constable! Tut-tut! Not even a thumb-mark in the blood?”
“I’m telling you,” said the policeman severely. “Corpses slit to ribbons
all the way from ’Ampstead ’Eath to this ’ere Berkeley Square. And why?
That’s what I asks myself. And why?”
“Of course,” said Mr. Trevor gaily, “there certainly have been a lot of
murders lately. Ha-ha! But not, surely, as many as all that!”
“I’m coming to that,” said the policeman severely. “We don’t allow of
the Press reporting more’n a quarter of them. No, sir. That’s wot it ’as come
to, these larst few days. A more painful situation ’as rarely arisen in the
hannals of British crime. The un’eard-of bestiality of the criminal may well
baffle ordinary minds like yours and mine.”
“I don’t believe a word of it!” snapped Mr. Trevor.
“Ho, you don’t!” said the policeman. “You don’t!”
“That’s right,” said Mr. Trevor, “I don’t. Do you mean to stand there and
tell me that I wouldn’t ’ave ’eard—I mean, have heard of this criminal if he
had really existed?”
“You’re a gent,” said the policeman.
“You’ve said it,” said Mr. Trevor.
“And gents,” said the policeman, “know nothing. And what they do
know is mouldy. Ever ’eard of Jack the Ripper?”
“Yes, I ’ave,” said Mr. Trevor bitterly.
“Have is right, sir, if you’ll excuse me. Well, Jack’s death was never
rightly proved, not it! So it might well be ’im at ’is old tricks again, even
though ’e has been retired, in a manner of speaking, these forty years.
Remorseless and hindiscriminate murder, swift and sure, was Jack’s line, if
you remember, sir.”
“Before my time,” said Mr. Trevor gloomily.
“Well, Jack’s method was just to slit ’em up with a razor, frontwise and
from south to north, and not a blessed word spoken. No one’s touched ’im
yet, not for efficiency, but this new chap, ’e looks like catching Jack up.
And at Jack’s own game, razor and all. Makes a man fair sick, sir, to see the
completed work. Just slits ’em up as clean as you or me might slit up a
vealanam-pie. We was laying bets on ’im over at Vine Street only to-night,
curious like to see whether ’e’d beat Jack’s record. But it’ll take some
beating, I give you my word. Up to date this chap ’as only done in twelve in
three weeks—not that that’s ’alf bad, seeing as how ’e’s new to the game,
more or less.”
“Oh, rather, more or less!” said Mr. Trevor faintly. “Twelve! Good God
—only twelve! But why—why don’t you catch the ghastly man?”
“Ho, why don’t we!” said the policeman. “Becos we don’t know ’ow,
that’s why. Not us! It’s the little one-corpse men we’re good for, not these
’ere big artists. Look at Jack the Ripper—did we catch ’im? Did we? And
look at Julian Raphael—did we catch ’im? I’m asking you.”
“I know you are,” said Mr. Trevor gratefully. “Thank you.”
“I don’t want your thanks,” said the policeman. “I’m just warning you.”
Mr. Trevor gasped: “Warning me!”
“You’ve said it,” said the policeman. “You don’t ought to be out alone at
this time of night, an ’earty young chap like you. These twelve ’e’s already
done in were all ’earty young chaps. ’E’s partial to ’em ’earty, I do believe.
And social gents some of ’em was, too, with top-’ats to hand, just like you
might be now, sir, coming ’ome from a smoking-concert. Jack the Ripper all
over again, that’s wot I say. Except that this ’ere new corpse-fancier, ’e
don’t seem to fancy women at all.”
“A chaps’ murderer, what!” said Mr. Trevor faintly. “Ha-ha! What?”
“You’ve said it,” said the policeman. “But you never know your luck, sir.
And maybe as ’ow thirteen’s your lucky number.”
Mr. Trevor lays emphasis on the fact that throughout he treated the
constable with the courtesy due from a gentleman to the law. He merely
said: “Constable, I am now going home. I do not like you very much. You
are an alarmist. And I hope that when you go to sleep to-night your ears
swell so that when you wake up in the morning you will be able to fly
straight to heaven and never be seen or heard of again. You and your razors
and your thirteens!”
“Ho, they ain’t mine, far from it!” said the policeman, and even as he
spoke a voice crashed upon the silence from the direction of Mount Street.
The voice belonged to a tall figure in black and white, and on his head was
a top-hat that shone under the pallid moon like a monstrous black jewel.
 “That there,” said the policeman, “is a Noise.”
“He’s singing,” said Mr. Trevor.
“I’ll teach ’im singing!” said the policeman.
Sang the voice:

“With an host of furious fancies,

Whereof I am commander,
With a burning spear
And a horse of air
To the wilderness I wander.”

“You will,” said the policeman. “Oh, you will!”

“By a knight of ghosts and shadows

I summoned am to tourney
Ten leagues beyond
The wide world’s end—
Methinks it is no journey!”

“Not to Vine Street, it isn’t,” said the policeman.

“Ho there!” cried the approaching voice. “Who dares interrupt my
song!”
“Beau Maturin!” cried Mr. Trevor gladly. “It’s not you! Bravo, Beau
Maturin! Sing, bless you, sing! For I am depressed.”

“From Heaven’s Gate to Hampstead Heath

Young Bacchus and his crew
Came tumbling down, and o’er the town
Their bursting trumpets blew.”

“Fine big gent, your friend,” said the policeman thoughtfully.

“And when they heard that happy word

Policemen leapt and ambled:
The busmen pranced, the maidens danced,
The men in bowlers gambolled.”

“Big!” said Mr. Trevor. “Big? Let me tell you, constable, that the last
time Mr. Maturin hit Jack Dempsey, Dempsey bounced back from the floor
so quick that he knocked Mr. Maturin out on the rebound.”
Mr. Trevor says that Beau Maturin came on through the night like an
avenger through a wilderness, so little did he reck of cruel moons and rude
policemen. Said he: “Good evening, Ralph. Good evening, constable. Lo, I
am in wine!”
“You’ve said it,” said the policeman.
“Gently, my dear! Or,” said Mr. Maturin cordially, “I will dot you one,
and look at it which way you like it is a far, far better thing to be in wine
than in a hospital. Now, are there any good murders going to-night?”
“Going?” said the constable. “I’m ’ere to see there ain’t any coming. But
I’ve just been telling this gent about some recent crises. Corpses slit to
ribbons just as you or me might slit up a vealanam——”
“Don’t say that again!” snapped Mr. Trevor.
“By Heaven, what’s that?” sighed Mr. Maturin; and, following his intent
eyes, they saw, a yard or so behind them on the pavement, a something that
glittered in the moonlight. Mr. Trevor says that, without a thought for his
own safety, he instantly took a step towards the thing, but that the
policeman restrained him. It was Mr. Maturin who picked the thing up. The
policeman whistled thoughtfully.
“A razor, let’s face it!” whispered Beau Maturin.
“And sharp!” said the policeman, thoughtfully testing the glittering blade
with the ball of his thumb.
Mr. Trevor says that he was never in his life less conscious of any
feeling of excitement. He merely pointed out that he could swear there had
been no razor there when he had come round the corner, and that, while he
had stood there, no one had passed behind him.
“The chap that owns this razor,” said the policeman, emphasising each
word with a gesture of the blade, “must ’ave slunk behind you and me as
we stood ’ere talking and dropped it, maybe not finding it sharp enough for
’is purpose. What do you think, Mr. Maturin?”
But Mr. Maturin begged to be excused from thinking, protesting that
men are in the hands of God and God is in the hands of women, so what the
devil is there to think about?
Mr. Trevor says that the motive behind his remark at that moment, which
was to the effect that he simply must have a drink, was merely that he was
thirsty. A clock struck two.
“After hours,” said the policeman; and he seemed, Mr. Trevor thought,
to grin evilly.
“What do they know of hours,” sighed Mr. Maturin, “who only Ciro’s
know? Come, Ralph. My love, she jilted me but the other night. Therefore I
will swim in wine, and thrice will I call upon her name when I am
drowning. Constable, good-night to you.”
“Now I’ve warned you!” the policeman called after them. “Don’t go into
any alleys or passages like Lansdowne Passage else you’ll be finding
yourselves slit up like vealanam-pies.”
Maybe it was only the treacherous light of the moon, but Mr. Trevor
fancied as he looked back that the policeman, where he stood thoughtfully
fingering the shining blade, seemed to be grinning evilly at them.

II

They walked in silence, their steps ringing sharp on the bitter-chill air.
The night in the sky was pale at the white disdain of the moon. It was Mr.
Maturin who spoke at last, saying: “There’s too much talk of murder to-
night. A man cannot go to bed on such crude talk. You know me, kid. Shall
we go to The Garden of My Grandmother?”
At that moment a taxicab crawled across the moonlight; and the driver, a
man in a Homburg hat of green plush, did not attempt to hide his pleasure at
being able to satisfy the gentlemen’s request to take them to The Garden of
My Grandmother.
Mr. Trevor says that he has rarely chanced upon a more unsatisfactory
taxicab than that driven by the man in the Homburg hat of green plush. By
closing one’s eyes one might perhaps have created an illusion of movement
by reason of certain internal shrieks and commotions, but when one saw the
slow procession of shops by the windows and the lamp-posts loitering by
the curb, one was, as Beau Maturin pointed out, justified in believing that
the hackney-cab in question was not going fast enough to outstrip a retired
Czecho-Slovakian admiral in an egg-and-spoon race. Nor were they
altogether surprised when the taxicab died on them in Conduit Street. The
man in the Homburg hat of green plush jumped out and tried to restart the
engine. He failed. The gentlemen within awaited the issue in silence. The
silence, says Mr. Trevor, grew terrible. But the taxicab moved not, and the
man in the Homburg hat of green plush began, in his agitation, thumping
the carburetor with his clenched fist.
“No petrol,” he pleaded. “No petrol.”
Said Mr. Trevor to Mr. Maturin: “Let us go. Let us leave this man.”
“ ’Ere, my fare!” said the fellow.
“Your fare?” said Mr. Maturin with contracted brows. “What do you
mean, ‘your fare’?”
“Bob on the meter,” said the wretch.
“My friend will pay,” said Mr. Maturin, and stalked away. Mr. Trevor
says that, while retaining throughout the course of that miserable night his
undoubted flair for generosity, he could not but hold Beau Maturin’s high-
handed disavowal of his responsibilities against him; and he was hurrying
after him up Conduit Street, turning over such phrases as might best point
the occasion and make Mr. Maturin ashamed of himself, when that pretty
gentleman swung round sharply and said: “Ssh!”
But Mr. Trevor was disinclined to Ssh, maintaining that Mr. Maturin
owed him ninepence.
“Ssh, you fool!” snapped Mr. Maturin; and Mr. Trevor had not obliged
him for long before he discerned in the quietness of Conduit Street a small
discordant noise, or rather, says Mr. Trevor, a series of small discordant
noises.
“She’s crying, let’s face it,” whispered Mr. Maturin.
“She! Who?”
“Ssh!” snapped Mr. Maturin.
They were at that point in Conduit Street where a turn to the right will
bring one into a fat little street which looks blind but isn’t, insomuch as
close by the entrance to the Alpine Club Galleries there is a narrow passage
or alley leading into Savile Row. Mr. Trevor says that the repugnance with
which he at that moment looked towards the darkness of that passage or
alley had less than nothing to do with the blood-thirsty policeman’s last
words but was due merely to an antipathy he had entertained towards all
passages or alleys ever since George Tarlyon had seen a ghost in one. Mr.
Maturin and he stood for some minutes in the full light of the moon while,
as though from the very heart of the opposite darkness, the lacerating
tremors of weeping echoed about their ears.
 “I can’t bear it!” said Beau Maturin. “Come along.” And he advanced
towards the darkness, but Mr. Trevor said he would not, pleading foot
trouble.
“Come,” said Beau Maturin, but Mr. Trevor said: “To-morrow, yes. But
not to-night.”
Then did Beau Maturin advance alone into the darkness towards the
passage or alley, and with one pounce the darkness stole his top-hat from
the moon. Beau Maturin was invisible. The noise of weeping abated.
“Oi!” called Mr. Trevor. “Come back, you fool!”
“Ssh!” whispered the voice of Mr. Maturin.
Mr. Trevor said bitterly: “You’re swanking, that’s all!”
“It’s a girl!” whispered the voice of Mr. Maturin, whereupon Mr. Trevor,
who yielded to no man in the chivalry of his address towards women, at
once advanced, caught up Mr. Maturin and, without a thought for his own
safety, was about to pass ahead of him when Beau Maturin had the bad taste
to whisper “ ’Ware razors!” and thus again held the lead.
She who wept, now almost inaudibly, was a dark shape just within the
passage. Her face, says Mr. Trevor, was not visible, yet her shadow had not
those rather surprising contours which one generally associates with women
who weep in the night.
“Madam,” began Mr. Maturin.
“Oh!” sobbed the gentle voice. “He is insulting me!”
Mr. Trevor lays some emphasis on the fact that throughout the course of
that miserable night his manners were a pattern of courtliness. Thinking,
however, that a young lady in a situation so lachrymose would react more
favourably to a fatherly tone, he said:
“My child, we hope——”
“Ah!” sobbed the gentle voice. “Please go away, please! I am not that
sort!”
“Come, come!” said Mr. Maturin. “It is us whom you insult with a
suspicion so disagreeable. My friend and I are not of the sort to commit
ourselves to so low a process as that which is called, I believe, ‘picking
up.’ ”
“We have, as a matter of fact, friends of our own,” said Mr. Trevor
haughtily.
 “Speaking generally,” said Mr. Maturin, “women like us. Time over
again I have had to sacrifice my friendship with a man in order to retain his
wife’s respect.”
“Ah, you are a man of honour!” sobbed the young lady.
“We are two men of honour,” said Mr. Trevor.
“And far,” said Mr. Maturin warmly, “from intending you any mischief,
we merely thought, on hearing you weeping——”
“You heard me, sir!”
“From Conduit Street,” said Mr. Trevor severely, whereupon Mr.
Maturin lifted up his voice and sang:

“From Conduit Street, from Conduit Street,

The street of ties and tailors:
From Conduit Street, from Conduit Street,
A shocking street for trousers——”

“Oh!” sobbed the young lady. “Is this chivalry?”

“Trousers,” said Mr. Maturin, “are closely connected with chivalry,
insomuch as he who commits chivalry without them is to be considered a
rude fellow. But, child,” Mr. Maturin protested sincerely, “we addressed
you only in the hope that we might be of some service in the extremity of
your grief. I assure you that you can trust us, for since we are no longer
soldiers rape and crime have ceased to attract us. However, you do not need
us. We were wrong. We will go.”
“It was I who was wrong!” came the low voice; and Mr. Trevor says that
only then did the young lady raise her face, when it was instantly as though
the beauty of that small face sent the surrounding darkness scurrying away.
Not, however, that Mr. Trevor was impressed altogether in the young lady’s
favour. Her eyes, which were large, dark and charming, appeared to rest on
handsome Beau Maturin with an intentness which Mr. Trevor can only
describe as bold; while her disregard of his own presence might have hurt
him had he, says Mr. Trevor, cared two pins for that kind of thing.
“You see, I have not eaten to-day,” the young lady told Beau Maturin,
who cried: “But, then, we can help you!”
“Ah, how do I know! Please,” the young lady began weeping again, and
Mr. Trevor says that had he not hardened his heart he could not say what he
might not have done. “Please, sirs, I simply do not know what to do! I am
so unhappy, so alone—oh, but you cannot imagine! You are gentlemen?”
“Speaking for my friend,” said Mr. Maturin warmly, “he has been asked
to resign from Buck’s Club only after repeated bankruptcies.”
“Mr. Maturin,” said Mr. Trevor, “has in his time been cashiered from no
less a regiment than the Coldstream Guards.”
The young lady did not, however, favour Mr. Trevor with so much as a
glance, never once taking her beautiful eyes from the handsome face of
Beau Maturin. Indeed, throughout the course of that miserable night she
admirably controlled any interest Mr. Trevor might have aroused in her,
which Mr. Trevor can only account for by the supposition that she must
have been warned against him. Beau Maturin, meanwhile, had taken the
young lady’s arm, a familiarity with which Mr. Trevor cannot too strongly
dissociate himself, and was saying:
“Child, you may come with us, if not with honour, at least with safety.
And while you refresh yourself with food and drink you can tell us, if you
please, the tale of your troubles. Can’t she, Ralph?”
“I don’t see,” said Mr. Trevor, “what good we can do.”
“Your friend,” said the young lady sadly to Beau Maturin, “does not like
me. Perhaps you had better leave me alone to my misery.”
“My friend,” said Beau Maturin, guiding her steps down the fat little
street towards Conduit Street, “likes you only too well, but is restraining
himself for fear of your displeasure. Moreover, he cannot quickly adapt
himself to the company of ingenuous young ladies, for he goes a good deal
into society, where somewhat cruder methods obtain.”
“But, oh, where are you taking me to?” suddenly cried the young lady.
“To The Garden of My Grandmother,” said Mr. Trevor bitterly, and
presently they found a taxicab on Regent Street which quickly delivered
them at the place in Leicester Square. Mr. Trevor cannot help priding
himself on the agility with which he leapt out of that taxicab, saying to the
driver: “My friend will pay.”
But Mr. Maturin, engrossed in paying those little attentions to the young
lady which really attractive men, says Mr. Trevor, can afford to neglect, told
the driver to wait, and when the driver said he did not want to wait, to go
and boil his head.
 III

Mr. Trevor describes The Garden of my Grandmother in some detail, but

that would be of interest only to the specialist. The place was lately raided,
and is now closed; and remained open so long as it did only with the help of
such devices as commend themselves to those aliens who know the laws of
the land only to circumvent them. For some time, indeed, the police did not
even know of its existence as a night-club, for the entrance to the place was
through two mean-looking doors several yards apart, on one of which was
boldly inscribed the word “Gentlemen” and on the other “Ladies.”
Within, all was gaiety and chic. From the respectable night-clubs and
restaurants, all closed by this hour, would come the jeunesse of England;
and an appetising smell of kippers brought new life to the jaded senses of
young ladies, while young gentlemen cleverly contrived to give the
appearance of drinking ginger ale by taking their champagne through
straws. Mr. Trevor says, however, that there was not the smallest chance of
the place being raided on the night in question, for among the company was
a Prince of the Blood; and it is an unwritten law in the Metropolitan Police
Force that no night-club shall be raided while a Prince of the Blood is
pulling a party therein.
The young lady and our two gentlemen were presently refreshing
themselves at a table in a secluded corner; and when at last only the wine
was left before them Mr. Maturin assumed his courtliest manner to beg the
young lady to tell her tale, and in detail, if she thought its relation would
relieve her at all. She thought, with all the pensive beauty of her dark eyes,
that it would, and immediately began on the following tale:
The Tale of the Bulgarian Girl
I am (she said) twenty-three years old, and although I once spent two
years in England at a boarding-school in Croydon, my life hitherto has been
lived entirely in Bulgaria. My father was a Bulgar of the name of Samson
Samsonovitch Samsonoff, my mother an Englishwoman of the Lancashire
branch of the race of Jones, and for her tragic death in a railway accident
just over a year ago I shall grieve all my life: which, I cannot help praying,
may be a short one, for I weary of the insensate cruelties that every new day
opens out for me.
I must tell you that my mother was an unusual woman, of rigid
principles, lofty ideals and a profound feeling for the grace and dignity of
the English tongue, in which, in spite of my father’s opposition, for the
Samsonoffs are a bitter proud race, she made me proficient at an early age.
Never had this admirable woman a thought in her life that was not directed
towards furthering her husband’s welfare and to obtaining the happiness of
her only child; and I am convinced that my father had not met his cruel
death two months ago had she been spared to counsel him.
My father came of an ancient Macedonian house. For hundreds of years
a bearer of the name of Samson Samsonovitch Samsonoff has trod the stark
hillsides of the Balkans and raided the sweet, rich valleys about
Philippopolis. As brigands, the Samsonoffs had never a rival; as comitadjis,
in war or peace, their name was a name for heroism and of terror: while as
assassins—for the domestic economy of Bulgaria has ever demanded the
occasional services of a hawk’s eye and a ruthless hand—a Samsonoff has
been honourably associated with some of the most memorable coups in
Balkan history. I am well aware that pride of family has exercised a base
dominion over the minds of many good men and women; yet I do not
hesitate to confess that it is with almost unbearable regret that I look upon
the fact that I, a wretched girl, am the last and only remnant of our once
proud house.
Such a man it was whom my mother, while accompanying her father, a
civil engineer, through Bulgaria, married. Nor did it need anything less than
the ardour of her love and the strength of her character to seduce a Samson
Samsonovitch from the dour dominion of the hills to the conventional life
of the valleys. I loved my father, but cannot be blind to the grave flaws in
his character. A tall, hairy man, with a beard such as would have appalled
your description of Beaver, he was subject to ungovernable tempers and,
occasionally, to regrettable lapses from that moral code which is such an
attractive feature of English domestic life. Ah, you who live in the content
and plenty of so civilised a land, how can you even imagine the horrors of
lawlessness that obtain among primitive peoples! Had not that good woman
my mother always willed him to loving-kindness, Samsonovitch Samsonoff
had more than once spilled the blood of his dearest friends in the heat of
some petty tavern brawl.
We lived in a farmhouse in what is surely the loveliest valley in the
world, that which is called the Valley of the Roses, and whence is given to
the world that exquisite essence known as attar of roses. Our little
household in that valley was a happy and united one; more and more
infrequent became my father’s demoniac tempers; and, but for his
intolerance of fools and cravens, you had taken the last of the Samsonoffs to
be a part of the life of the valley-men, of whose industry, the cultivation of
roses, he rapidly became a master.
Thus we come to the time which I now think of as two months before
my mother’s death. My father had attained to a certain degree of wealth,
and was ever enticing my mother with dreams of a prolonged visit to her
beloved birthplace, Southport, which is, I believe, a pretty town on the
seaboard of Lancashire, and which I look forward with delight to visiting.
While enticing her, however, with such visions, he did not hesitate to warn
her that she must wait on the issue of his fanciful hobby, which daily grew
on him; for the last of the Samsonoffs had become an inventor of flowers!
You may well look bewildered. But had you known my father you would
in some measure have understood how a man, of an extreme audacity of
temperament, might be driven into any fanciful pursuit that might lend a
spice to a life of intolerable gentility. Nor was that pursuit so fanciful as
might as first appear to those of conventionally studious minds: my father
had a profound knowledge of the anatomy of flowers; and was in the habit
of saying that he could not but think that the mind of man had hitherto
neglected the invention and cultivation of the most agreeable variations. In
fine, the tempestuous but simple mind of Samsonovitch Samsonoff had
been captivated by the possibility of growing green carnations.
My mother and I were, naturally enough, not at all averse from his
practising so gentle a hobby as the invention and cultivation of improbable
flowers. And it was long before we even dreamt of the evil consequences
that might attend so inoffensive an ambition. But my poor mother was soon
to be rid of the anxieties of this life.
One day she and I were sitting in the garden, discussing the English
fashion journals, when, silently as a cloud, my father came out of the house
and looked towards us in the half-frowning, half-smiling way of his best
mood. Tall and patriarchal, he came towards us—and in his hand we saw a
flower with a long slender stem, and we stared at it as though we could not
believe our eyes, for it was a green carnation!
“You have painted it!” we cried, my mother and I, for his success had
seemed to us as remote as the stars.
 “I have made it!” said my father, and he smiled into his beard, which
was ever his one confidential friend. “Women, I have made it in my
laboratory. And as I have made this I can make thousands, millions, and
thousands of millions!”
He waved a closely-covered piece of paper towards me. “My daughter,”
he said, “here is your dower, your heritage. I am too old to burden myself
with the cares of great riches, but by the help of this paper you, my beloved
child, will become an heiress who may condescend to an Emperor or an
American. We will not lose a minute before going to England, the land of
honest men, to put the matter of the patent in train. For on this paper is
written the formula by which green carnations, as well as all previously
known varieties of carnations, can be made instead of grown. Made, I say,
instead of grown! Women, do you understand what it is that I have
achieved? I have stolen something of the secret of the sun!”
“Samson, boast not!” cried my mother, but he laughed at her and fondled
me, while I stared in great wonder at the slip of paper that fluttered in his
hand and dreamed the fair dreams of wealth and happiness in a civilised
country. Ah me, ah me, the ill-fated excellence of dreams! For here I am in
the most civilised country in the world, a pauper, and more wretched than a
pauper!
Our preparations for removal to England were not far advanced before
that happened which brought the first cruel turn to our fortunes. On an evil
day my mother set out to Varna to buy some trivial thing, and—but I cannot
speak of that, how she was returned to us a mangled corpse, her dear
features mutilated beyond recognition by the fury of the railway accident.
My father took his sudden loss strangely: it was as though he was
deprived at one blow of all the balance, the restraint, with which so many
years of my mother’s influence had softened the dangerous temper of the
Samsonoff; and the brooding silence he put upon his surroundings
clamoured with black thoughts. Worst of all, he began again to frequent the
taverns in the valley, wherein he seemed to find solace in goading to fury
the craven-hearted lowlanders among whom he had lived in peace for so
long. The Samsonoff, in short, seemed rapidly to be reverting to type; and I,
his daughter, must stand by and do nothing, for my influence over him was
never but of the pettiest sort.