Skip to main content


How much would you pay for your personal phishing awareness training (simulation, e. g. 10 test mails a year)?

Talking about hypothetical service where you would subscribe your personal email to receive, from time to time, email phishing lure based on your customised demography. You know, something your employer usually does for your corporate email, but this time for you (or even your family).

#phishing #awareness #poll #boostswelcome #security

  • 6 EUR / year (5%, 1 vote)
  • 12 EUR / year (0%, 0 votes)
  • Even more? Elaborate (5%, 1 vote)
  • Less? Elaborate (5%, 1 vote)
  • Would never subscribe for such service (82%, 14 votes)
17 voters. Poll end: 4 days ago

Ľuboš Moščovič reshared this.

in reply to Ľuboš Moščovič

b2b. How much would your employer pay for such a service, gamified to have awareness being rewarded?
in reply to Stahlbrandt

@stahlbrandt
Well there are many b2b services like this, usually bundled with some "classic" security awareness training, so price depends... Usually starting at about 12/employee/year.

But I'm wondering why no one offers this as a consumer's product, or even as a feature in more robust "home" security solutions (e.g. by #eset)

in reply to Ľuboš Moščovič

Guess the training aspect with 1:1 training can be an issue. Economically more feasible with training a group at once, thus the b2b aspect. Harder to raise awareness amongst individual consumers. Add-on for eset but for small businesses maybe, with the upselling potential for partners to educate.
in reply to Ľuboš Moščovič

I think it is all in the analytics and reporting. Serious risk for slipery slope where perceived mail quality and trust goes down with the injection of “training material”. Interesting idea!
in reply to Ľuboš Moščovič

I'd subscribe to it if the trainers managed to make me click on a link to the signup page, within an email that is allegedly from my bank.
in reply to katzenberger

@katzenberger

Well, that would be pretty unethical guerrilla marketing crossing the lines of GDPR at minimum I would say... 🤪

in reply to Ľuboš Moščovič

WhatsApp charged 1€/year. Add inflation but this is 10 messages per year instead of thousands.

Email providers needing to beat the shit spam detection algorithms (instead of prosecuting the spammers or, when in unfavorable jurisdictions, blocking providers that let spammers sign up) adds a significant cost, and the content is employee- rather than user-generated, but more than a euro per message seems pretty crazy

in reply to Luc

@luc
Yeah, the whole idea sounds to me more like the feature, not the product. Still, no one provides that not like product, nor feature. And I still believe this may be useful.
Maybe I'll give it a try and go into simple research with some university or aim it for public domain.
@Luc
in reply to Ľuboš Moščovič

must say, it seems like a good idea that I've indeed not seen anywhere. I recently did hear critique on phishing trainings for organisations (shifting blame to the one who clicks, and someone is always going to click anyway), but it's not like they're completely useless either so why not offer it also for consumers? Are we sure nobody does this already?

If you want, I'd be interested in helping set this up (preferably noncommercially)

in reply to Luc

@luc
Thank you for this post...
This idea has been in my head for couple of years already.
Corporations are using it for more than a decade with mixed feedback. The difference is usually hidden in the communication - those who use it to blame the users fail and get the critique, those who use it to point out - "you clicked, no worries, can happen to everyone, let's have a lesson learned" are successful (of course some people will always get upset if something points out they are not the pure and perfect bettermen, but talking in general).
The providers of such services for corporations (like KnowBe4, or Proofpoint) usually show you some chart how great the system worked (based on "their" "research" - usually showing about 15-20% click rates before the simulations and about down to 5% after let's say a year long campaigns).
Maybe it would be interesting to run something like this as nonprofit to get at least some vendor independent statistics about the topic.

I've been looking for such an offering for consumers ever since it got into my head and never found one. Nothing for general public. While there are quite a lot of OSS resources available including nice but dead platforms like GoPhisher and similar and lure libraries.

Honestly, as I've said before, I believe this is a feature, not a product, so doing this "for profit" may be really a matter of bigger players like Eset, Google, Microsoft and have it integrated in their consumers portfolio as some kind of optional enhancement, so my ideas are now really non profit / non commercial research / PoC.

Let's see what life will bring and maybe I'll really ask you for help one day. 👍

@Luc
in reply to Ľuboš Moščovič

well, I can confirm the successful phishing rates are pretty crazy, but what I doubt is whether training gets it to 5%. Perhaps that works if KnoB4 sends out the same five pretexts each year, but if you spend one hour on a custom message for the company... And even at 5%, orgs still have to plan with someone sharing their password+OTP

But individuals are different. Even if 1% puts in their bank details, that doesn't have to be me. An org is impacted if 1 person does it, but [1/3]

in reply to Luc

@luc I am not convinced about the 5%, yet I know their catalogue is pretty impressive from Nigerian Prince like poops to quite sophisticated spear phishing like lures using the real name of your manager (filled in your profile) to make you click. But that's just side note.
@Luc