Adversarially Resilient UX in AI‑Powered Cybersecurity Decision Support

  • Authors

    • Dr. Rakesh Chandra Associate Professor, University of Calcutta, India. Author

    DOI:

    https://doi.org/10.67228/3071561X/IJIRHT-2019PII8N6Y

    Published 07-05-2019

  • Adversarial Machine Learning, Human-AI Interaction, Cybersecurity Decision Support, User Experience (UX) Design, Adversarial UX, Human Factors in Security, Trustworthy AI, Interpretability, Threat Modeling, Cognitive Security

    Issue

    Vol. 2 No. 2 (2019)

    Section

    Articles

    How to Cite

    [1]
    R. Chandra, “Adversarially Resilient UX in AI‑Powered Cybersecurity Decision Support”, IJIRHT, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 01–10, Jul. 2019, doi: 10.67228/3071561X/IJIRHT-2019PII8N6Y.

  • Abstract

    As AI becomes integral to cybersecurity decision support systems, the attack surface expands beyond models to include user interfaces and decision workflows. This paper explores the concept of adversarially resilient user experience (UX) in AI-powered cybersecurity tools. We examine how adversaries may exploit cognitive, perceptual, and interaction-level vulnerabilities in UX to mislead human analysts or distort model outputs. Drawing on human-computer interaction (HCI), adversarial ML, and cyber threat intelligence, we propose a design framework for resilient UX in such systems. Through threat modeling, scenario analysis, and a taxonomy of attack vectors at the human-AI interface, we provide guidelines for creating decision-support environments that enhance trust, robustness, and interpretability while resisting manipulation. We validate the approach with case studies in phishing detection and network anomaly triage, and we identify key research directions for building human-AI systems that are secure not just technically, but behaviorally and perceptually as well.

  • References

    [1] Goodfellow, I. J., Shlens, J., & Szegedy, C. (2015). Explaining and harnessing adversarial examples. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR).

    [2] Kurakin, A., Goodfellow, I., & Bengio, S. (2017). Adversarial machine learning at scale. Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR).

    [3] Biggio, B., & Roli, F. (2018). Wild patterns: Ten years after the rise of adversarial machine learning. Pattern Recognition, 84, 317–331.

    [4] Grosse, K., Manoharan, P., Papernot, N., Backes, M., & McDaniel, P. (2017). On the (statistical) detection of adversarial examples. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.06280.

    [5] Sommer, R., & Paxson, V. (2010). Outside the closed world: On using machine learning for network intrusion detection. Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 305–316.

    [6] Sadeh, N., Hong, J., Cranor, L., Fette, I., Kelley, P., Prabaker, M., & Rao, J. (2009). Understanding and capturing people's privacy policies in a mobile social networking application. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 13(6), 401–412.

    [7] Endsley, M. R. (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37(1), 32–64.

    [8] Egelman, S., Cranor, L. F., & Hong, J. (2008). You've been warned: An empirical study of the effectiveness of web browser phishing warnings. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1065–1074.

  • Downloads