Inside the Mind of the Insider
By Eric D. Shaw, Jerrold M. Post, and Keven G. Ruby
Information technology specialists are uniquely positioned
to wreak havoc on corporate systems, so the shrewd employer conducts personality
profiles and monitors staff behavior.
A highly paid systems administrator under contract at
a large financial institution had overseen the selection, installation, and
operation of a new accounting system. In the process he had acquired unique
expertise with what he came to regard as "his" system. When a new supervisor
took over the IT department, he was shocked at the contractor's independence,
salary, and lack of responsiveness to his requests to train backup personnel
and give others root access to the system. In response to the attempts to
rein him in, the systems administrator asked to be relieved of his duties.
One month before his expected departure date, several
systems crashed, stumping the members of the IT department. The systems
administrator, however, brought the systems back up in minutes. After that
incident, IT operations went smoothly until his last day on the job, when
both accounting servers went down and no backup tapes could be located. The
damage to the servers turned out to be so systemic and thorough that they
had to be replaced at extraordinary expense.
Had the IT department referred this employee to security
personnel, who might have requested a psychological evaluation of the systems
administrator or had his behavior analyzed, signs of impending trouble could
have been detected before he had a chance to wipe out corporate systems.
Unfortunately, many companies worry about rogue outside hackers when vengeful
insiders, such as employees, consultants, temps, and partners, pose far more
of a threat. A 1998 survey conducted jointly by the Computer Security Institute
and the FBI found that the average cost of successful computer attacks by
outside hackers was $56,000. By contrast, the average cost of malicious acts
by insiders was an astounding $2.7 million.
Concerned about the increasing number of insider violations
of government systems, the Department of Defense sponsored a project in 1997
that was conducted by the authors of this article. It was designed to construct
psychological profiles of perpetrators of insider computer crime. From a
pool of more than 100 cases provided by computer crime investigators,
prosecutors, and security specialists over the last two years, we have been
analyzing 46 recent cases for which sufficient detail could be obtained.
This profiling effort was initiated to help government,
law enforcement, and industry examine the adequacy of their personnel security
policies for deterring, detecting, and investigating malicious acts committed
by insiders, including sabotage, espionage, fraud/theft, and extortion.
Through the analysis of past cases and other research,
we compiled a list of psychological characteristics typical of IT specialists,
and in particular the traits of those who attacked their employer or former
employer. We then classified the perpetrators by type. Finally, we reflected
on the lessons and the implications of these incidents.
Every psychological assessment of programmers, computer scientists, computer
science graduate students, and systems administrators has found one common
trait: introversion. Introverts are more comfortable in their own mental
world than they are in the more emotional and unpredictable social world.
They are more sensitive to external stresses than extroverts are, and they
tend to have less sophisticated social skills.
These traits have specific implications for information
technology departments. Introverted IT professionals may be more sensitive
to work stress and emotional conflicts, less likely to deal with stress in
an overt, constructive manner, and less likely to seek direct assistance
from supervisors, employee assistance programs, or other sources. According
to our discussions with computer crime investigators and human resource
professionals, these individuals are more likely to express their frustrations
and concerns to peers via e-mail than in person.
The subjects in our study who had committed computer offenses
shared several traits. Many of these characteristics pose significant management
challenges. It should be emphasized, however, that many IT professionals
and other individuals who possess these traits are honest and law-abiding.
Only when subjected to high levels of perceived personal or professional
stress did this at-risk population (as opposed to many of the other IT workers
in this study) actually commit malicious acts.
Six personal characteristics with direct implications
for risk were identified, including a history of personal and social
frustrations, computer dependency, ethical "flexibility," reduced loyalty,
a sense of entitlement, and a lack of empathy.
Frustrations. Many of the subjects had a history
of significant family problems, difficulties in school and at work, and various
social frustrations, which left them with negative attitudes toward authority.
These preliminary findings are consistent with the research of Professor
R. Caldwell, a computer scientist, who conducted separate studies in 1990
and 1993. He found high levels of disappointment and conflict among a subgroup
of computer science students who reported preferring the predictability and
structure of computers to the vagaries of personal relationships. Caldwell
also identified a subgroup whose members were angry, alienated from authority,
less socially skilled than and isolated from their peers, and poised to strike
out at the system. Caldwell designated these individuals as being stricken
by "revenge syndrome."
Computer dependency. Online activity significantly
interfered with, or replaced, direct social and professional interactions
for many of the subjects in our study. The appearance of computer dependency
in the subjects was not surprising given recent research. According to
psychologists, computer-addicted individuals are more likely than nonaddicted
users to be aggressive loners who make poor team players. They report their
primary interests as exploring networks, breaking security codes, hacking
into computer systems, and challenging and outfoxing security professionals.
In addition, computer dependents be deeply involved in
online relationships, to the extent that they tend to prefer their online
personas and contacts to their real-world selves and relationships. The research
also indicates that computer-dependent people often act aggressively to
compensate for feelings of inadequacy.
One potential concern for security professionals may be
the vulnerability of these individuals to online manipulation by those targeting
disgruntled insiders for financial gain or espionage. These vulnerabilities
can be easily exploited through friendships struck up anonymously in online
chat rooms. During an investigation of a specific disgruntled employee, it
may be advisable within the confines of the law to keep track of what that
person is saying, and to whom, both during online contacts on company systems
and in chat rooms.
Ethical flexibility. Many of the subjects whose
cases we studied reportedly did not view their violations as unethical; some
even viewed them as justified under the circumstances. These subjects appeared
to lack the moral inhibitions that prevent others, even when similarly provoked,
from committing such acts.
This finding is consistent with earlier research on ethical
boundaries within the "information culture" conducted by S. Harrington and
published in 1995. Harrington's findings indicate that approximately 7 percent
of computer professionals do not object to cracking, espionage, or sabotage.
Their rationale is that an electronic asset is fair game for attack if it
has not been sufficiently secured by the company. Other social phenomena
have been cited as contributing to such ethical flexibility, including a
lack of training in computer ethics, a lack of specific policies and regulations
on privacy and security, a lack of legal penalties for abuses, and the lack
of face-to-face interaction in cyberspace.
Reduced loyalty. The subjects in our study appeared
to identify more with their profession or computer specialty than with their
employer. This finding is reminiscent of a study of computer fraud conducted
by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in 1986, which found
that computer programmers who committed fraud felt more loyalty to their
profession than to their employer.
Entitlement. Entitlement, the sense that one is
special and owed corresponding recognition, privilege, or exceptions, was
a key characteristic of many of the attackers. In addition, the study found
that this trait was frequently reinforced by the employer. When combined
with a preexisting anger toward authority figures, as it often was, this
sense of entitlement fueled a desire for revenge in reaction to perceived
slights or setbacks.
In one case, a computer programmer who was promised an
advanced technical position was instead assigned to a help desk. Having in
his view been intentionally demeaned or negligently overlooked by his employer,
the man became increasingly disgruntled and eventually took down the servers
of his employer, a major publishing company.
Lack of empathy. An employee's disregard for the
impact of his or her action on others, or inability to appreciate this impact,
has been noted consistently by investigators. Likewise, many of the subjects
in our study lacked empathy. This characteristic is magnified by the nature
of cyberspace, where the effect of events is muted by the lack of immediate
Our review of insider computer crimes by employees, contractors, consultants,
and others with trusted access to a corporate or government computer system
indicates that perpetrators fall into several motivational categories. In
our typology, they are referred to as explorers, good Samaritans, hackers,
Machiavellians, exceptions, avengers, career thieves, and moles.
Explorers. Explorers tend to be motivated by curiosity,
wandering into poorly designated or relatively unprotected areas of the corporate
network. They rarely cause any damage purposefully and are, therefore, rarely
punished. In most cases, their forays simply reveal the organization's lack
of adequate policies and safeguards and expose the potential consequences
of unauthorized access.
Good Samaritans. These employees believe that their
violations resulted from efforts to perform legitimate duties more effectively
and efficiently. Good Samaritans often claim they were unaware that their
activities violated a rule. They also sometimes argue that their need to
resolve an emergency outweighed any minor violation of procedures. These
individuals like to "save the day" or show off their abilities. Good Samaritans
should not be confused with other perpetrators who disingenuously claim they
were just "testing security" when caught hacking the system.
A recurring example of the good Samaritan is the person
who discovers a system problem outside of his or her range of responsibilities
and violates procedures to make a fix, often endangering the system or triggering
alarms in the process. In one case, a military technician discovered a system
failure in a network identical to his own but located at another facility.
Violating protocol, he hacked into the computer system to make what he felt
were essential emergency repairs, setting off the network's intrusion detection
system. Although he was reprimanded for this breach of protocol, he was not
prosecuted because of his putative benevolent intent.
Hackers. Hacker is a widely used term with a broad
array of meanings, but for our purposes hackers are those who need to violate
access boundaries to bolster their self-esteem. The ego boost they receive
from challenges to authority, peer approval, and technical prowess assuages
the wounds inflicted by previous personal, social, and professional setbacks.
Typically, those we characterized as hackers in our study had invaded systems
before they were hired and continued to hack into other systems while on
Hackers are particularly dangerous when allied with groups
of like-minded computer experts. In the desire to demonstrate their
accomplishments, these persons may provide outsiders with unauthorized system
access to a company system, or they may divulge system safeguards to win
peer approval. Often their group affiliation leads to escalation of illegal
activities and competition for attention, increasing the risk of damage to
the corporate network.
Many of the hackers in our database did not commit intentional
destruction unless they became disgruntled or were fired by the company or
threatened with termination. However, they tended to operate by a flexible
set of ethical guidelines, which could be summarized as "if it isn't tied
down, it's mine to play with."
A signal corps specialist, for example, compulsively violated
procedures just to demonstrate that he could. He used a sensitive military
system to access an Internet service provider. He also gave outside hacker
friends demonstrations of his prowess and access to military systems.
Within the hacker category, some cases demonstrated a
specific pattern warranting a subtype. We designated them as "the golden
parachuters." These people, who have past violations, don't disclose their
criminal records to their new employers, but they plan for their eventual
discovery. They insert logic bombs, for example, or other system booby traps,
which they are uniquely qualified to defuse, in exchange for a generous
consulting fee or severance package. Such extortion tactics are rarely reported,
and it is often more cost-effective for the employer to pay off the employee
than to press charges.
Machiavellians. Machiavellians use corporate systems
ruthlessly to advance their personal and career goals. In our study,
Machiavellians used logic bombs to establish consulting careers or to use
as insurance against being fired; they framed bosses to advance their careers,
stole intellectual property to jump-start their next position, and created
disruptions that only they could fix to promote their advancement or to arrange
special travel (for example, the IT worker would be sent to a remote site
in a foreign country to repair the system). Some also damaged the equipment
and products of rivals. Attacks by this personality type may involve some
element of disgruntlement, but they are more likely to be calculated efforts
at advancement than reactions to perceived setbacks.
In one case, an information systems specialist left his
employer to establish a competitive firm. Shortly afterwards he convinced
another employee of his old company to leave and pilfer sensitive proprietary
data, including customer information. Another former coworker was then convinced
to destroy the office's database and to defect to the new firm. The new business
slipped smoothly into place as it supplanted the now critically disabled
Exceptions. Exceptions view themselves as special,
deserving of extraordinary recognition. They also consider themselves above
the rules that apply to other employees. They are sensitive to slights and
become disgruntled easily, even when treated normally. They often deflect
blame to others and have a grandiose view of their importance beneath their
One important subset of exceptions is the proprietor.
Proprietors feel that they own their systems. In most of the cases studied,
these feelings of entitlement were unwittingly fomented by the employer.
In the case that began this story, for example, the employer had provided
the worker with a unique pay structure and unusual independence, and his
supervisor tolerated the employee's insubordination and direct refusal to
In another case, an engineer at an energy processing plant,
depressed and agitated over his wife's fatal illness, blamed the company
when its health insurance would not cover the recommended treatment. He stewed
further when his older, technically experienced supervisor was replaced by
a younger, nontechnical manager brought in to tighten control of plant
The engineer was subsequently put on probation for bringing
a weapon to work, yelling at vendors, and refusing to comply with the new
manager's orders. Engineering staff soon discovered that he had made several
idiosyncratic changes to computerized plant controls and safety systems.
Confronted with these changes, the engineer refused to divulge the system
password, in effect hijacking the plant and threatening plant safety.
In that case, the subject had previously committed dozens
of violations of personnel and computer policies. The former supervisor had
tolerated the behavior because he believed that the engineer was irreplaceable
and he was intimidated by the engineer's system knowledge and unique control
over computer resources. Our study shows that when supervisors overlook
violations in these situations, the subject's sense of entitlement and
expectations of special treatment grow and undesirable behavior is more likely
to escalate to problematic levels.
Avengers. Those known as avengers are motivated
to attack in reaction to specific perceived setbacks, disappointments, and
frustrations rather than by general disgruntlement. In the cases we examined,
setbacks included termination, transfer, demotion, or failure to receive
an expected raise, reward, or other form of recognition. The critical issue
was the employee's perception of mistreatment, not any objective standards
or the assessment of others familiar with the circumstances. The bitterness
of avengers can manifest itself in a range of malicious acts, including sabotage,
espionage, theft, fraud, and extortion.
A sample case involved a system administrator at a large
healthcare facility who heard a rumor that she was going to be terminated
as part of a downsizing effort. She encrypted the facility's patient files
and offered to fix the problem in exchange for a small severance package,
including cash and a no-prosecution agreement. Fearing severe disruption
of patient care and negative publicity, the hospital quickly agreed to her
terms. Prosecutors reviewing the case concluded that the deal struck by hospital
administrators precluded them from pressing charges against the employee.
It should be noted that revenge is a motive among system
attackers in other categories as well. In fact, as we learn more about the
pathway each perpetrator type follows to disgruntlement, we expect that many
cases now in the avenger category may be found to fit more appropriately
in one of the other perpetrator categories.
Career thieves enter the organization with a predetermined plan to use the
computer as a tool for embezzlement, theft, fraud, or other illegal moneymaking
schemes. For these individuals the computer is simply a tool used to acquire
funds. Theirs are cold, calculated, and unprovoked schemes, with no necessary
relationship to perceived mistreatment by the company.
Moles. Similar to the career thief is the mole,
who joins an organization with the intent to commit espionage for the benefit
of a company or foreign government. By contrast, career thieves work purely
to benefit themselves. Moles can also be distinguished from disgruntled employees
or avengers who, out of anger or resentment, commit espionage for revenge.
Our analysis revealed that organizations victimized by IT employees often
were vulnerable to these attacks not only because of poor computer security
but also because of poor management practices. These problems include
underreporting of incidents, poor employee screening, incomplete termination
procedures, missed warning signs, and unmonitored online communications.
Underreporting. The problem of insider attacks
remains highly underreported. According to the authors' interviews with computer
crime investigators, most public and private organizations prefer to deal
with these events quickly and quietly to avoid publicity. The relative leniency
of criminal penalties connected with these crimes and the technical difficulties
involved in successfully prosecuting such cases give companies little incentive
for reporting incidents to police. Consequently, companies that have yet
to be victimized underestimate the risk and are hampered in their efforts
to take precautionary steps by a lack of knowledge of previous incidents
Employee screening. The lack of basic screening
of employees with access to vital systems is also a problem. While screening
can't eliminate the risk that some employees will become disgruntled on the
job, it can at least weed out applicants with criminal hacking histories.
These convicted criminals routinely go from one victimized company to the
next without being challenged.
One person in our database, for example, sought and gained
employment in the same industry and in the same town the day after his
indictment. Another person arrested for hacking, who had prior criminal
convictions and a record of membership in an infamous hacker organization,
was offered a choice between jail and military service. Not surprisingly,
he chose the latter. He again came to the attention of authorities when he
tried to recontact the hacker group and was caught hacking into the local
telephone system from his base.
The Treasury Department has played a pioneering role in
ensuring that computer system contractors have vetted their employees. As
of October 29, 1997, before they can win a contract, contractors designing,
managing, or seeking access to Treasury information systems must certify
and provide evidence that employees have undergone clearance procedures.
The Department of Defense is expected to follow suit with
a similar rule. There is evidence that such a program can have a profound
impact on U.S. industry beyond defense contracting. During the 1980s, Defense
targeted substance abuse by requiring employee assistance program services
as a condition of any contract. This mandate sparked an explosion of these
services both within and outside of government. We predict a similar pattern
with security screening; screening programs will proliferate, and organizations
able to prove that their employees are thoroughly vetted will gain an edge
in contract competition.
Our review of the behavioral patterns of information
technology insiders who commit malicious acts suggests that security clearance
programs will have to be tailored to these unique employees. Traditional
concerns about foreign contacts should be augmented with specific questions
concerning online contacts, particularly with the hacker community. Similarly,
expanded background questions, both professional and personal, tailored to
the unique characteristics of this special population should draw on perpetrator
Personnel changes. Many of the subjects in our
study had carried out their attacks after hearing that they were going to
be demoted, terminated, or reassigned. Businesses have paid insufficient
attention to the dangers of personnel changes. Such changes are likely to
be the catalyst for malicious acts in persons predisposed to those behaviors.
But termination is not the only stimulus for these acts. In one case we reviewed,
a project leader was demoted to team member. In anger, he e-mailed project
design plans to several competitors. Thus companies should consider how to
reduce the motivation and remove the opportunity for carrying out those acts.
For example, companies should allocate more security and
psychological resources to supervisors and human resource departments when
IT personnel at risk are being transferred from a job or fired. Providing
job assistance in the case of termination, for example, may alleviate some
of an employee's resentment.
In our experience, termination initiates a grief process
in the employee, one of the first stages of which is anger. Psychological
debriefing focuses on discussions with the employee designed to move him
or her through the grief process, specifically through this predictable angry
reaction. Such intervention has frequently proved its worth, though standard
debriefing approaches must often be modified for the specialized information
systems worker population.
In the case of the engineer at the energy processing plant
who brought a weapon to work, for example, the company moved in quickly to
counsel the employee. During the course of several debriefing sessions, the
employee made the transition from anger to acceptance and was helped to find
useful employment as a union representative, where he could express his distrust
of the company through a sanctioned pathway.
The person's access to critical systems should also be
immediately revoked if possible. (If the person has not been terminated,
but rather transferred or demoted, some access may still be required, making
security more difficult and monitoring more important.) But even where
termination makes total revocation of access appropriate, physical removal
or password deletions alone may not be sufficient; the employee may have
unique or specialized system knowledge or ongoing social contacts with employees
who have continuing access to the corporate system.
Warning signs. While many cases first appear to
involve disgruntled employees who execute a single massive attack after receiving
dramatic news, perceiving a slight, or suffering a setback, closer examination
of the case histories reveals that many employees demonstrated clear signs
of disgruntlement and committed less serious violations leading up to the
ultimate act. This finding suggests that the most devastating attacks could
have been prevented if the early indications of dissatisfaction had been
recognized or taken more seriously.
In many of our cases, supervisors were aware of violations
but did not appreciate their significance. This finding indicates a strong
need for supervisor training, improved communications with security, and
independent channels by which security can monitor risk situations, other
than via supervisor notification.
Online communications. The signals that presage
attacks by IT professionals are more likely to appear online (as internal
office e-mail or in other electronic formats) than face to face. But managers
are either unaware of, or tend not to react to, these communications in the
same way that they might respond to a troubling face-to-face encounter with
Consider the case mentioned at the beginning of this article
concerning the system administrator crashing the accounting servers. Three
months before destroying the servers, the administrator had sent the following
e-mail message to his supervisor: "Until you fire me or I quit, I have to
take orders from you...Unless she [a proposed backup for the employee] is
trained, I won't give her access...If you order me to give her root [access],
then you have to relieve me of my duties on that machine. I won't be a garbage
cleaner if she screws up."
The tone of his e-mail messages abruptly shifted a month
before termination, when the subject appeared to be the model of a good team
player: "Whether or not you continue me after next month, you can always
count on me for quick response to any questions, concerns, or production
problems with the system. As always, you'll get my most cost-effective, and
productive solution from me."
It is clear that in the latter e-mails the subject feigned
a pleasant demeanor. In fact, he was planning to sabotage the servers on
his last day at work. The supervisor presumably noticed the unpleasant tone
of the early messages but failed to bring them to the attention of security.
He was subsequently deceived by the subject's charm and bonhomie.
Recognizing the importance of electronic communications,
the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has ordered regulated institutions
(primarily brokerage houses) to monitor the work-related online communications
of their employees for signs of trouble, particularly insider trading. This
does not, however, involve psychological profiling.
Other private and governmental organizations are considering
similar moves, particularly given the potential liability of failing to protect
these important assets. In the future, certification requirements for contractors
may include provisions for automated monitoring of known linguistic patterns
and psychological precursors of insider attacks. The authors' firm has developed
psycholinguistic measures sensitive to changes in an employee's psychological
state indicative of increased risk. In the case of the employee who abruptly
changed his tone in his e-mail messages, post hoc use of these measures detected
both the employee's initial disgruntlement and the contrast between his overt
and covert attitudes. Had these automated measures been monitored by security,
this incident might have been prevented.
Our research has several implications for the management of the insider threat.
We are currently working on several projects related to these findings. These
include the need for improved preemployment screening practices and improved
management tools, including specific policies governing system violations
and misuse, strict enforcement of these guidelines, and new forms of supervisor
training in the management of these challenging employees, including threat
assessment and management.
Also necessary are innovative online approaches to employee
management, threat detection, and services. Examples include online monitoring
to spot threatening changes in employee attitudes and psychological states,
online ethical help desks, online employee assistance points of contact more
likely to be used by these employees, online employee bulletin boards for
anonymous communications, and other forms of online services tailored to
the preferred communications means of information technology employees.
The information revolution has transformed the workplace.
The special class of employees that is now playing a leading role in the
electronic workplace has unique psychological features that require specialized
security practices and management techniques. While most IT professionals
are honest and valued business partners, security must learn to understand
and counter the threat of those who are not.
Eric D. Shaw is a clinical psychologist, a former
intelligence officer, and an adjunct associate professor of political psychology
at George Washington University's Elliot School of International Studies.
He is director of research at Political Psychology Associates, Ltd. (PPA),
a Bethesda, Maryland-based behavioral science firm providing organizational
research and consulting services to industry and government, including profiling,
threat analysis, employee screening, human factors security audits, and
consultations on workplace violence and prevention. Jerrold M. Post, a
psychiatrist by training, is founder and president of PPA and director of
the political psychology program at George Washington University. During
his 21 years in the CIA, he founded and directed the Political Psychology
Center. He is a member of ASIS. Keven G. Ruby is a research analyst at PPA,
where he specializes in terrorist group dynamics, weapons proliferation,
and hacker groups.
This article is based on research supported by the
Office of Information Operations of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Command, Control, and Communications, Department of Defense. All case materials
were recorded with anonymity for the subject, his or her organization, and
the source involved. The authors hope to make this database available soon
to researchers and practitioners. They are still collecting cases and would
be interested in talking to anyone (with the promise of anonymity) with knowledge
of cases or subjects. If interested, call Dr. Shaw at 202/686-9150 or e-mail
him at email@example.com. Comments
on the article itself should be directed to
back to Security Management