ArticleScientific reports2025
Understanding phishing discussions on stack overflow and information security stack exchange.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Phishing remains a prevalent cybersecurity threat. Given its impact, it is important to understand how technically skilled users interpret and respond to such threats. This paper examines how developers and security professionals discuss phishing on Stack Overflow (SO) and Information Security (IS) Stack Exchange in order to understand their concerns, pain points, and investigative practices. We qualitatively analyzed 140 phishing-related questions (60 from SO and 80 from IS) using inductive open coding and developed the Developer Phishing Engagement Framework, which organizes developer activities into four layers: prevention, detection and reporting, mitigation, and planning. Across the two platforms, we find complementary emphases: SO posts focus on implementation hurdles, false positives, and the usability of defenses, whereas IS posts concentrate on post-incident analysis, impact, and ethical considerations around phishing simulations. Developers demonstrate a strong threat mindset but still face workflow friction caused by inconsistent organizational practices, opaque anti-phishing tools, and security measures that conflict with legitimate workflows. Our findings contribute a developer-centered view of phishing that complements existing user-focused models and provides guidance for designing more realistic anti-phishing tools, training, and organizational policies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.