RSS
Human Hardeningとサイバー判断力

攻撃に対して「ハックされにくい人間」に

Day 120 寄り道の最後に Now It's Your Turn

»

[シリーズ構造] 柱D｜脅威の現実

明日の会議で、空の椅子を置く。「攻撃者の席」と書く。そして問う。 「どう壊しますか？」セキュリティは機能ではない。視点である。AI時代、防御は技術だけでは足りない。判断と習慣が支える。攻撃者思考は悲観ではない。準備だ。 完璧ではなく、壊れにくさを選ぶ。洞察を習慣へ。 習慣をレジリエンスへ。そして、あなたの番です。

▶ シリーズ概要： シリーズ全体マップ：人間のしなやかさ ― サイバー判断力のために

▶ 柱E｜脅威の現実 関連記事：

寄り道の最後に

u5292553157_can_you_make_an_illustration_the_journey_ending_-_40e4e574-11c8-4e99-bba2-0f517f7af121_1.png

明日の設計会議で、ひとつだけ試してみてください。空の椅子を一つ、用意する。そこにこう書く。

「攻撃者の席」

そして、たった一つの問いを置く。

「もしあなたがここに座っていたら、どう壊しますか？」

一度きりではなく。思いつきではなく。習慣として。

すぐに空気は変わらないかもしれない。けれど、確実に変わります。

なぜなら、攻撃者は、すでにあなたのテーブルにいるから。

違いはひとつだけ。あなたが、その声を聴くかどうか。

残るのは、態度

セキュリティは、最後に足す機能ではない。最初に持つ「視点」です。

攻撃者思考は、悲観ではない。それは現実主義。

AIが人間より速く外周を探り、ログを読む前に攻撃経路を洗い出す時代において。

この世界では

  • チェックリストは官僚主義ではない。外在化された記憶。
  • ガードレールは制約ではない。判断を支える設計。
  • ブレームレスは甘さではない。学習する文化の燃料。

これは偏執ではない。準備。

そして、準備とは、生存のかたち。

出発点に戻る

戦場は、静かに移動した。

  • サーバーから → 会話へ
  • ファイアウォールから → 判断へ
  • インフラから → 相互作用へ
  • マルウェアから → AIに拡張された操作へ

防御も、動かなければならない。だから私たちは、判断を鍛える。気づきを鍛える。反射を鍛える。

完璧になるためではない。備えるために。

攻撃者思考は、到達点ではない。それは態度。

現実と接触しても壊れない設計を選ぶという、生き方。

そして今は、AIとの接触にも耐える設計を選ぶという覚悟。

守るべきものを、完璧ではなく、粘り強く守るという約束。

この２か月で、あなたに渡せていたなら嬉しいことは、

  • 問題を説明するための言葉
  • 環境を変えるための道具
  • 立ち止まり、問い直す勇気

勇気を持って、こう言えること。

「機能を設計する前に、脅威をモデル化しよう。」

勇気を持って、こう問えること。

「攻撃面は技術ではなく、心理かもしれない。」

勇気を持って、こう信じられること。

ルールが崩れても、壊れないシステムは作れる。

ルールは、必ず揺らぐ。だからこそ、今、備える。

もしあなたがここまで読み続けているなら、私たちはもう、攻撃者思考を"学んでいる"のではない。

これは終わりではない。始まり。

この旅がAIの風景へ向かったのは、寄り道ではない。地面そのものが動いたから。そして私たちは、元いた場所へ戻る。

洞察を習慣へ。

習慣をレジリエンスへ。

明日、元来た場所でまた会いましょう。

------

[Series Structure] Pillar D | Threat Reality

Bring an empty chair. Label it: Attacker's Seat. Ask: "How would you break this?" Security isn't a feature. It's a perspective. In the age of AI, defense depends on judgment and habit. Adversarial thinking isn't pessimism. It's preparation. Not perfection, resilience. Now it's your turn.

▶ Series overview: Series Map - Human Flexibility for Cyber Judgment

▶ Other posts in Pillar E (Pillar D | Threat Reality):

Now It's Your Turn

u5292553157_can_you_make_an_illustration_the_journey_ending_-_40e4e574-11c8-4e99-bba2-0f517f7af121_1.png

Tomorrow, in your next design meeting, try this:

Bring an empty chair.
Label it: "Attacker's Seat."

Ask one question:

"If you were sitting in this chair, how would you break this?"

Ask it consistently.
Ask it systematically.
Ask it habitually.

You will feel the room change.
Not instantly but unmistakably.

Because the attacker is already at your table.
The only question is whether you're listening.

The Mindset That Remains

Security is not a feature we add.
It's a perspective we adopt.

Adversarial thinking is not pessimism. It is realism in an age where AI can probe our perimeter faster than humans can read a log file.

In that world:

  • Checklists are not bureaucracy --they are adaptive memory.
  • Guardrails are not constraints --they are performance enhancers.
  • Blamelessness is not softness --it is the fuel of learning cultures.

This is not paranoia.
It is preparation.
And preparation is survival.

We End Where We Began

The battlefield moved.

  • From servers → to conversations
  • From firewalls → to judgment
  • From infrastructure → to interaction
  • From malware → to manipulation augmented by AI

Our defenses must move with it.

So we train the judgment.
We train the recognition.
We train the reflex.

Not to be perfect but to be prepared.

Because adversarial thinking isn't a destination.

It's a stance.

A way of being in the world.
A choice to design systems that survive contact with reality, and now, contact with AI.

A commitment to protect what matters, not perfectly, but persistently.

I hope they've given you:

  • The language to explain the problem
  • The tools to change your environment
  • The courage to slow down and ask better questions

Courage to say:

"Model the threat before we model the feature."

Courage to ask:

"What if the attack surface is psychological, not technical?"

Courage to believe:

We can build systems that don't break the moment the rules do.

Because they will.
And now we will be ready.

If you're still here after two weeks of reading, we are not just learning adversarial thinking, we are becoming it.

This is not the end.

This is the beginning.

This journey took us into the AI landscape, not as a detour, but because the ground beneath us moved.

Now, we return to where we left off to the chapter that turns insight into habit,
and habit into resilience.

See you tomorrow in the chapter we came from.

------

References　出典・参照文献

Benjamin, V., Sheth, A., Janardhanan, N., Oza, P., Patel, M., & Patel, R. (2024). Systematically analyzing prompt injection vulnerabilities in diverse LLM architectures. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.23308. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.23308

Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In J. Metcalfe & A. P. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 185-205). MIT Press.

Boss, S. R., Galletta, D. F., Lowry, P. B., Moody, G. D., & Polak, P. (2015). What do systems users have to fear? Using fear appeals to engender threats and fear that motivate protective security behaviors. MIS Quarterly, 39(4), 837-864. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2015/39.4.5

Bratus, S., Shubina, A., & Locasto, M. E. (2010). Teaching the principles of the hacker curriculum to undergraduates. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 122-126). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1734263.1734304

Cialdini, R. B. (1984). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. William Morrow and Company.

Clarke, R. V. (1980). "Situational" crime prevention: Theory and practice. British Journal of Criminology, 20(2), 136-147.

Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588-608.

Chourasia, R. (2025). AI-enhanced cybersecurity training: Learning analytics in action. International Journal of Advanced Research in Science, Communication and Technology, 5(1), 566-573. https://doi.org/10.48175/ijarsct-23066

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dalgaard, J. C., Janssen, N. A., Kulyuk, O., & Schürmann, C. (2023). Security awareness training through experiencing the adversarial mindset. In Proceedings of the 2023 Symposium on Usable Security (USEC). Internet Society. https://doi.org/10.14722/usec.2023.237300

Gartner, Inc. (2025). Predicts 2025: Navigating imminent AI turbulence for cybersecurity. Gartner Research.

Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54(7), 493-503.

Google Inc. (2016). Site reliability engineering: How Google runs production systems [Chapter 15: Postmortem Culture]. O'Reilly Media.

Hutchins, E. M., Cloppert, M. J., & Amin, R. M. (2011). Intelligence-driven computer network defense informed by analysis of adversary campaigns and intrusion kill chains [White paper]. Lockheed Martin Corporation. https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/capabilities/cyber/cyber-kill-chain.html

IBM Security & Ponemon Institute. (2024). Cost of a data breach report 2024. IBM Corporation. https://www.ibm.com/security/data-breach

IBM Security & Ponemon Institute. (2025). Cost of a data breach report 2025: The AI oversight gap. IBM Corporation. https://www.ibm.com/reports/data-breach

Johnston, A. C., & Warkentin, M. (2010). Fear appeals and information security behaviors: An empirical study. MIS Quarterly, 34(3), 549-566. https://doi.org/10.2307/25750691

Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 379-424. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000802212669

Mathew, E. S. (2024). Enhancing security in large language models: A comprehensive review of prompt injection attacks and defenses. Journal of Artificial Intelligence, prepublication. https://doi.org/10.36227/techrxiv.172944729.39662214/v1

Microsoft Security Development Lifecycle. (n.d.). STRIDE threat model framework. Microsoft Corporation. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/security/develop/threat-modeling-tool-threats

MITRE Corporation. (n.d.). MITRE ATT&CK framework. https://attack.mitre.org/

Muliarevych, O. (2024). Enhancing system security: LLM-driven defense against prompt injection vulnerabilities. In 2024 IEEE 17th International Conference on Advanced Trends in Radioelectronics, Telecommunications and Computer Engineering (TCSET) (pp. 1-6). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCSET65356.2024.10755823

OWASP Foundation. (n.d.). Abuse case cheat sheet. OWASP Cheat Sheet Series. https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/Abuse_Case_Cheat_Sheet.html

OWASP Foundation. (n.d.). Security champions playbook. OWASP Security Culture Project. https://owasp.org/www-project-security-culture/

OWASP Foundation. (n.d.). Secure product design cheat sheet. OWASP Cheat Sheet Series. https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/Secure_Product_Design_Cheat_Sheet.html

OWASP Foundation. (n.d.). Threat modeling cheat sheet. OWASP Cheat Sheet Series. https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/Threat_Modeling_Cheat_Sheet.html

Pandey, B., Kumar, R., & Singh, A. (2025). An overview of cybersecurity challenges in 2025. ResearchGate Preprint. [Note: Multiple 2025 cybersecurity papers by Pandey et al. found on ResearchGate. Specific DOI unavailable at time of compilation.]

Rogers, R. W. (1975). A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. Journal of Psychology, 91(1), 93-114. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1975.9915803

SAFECode. (2019). Software security takes a champion: Security champion guidebook. SAFECode. https://safecode.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Security-Champions-2019-.pdf

Stephen, G. (2025). Investigation and prevention of cybercrimes using artificial intelligence [Master's thesis, HAMK University of Applied Sciences]. Theseus Open Repository. https://www.theseus.fi/handle/10024/891045

HackerOne. (2025). The Cost Savings of Fixing Security Flaws in Development. Retrieved from https://www.hackerone.com/blog/cost-savings-fixing-security-flaws

Stecklein, J. M., Dabney, J., Dick, B., Haskins, B., Lovell, R., & Moroney, G. (2004). Error Cost Escalation Through the Project Life Cycle (NASA Technical Report 20100036670). NASA Johnson Space Center.

蓮見祥子 2026/02/25 07:37:28 Comment(0)

コメント

コメントを投稿する