Chevron Left
返回到 实用安全

學生對 马里兰大学帕克分校 提供的 实用安全 的評價和反饋

2,441 個評分
603 條評論


This course focuses on how to design and build secure systems with a human-centric focus. We will look at basic principles of human-computer interaction, and apply these insights to the design of secure systems with the goal of developing security measures that respect human performance and their goals within a system....



Jun 21, 2016

I like how in depth this gets. it explains it very well an in ways for people who are starting off in this field to get a basic understanding in exactly what we are learning. very well put together!


Jun 30, 2020

hi there,FIrst of all i'd like to thank our instructor , Jennifer Golbeck, for the hard working and the amazing way of teaching . I really love the course, thanks you very much and keep it up *-^ .


401 - 实用安全 的 425 個評論(共 590 個)

創建者 Gudala S

Sep 28, 2020


創建者 I M H K

Sep 28, 2020


創建者 Ujjwal D

Sep 26, 2020


創建者 Akshay K M

Apr 26, 2020



Apr 24, 2020


創建者 joao b r

Dec 09, 2019


創建者 Altaf H

Dec 05, 2019


創建者 sarthak m

Apr 09, 2019


創建者 Rishabh K S

Dec 03, 2018



Apr 04, 2019


創建者 Sudhagar R

Sep 12, 2020


創建者 Sait K K

May 22, 2020


創建者 Juan S

Oct 24, 2017


創建者 Sherif A M

Apr 24, 2017


創建者 Uma S

Dec 17, 2016


創建者 Peter W

Dec 12, 2016


創建者 M. D

Jun 20, 2020

More emphasis on security would have been helpful. I understand that the design background is necessary, however, the first 2-3 weeks of material especially could have been grounded more in security and privacy applications and use cases. This got better as the course progressed.

The instructor was great; easy to understand but aimed at adults, materials were well prepared and organized. Supplemental readings and videos were mostly applicable, with the initial caveat above.

Quiz and final questions were well written for the level of complexity of the material covered. Writing good questions is not trivial, and based on the material in this course I am confident that Dr. Golbeck would write more challenging but *equally* cogent and coherent quiz and test questions. This course is better than others I have taken from Coursera on this very important point; Not difficulty, cogency.

In regards to biometric security systems, one item that was not covered was that if the system that _confirms_ your identity is compromised, your biometric profile could be shared on the dark web. If an account at service is compromised, but I follow good security practices, then the impact of that event is minimal. If the method of identification is biometric, that "password" will correctly identify me in any comparable system for the rest of my life. This is a significant and often overlooked consequence of these types of systems, and the specifics of the implementation (where is the biometric stored; how strongly is it encrypted etc.) make an enormous difference here.

Though I appreciate the need of making systems more usable, I was disappointed that there was no explicit discussion of adaptive security based on the threat model of the individual. For example; as a computer engineer with professional interest in security, I find the use of 2FA to be an *enhancement* of the usability of the system. I prefer services that provide the option of configuring a security interface that matches my threat model. As an advanced user, I would not be at all frustrated by having to find the advanced settings to configure - say a yubikey - preventing it from complicating a "normal" interface for a standard user. Protonmail is a good example here. They provide two keys, one for the server, one for the client, and they default to a mechanism that is marginally less secure but seamless for new users, but that lets those with more complex threat models (the PC way of saying "paranoid?") to opt for something more befitting the use case of a victim of domestic abuse, or reporter on a hostile government.

In the section on privacy - which on the whole was excellent - one question that should have been asked is "What motivates a company to opt for an obscure, hard to 'use' privacy policy?". This was certainly subtext, but I think this discussion should be stimulated even if no quiz or test question requires a student to take a particular position on the issue.

Though as a student of security (and interested in the certificate for all five courses) a more advanced course would have been welcome, I look forward to sharing the final Ted Talk lecture and some other materials with my less technical friends and my less security conscious colleagues.

Thanks Dr. Golbeck for the course!

-- md

創建者 Byron B B J

Jul 31, 2016

Was a better course than the other reviewers tended to complain about. Taking the examples literally might not be the best actionable route to completing a lot of the quizzes and final exam, its mostly theory on how to build sustainable and efficient systems while at the same time ensuring the security of them has the least effect on the usability of the information system or applications in mind.

Some of the videos were somewhat off topic and seemed to not actually be related to what was on the quizzes at the end of the weeks topic. Some questions on quizzes weren't explained or only hinted at in the videos only to be the main topic in the next week. Other than that, a solid course.

創建者 Ojesvi C K

Jun 16, 2020

The course is a fantastic start to usability security. It focuses on the core concepts and I think for everyone trying to enter into the security domain the idea of designing security putting user's tasks in mind helps one become a better cyber security professional. Special appreciation to the instructor for teaching style.

One con would be, the course contents could be updated at few places to match the current technology advances.

創建者 Kit B

Nov 07, 2019

In general I thought this course was excellent. Some of the content - mainly the "interviews" were difficult to follow and of poor quality. I also thought that some of the quiz questions were too ambiguous and I'd even argue that some of the 'correct' answers were wrong.

That said, I would highly recommend this course and came out of it with loads of useful knowledge and thoughts on how I can improve my work.

創建者 Sachin K L

Sep 22, 2019

Some of the topics and methods used in this course are obsolete. For example, choosing 4 commonly known words to make a password up - an attacker can do a combined dictionary attack (and most people won't know very many rare words which is needed to increase the complexity of the password). It was a fun course to do though. Would suggest a revamp with current technologies and methodologies considered in it.

創建者 Lakshmana S K S

Jun 01, 2016

I just completed the course. This course is recommended to beginners like me because I learned a new perspective to cyber security. It is exciting to see the psychological aspects in cyber security. I would have given more rating if social engineering is explained too. This is just an introduction to the course and may not be appealing for people already in the field which should be expected anyway.

創建者 Eduardo C

Sep 09, 2018

Very good, it gave me a user perspective and social hacking perspective about security. As a programmer I used to think only about bringing complex flows and technical protections that would make the systems I worked on hard to use. I would suggest more practical exercises. Some lectures were just info with no practices. And to me as a student and teacher is very important for memorization! :)

創建者 Rainier E

Jul 07, 2016

I think this was a very well-thought out course. In my opinion, it was well presented, contained very useful information, was accessible to someone with a limited background in cybersecurity, and used plenty of real examples to back-up its claims. An area that could use improvement is testing: some of the quizzes provided questions that seemed hard to follow, particularly the "choose

創建者 David G

Nov 07, 2017

Excellent overview of the crucial intersection of privacy & usability, highly recommended for anyone designing or building secure systems. Only complaint was the quizzes sometimes had answers that were either too easy to guess, or else the wording was sometimes ambiguous and difficult to understand. For the most part though, this is valuable information & the readings are good too.