-
Educators' Perspectives of Using (or Not Using) Online Exam Proctoring
Authors:
David G. Balash,
Rahel A. Fainchtein,
Elena Korkes,
Miles Grant,
Micah Sherr,
Adam J. Aviv
Abstract:
The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic changed the landscape of education and led to increased usage of remote proctoring tools that are designed to monitor students when they take assessments outside the classroom. While prior work has explored students' privacy and security concerns regarding online proctoring tools, the perspective of educators is under explored. Notably, educators are the decision…
▽ More
The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic changed the landscape of education and led to increased usage of remote proctoring tools that are designed to monitor students when they take assessments outside the classroom. While prior work has explored students' privacy and security concerns regarding online proctoring tools, the perspective of educators is under explored. Notably, educators are the decision makers in the classrooms and choose which remote proctoring services and the level of observations they deem appropriate. To explore how educators balance the security and privacy of their students with the requirements of remote exams, we sent survey requests to over 3,400 instructors at a large private university that taught online classes during the 2020/21 academic year. We had n=125 responses: 21% of the educators surveyed used online exam proctoring services during the remote learning period, and of those, 35% plan to continue using the tools even when there is a full return to in-person learning. Educators who use exam proctoring services are often comfortable with their monitoring capabilities. However, educators are concerned about students sharing certain types of information with exam proctoring companies, particularly when proctoring services collect identifiable information to validate students' identities. Our results suggest that many educators developed alternative assessments that did not require online proctoring and that those who did use online proctoring services often considered the tradeoffs between the potential risks to student privacy and the utility or necessity of exam proctoring services.
△ Less
Submitted 24 February, 2023;
originally announced February 2023.
-
Examining the Examiners: Students' Privacy and Security Perceptions of Online Proctoring Services
Authors:
David G. Balash,
Dongkun Kim,
Darikia Shaibekova,
Rahel A. Fainchtein,
Micah Sherr,
Adam J. Aviv
Abstract:
In response to the Covid-19 pandemic, educational institutions quickly transitioned to remote learning. The problem of how to perform student assessment in an online environment has become increasingly relevant, leading many institutions and educators to turn to online proctoring services to administer remote exams. These services employ various student monitoring methods to curb cheating, includi…
▽ More
In response to the Covid-19 pandemic, educational institutions quickly transitioned to remote learning. The problem of how to perform student assessment in an online environment has become increasingly relevant, leading many institutions and educators to turn to online proctoring services to administer remote exams. These services employ various student monitoring methods to curb cheating, including restricted ("lockdown") browser modes, video/screen monitoring, local network traffic analysis, and eye tracking. In this paper, we explore the security and privacy perceptions of the student test-takers being proctored. We analyze user reviews of proctoring services' browser extensions and subsequently perform an online survey (n=102). Our findings indicate that participants are concerned about both the amount and the personal nature of the information shared with the exam proctoring companies. However, many participants also recognize a trade-off between pandemic safety concerns and the arguably invasive means by which proctoring services ensure exam integrity. Our findings also suggest that institutional power dynamics and students' trust in their institutions may dissuade students' opposition to remote proctoring.
△ Less
Submitted 10 June, 2021;
originally announced June 2021.
-
Holes in the Geofence: Privacy Vulnerabilities in "Smart" DNS Services
Authors:
Rahel A. Fainchtein,
Adam J. Aviv,
Micah Sherr,
Stephen Ribaudo,
Armaan Khullar
Abstract:
Smart DNS (SDNS) services advertise access to "geofenced" content (typically, video streaming sites such as Netflix or Hulu) that is normally inaccessible unless the client is within a prescribed geographic region. SDNS is simple to use and involves no software installation. Instead, it requires only that users modify their DNS settings to point to an SDNS resolver. The SDNS resolver "smartly" ide…
▽ More
Smart DNS (SDNS) services advertise access to "geofenced" content (typically, video streaming sites such as Netflix or Hulu) that is normally inaccessible unless the client is within a prescribed geographic region. SDNS is simple to use and involves no software installation. Instead, it requires only that users modify their DNS settings to point to an SDNS resolver. The SDNS resolver "smartly" identifies geofenced domains and, in lieu of their proper DNS resolutions, returns IP addresses of proxy servers located within the geofence. These servers then transparently proxy traffic between the users and their intended destinations, allowing for the bypass of these geographic restrictions.
This paper presents the first academic study of SDNS services. We identify a number of serious and pervasive privacy vulnerabilities that expose information about the users of these systems. These include architectural weaknesses that enable content providers to identify which requesting clients use SDNS. Worse, we identify flaws in the design of some SDNS services that allow {\em any} arbitrary third party to enumerate these services' users (by IP address), even if said users are currently offline. We present mitigation strategies to these attacks that have been adopted by at least one SDNS provider in response to our findings.
△ Less
Submitted 14 December, 2020;
originally announced December 2020.
