Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Layer 8

Layer 8 is a informal extension to the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) reference model's seven layers, designating the human or user element as the source of many computing and networking issues.^[1]^[2] This term, prevalent in IT troubleshooting, attributes failures to user errors such as misconfigurations, inadequate training, or non-compliance with protocols, rather than hardware or software defects in the physical, data link, network, transport, session, presentation, or application layers.^[3]^[4] Often invoked humorously by network engineers, Layer 8 emphasizes that empirical resolution of technical problems frequently requires addressing behavioral or cognitive factors, like overlooking basic cable connections or ignoring security best practices.^[2] In some contexts, it encompasses political or organizational dynamics, where decisions by management or stakeholders impede efficient system operation, highlighting causal links between human agency and systemic reliability.^[1]^[3] While not part of formal standards like ISO/IEC 7498-1 defining the OSI model, the concept underscores the limitations of purely technical models in capturing real-world deployment challenges.^[1]

Conceptual Foundation

Definition and Scope

Layer 8 denotes an unofficial extension to the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) model's seven technical layers, termed the "human layer," "user layer," or "political layer." It encompasses non-technical factors such as individual user errors, cognitive biases, and organizational politics that influence network performance and IT operations beyond hardware, software, or protocol deficiencies.^[1]^[5]^[6] In practice, Layer 8 issues manifest as user-induced misconfigurations from inadequate training or oversight, such as entering incorrect commands or ignoring security protocols due to haste or unfamiliarity. These align with IT jargon like PEBKAC (Problem Exists Between Keyboard and Chair), signifying that the fault lies in human interaction rather than the system itself. Similarly, ID10T errors—phonetically "idiot"—point to analogous self-inflicted problems in technology usage.^[2]^[7] The scope extends to interpersonal and institutional dynamics, including policy-imposed restrictions that prioritize non-technical considerations, like inter-departmental conflicts delaying infrastructure upgrades or budgetary decisions favoring short-term gains over robust designs. Such elements underscore Layer 8's role in explaining systemic failures where technical solutions exist but human elements preclude their application.^[5]^[6]

Origins and Evolution

The term "Layer 8" originated as an informal, non-standardized extension to the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) model, which was formally standardized by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) as ISO/IEC 7498 in 1984 to describe layered network architecture. No precise inaugural reference exists, but the concept arose in practitioner communities amid the expansion of enterprise networking in the late 1980s and 1990s, where technicians increasingly attributed unresolved issues to end-user behaviors or organizational politics rather than technical layers 1 through 7.^[2]^[8] By the early 2000s, Layer 8 had evolved from anecdotal shorthand in troubleshooting scenarios—often invoked humorously in tech forums and support tickets to denote "the user is the problem"—to a semi-recognized diagnostic category in professional IT literature. References appear in vendor documentation, such as Cisco's networking discussions, which describe Layer 8 issues as involving documentation review and behavioral interventions beyond hardware or protocol fixes. This shift paralleled the rise of user-centric network management amid widespread adoption of TCP/IP-based systems and the internet, where human error accounted for a significant portion of incidents, estimated at up to 80% in some IT service reports from the era.^[3]^[8] Although the Layer 8 label crystallized ad-hoc in networking discourse, analogous ideas of human factors influencing system performance predate the OSI framework, appearing in systems engineering texts from the 1970s that emphasized ergonomics and operator reliability in complex environments like aviation and early computing. In networking specifically, however, the term's utility stemmed from the OSI model's rigid abstraction, which omitted socio-technical dynamics, leading practitioners to append it informally without seeking standardization.^[9]

Relation to Established Models

Extension of the OSI Model

The Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) model delineates network functions into seven abstraction layers, from Layer 1 (physical transmission of raw bits over hardware media) through Layer 2 (framing and error detection for adjacent nodes), Layer 3 (logical addressing and routing across networks), Layer 4 (end-to-end data delivery and flow control), Layer 5 (session establishment and synchronization), Layer 6 (data formatting, encryption, and compression), to Layer 7 (application-specific protocols interfacing with end-user software).^[10]^[11] This structure, formalized by the International Organization for Standardization in 1984, prioritizes technical interoperability and modular troubleshooting but confines its scope to machine-mediated processes, excluding the human operators who configure, maintain, and utilize these systems.^[10] Layer 8 emerges as an informal conceptual extension to address this omission, positing an eighth layer that encapsulates end-user behaviors, decisions, and externalities—such as misconfigurations, intentional bypasses of protocols, or perceptual errors in interpreting network feedback—as causal inputs to system performance.^[2]^[12] By maintaining the OSI's principle of layered abstraction, Layer 8 isolates human variables without altering the underlying technical model, enabling a more holistic causal chain analysis where user actions precede or intersect technical layers; for instance, a correctly implemented Layer 7 application may fail due to an operator's overlooked firmware update, rendering prior layers irrelevant absent this human factor.^[2] This extension proves pragmatically necessary because OSI's technical focus cannot account for the predominant role of human inputs in real-world failures: empirical analyses reveal that human error contributes to 74% of data breaches, often via configuration mistakes or procedural lapses, while up to 95% of cybersecurity incidents incorporate some human element, underscoring the inadequacy of seven-layer diagnostics alone.^[13]^[14] Such data, drawn from incident reports and breach forensics, justifies Layer 8 as a diagnostic heuristic for complete root-cause attribution, though it remains unofficial and non-standardized, serving primarily to highlight gaps in protocol-centric models rather than proposing formal protocol extensions.^[12]^[15]

Parallels in TCP/IP Framework

The TCP/IP model organizes network protocols into four layers—network access, internet, transport, and application—prioritizing practical interoperability over the OSI model's granular divisions, with the application layer encompassing functions analogous to OSI layers 5 through 7.^[16] This consolidation places user interactions closer to core operations, yet parallels to Layer 8 arise as a conceptual pseudo-fifth layer addressing human behaviors and policies that transcend technical protocols. In this framework, user errors often manifest at the application layer boundary, such as configuring insecure settings in protocols like HTTP or SMTP, where individuals disable encryption or heed phishing prompts despite built-in safeguards.^[2]^[17] The model's emphasis on real-world deployment, evident in its evolution from ARPANET protocols in the 1970s to IETF standards by the 1990s, underscores these analogues in operational contexts like service provisioning. For example, end-users overriding firewall rules in application clients—such as allowing unverified connections in VPN software—bypasses transport-layer protections like TCP's reliability checks, leading to outages or breaches attributable to human intervention rather than protocol flaws.^[7] Political dimensions further parallel Layer 8, as seen in policy-driven alterations to internet-layer routing, where governmental mandates influence BGP configurations to filter traffic, as in state-imposed blocks on IP ranges documented in incidents like the 2010 China Google hijack.^[18] Such extensions highlight TCP/IP's resilience to abstraction, where human and organizational factors in provisioning—e.g., ISPs prioritizing traffic under regulatory pressure—reveal causal disruptions not captured in the four-layer stack, akin to OSI's user overlay but more integrated due to the model's lean design.^[19]

Practical Applications

Troubleshooting and Diagnostics

In IT troubleshooting, Layer 8 diagnostics begin after verifying the integrity of Layers 1 through 7 in the OSI model, ensuring that physical cabling, network protocols, and application software function correctly before examining human factors. This sequential elimination process, a standard practice in network engineering, prevents premature attribution of faults to users and focuses efforts on verifiable technical issues first. Tools such as packet analyzers for Layers 1-4 and application logs for higher layers facilitate this isolation, with documentation aiding in rapid identification of deviations.^[3] Once lower-layer issues are ruled out, diagnostics shift to Layer 8 through structured steps like user interviews to document recent activities, review of authentication logs for failed attempts, and analysis of endpoint telemetry for anomalous behaviors. For example, forgotten passwords frequently manifest as repeated login failures, triggering account lockouts that halt productivity until resets are performed, a common resolution in help desk operations. Similarly, users connecting unauthorized personal devices to corporate networks can introduce IP address conflicts or bypass security controls, leading to connectivity disruptions detectable via DHCP logs or intrusion detection alerts.^[20]^[21] Policy non-compliance, such as ignoring software update prompts, often underlies outages from unpatched vulnerabilities, with incident reports highlighting cases where deferred maintenance cascades into widespread inaccessibility. This approach empirically enhances diagnostic accuracy by minimizing false positives in hardware troubleshooting; for instance, what appears as a faulty router may resolve upon confirming user-induced misconfigurations. Studies on network operations indicate that human errors in configuration changes and fault responses contribute to a notable share of outages, underscoring the value of Layer 8 scrutiny in reducing overall downtime.^[22]

Human Factors in Cybersecurity

In cybersecurity, Layer 8 encompasses human behaviors and decisions that circumvent technical safeguards, often serving as the entry point for attacks that exploit trust, negligence, or lack of awareness rather than protocol vulnerabilities. Social engineering tactics, such as phishing, exemplify this by targeting individuals to bypass layers 1 through 7 of the OSI model, with the human response enabling subsequent exploits like malware deployment at the application layer (Layer 7). According to the 2024 Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report (DBIR), the human element contributed to 68% of analyzed breaches, underscoring that personnel actions frequently represent the causal root of incidents beyond mere technical flaws.^[23]^[24] Phishing attacks illustrate Layer 8 failures, where users' susceptibility to deception leads to high success rates despite layered defenses. In simulated phishing exercises analyzed in the 2024 DBIR, 11% of recipients clicked malicious links, while broader data indicates phishing as a precursor in a significant portion of social engineering-related breaches.^[25] These rates reflect causal vulnerabilities in human judgment, such as overtrusting urgent or authoritative-seeming communications, which attackers leverage to initiate chains of compromise independent of network-level protections. Insider threats further highlight this dynamic, with 83% of organizations reporting at least one such incident in 2024, often stemming from negligent policy circumvention or unauthorized data access rather than external intrusions.^[26] The average annual cost of insider risks reached $17.4 million in 2024, driven by factors like privilege abuse, emphasizing humans as pivotal causal agents in systemic failures.^[27] Mitigating Layer 8 risks requires addressing human predictability through targeted interventions, though empirical outcomes vary. Cybersecurity awareness training, including phishing simulations, has demonstrated reductions in susceptibility; one study reported a 71.5% decrease in email opens following such programs.^[28] However, large-scale analyses reveal limitations, with some training yielding only marginal improvements, such as a 2% reduction in click likelihood, indicating that rote education alone insufficiently alters ingrained behaviors under pressure.^[29] Effective strategies prioritize ongoing, contextual reinforcement over one-off sessions, recognizing that human factors demand realism about cognitive biases and decision-making heuristics as enduring vectors, rather than presuming technological patches can fully compensate.^[30]

Modern Extensions

Higher Pseudo-Layers (Layers 8–10)

Layer 9 in pseudo-layer extensions refers to organizational dynamics, encompassing management decisions, internal politics, and resource allocation that influence network operations. These factors often manifest as delays in infrastructure upgrades or misaligned priorities, where executive vetoes on budgets or inter-departmental conflicts hinder timely deployments of hardware and software patches, leading to unresolved latency or capacity issues. For example, corporate governance structures may prioritize short-term financial metrics over long-term network resilience, resulting in deferred investments that exacerbate vulnerabilities during peak loads. Layer 10 extends to governmental and regulatory oversight, where statutes and compliance mandates impose constraints on technical choices, such as mandatory encryption standards or spectrum allocation rules that alter network topologies. Regulations like the European Union's GDPR, enacted in 2018, have compelled organizations to reroute data flows through approved jurisdictions, introducing propagation delays and increased overhead in cross-border communications. Similarly, national security directives can mandate vendor restrictions, as seen in U.S. executive orders from 2019 prohibiting certain foreign equipment in federal networks, which propagated to private sectors via supply chain ripple effects and slowed 5G rollouts. In service-oriented architectures (SOA), these layers facilitate escalated troubleshooting by mapping failures from individual user interactions (Layer 8) through organizational bottlenecks to policy-level interventions, enabling analysts to identify non-technical root causes in distributed systems. A governance layer analogous to Layer 9 ensures alignment of services with enterprise policies, while Layer 10 compliance checks verify adherence to legal frameworks before deployment.^[31] Case studies in enterprise IT illustrate inter-layer conflicts manifesting as network disruptions. In the UK's National Programme for IT (NPfIT), launched in 2002 and abandoned in 2011 after expenditures exceeding £10 billion, organizational politics and centralized management structures delayed integration of regional networked systems, causing fragmented connectivity and data silos that mimicked lower-layer failures. Likewise, the FBI's Virtual Case File project, initiated in 2000 and terminated in 2005 at a cost of $170 million, suffered from inadequate oversight and contractor management disputes, which stalled network modernization efforts and perpetuated outdated infrastructure prone to bottlenecks. These examples underscore how higher-layer impediments translate into observable symptoms like intermittent outages or scalability limits, necessitating holistic diagnostics beyond physical and protocol layers.^[32]^[33]

AI and Semantic Interpretations

In 2024, Liam Crilly proposed Layer 8 as a semantic networking layer extending the OSI model, positioned above Layer 7 to handle AI-driven extraction of meaning, intent, and context from data streams using techniques such as natural language processing, machine learning models, and deep neural networks.^[34] This layer would enable networks to perform real-time semantic analysis, including sentiment detection and pattern-based intent inference, facilitating adaptive routing, content moderation, and prioritization based on data semantics rather than syntactic rules alone.^[34] This redefinition contrasts sharply with the conventional informal use of Layer 8 to denote human users or organizational dynamics, which often serves as a catch-all for behavioral errors in troubleshooting. Instead, the AI-focused Layer 8 emphasizes machine autonomy in interpreting causal relationships within data flows, such as inferring user or application intent to automate responses and diminish reliance on human oversight, potentially addressing root causes of failures through algorithmic reasoning rather than attribution to operator fallibility.^[34] Subsequent extensions, including a 2025 arXiv preprint on quantum network redesigns, describe Layer 8 as a "Cognitive Intent Plane" that employs AI to convert abstract user objectives into protocol-specific instructions, integrating with lower layers for intent-aware orchestration. However, empirical evidence for these concepts remains preliminary, confined to conceptual prototypes in AI networking testbeds without large-scale validation or demonstrated reductions in error rates; for instance, no peer-reviewed studies as of October 2025 quantify improvements in diagnostic accuracy or systemic reliability from semantic inference. Such proposals hold theoretical promise for objective, data-driven causality assessment in complex environments, but their practical viability depends on unresolved challenges like low-latency hardware integration and model interpretability.^[34]

Criticisms and Limitations

Risks of User Blame Attribution

The invocation of Layer 8 to explain networking or IT failures risks prematurely attributing issues to individual user shortcomings, potentially masking underlying design deficiencies in protocols, interfaces, or systems that fail to account for typical human cognition and behavior.^[35] This blame-shifting discourages thorough root-cause analysis, as technicians may dismiss complaints about unintuitive configurations—such as ambiguous error messages in routing software or non-obvious authentication flows—as inherent "user problems" without validating whether clearer affordances could mitigate them.^[36] Usability research demonstrates that many errors classified as human faults stem from technology-induced flaws, where poor interface design provokes predictable mistakes rather than isolated incompetence. For instance, a 2016 review of healthcare IT systems found that prescription errors often arose from usability problems like inconsistent navigation or hidden critical functions, which were mislabeled as operator negligence until redesigns reduced incidence by addressing causal design gaps.^[36] Similarly, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has documented that repeated "use errors" in medical devices frequently trace to interface shortcomings, such as ambiguous controls, rather than user inadequacy, emphasizing that attributing such incidents solely to Layer 8 overlooks preventable engineering failures.^[37] While empirical data underscores human factors in a substantial portion of IT incidents— with reports indicating human error contributes to 74% of data breaches through actions like misconfigurations or phishing susceptibility—over-attribution to Layer 8 can perpetuate suboptimal systems by framing these as non-trainable traits instead of design-accommodable variances.^[13] A 2022 analysis revealed that nearly 49% of human-error breaches involved inadvertent data mishandling, often exacerbated by tools lacking intuitive safeguards, suggesting that while the term usefully flags trainable behaviors, reflexive Layer 8 labeling risks entrenching causal misdiagnosis absent verification of systemic contributors.^[15] This approach contravenes principles of causal investigation, as evidenced by studies classifying errors into slips (design-provoked lapses) versus knowledge gaps, where the former predominate in complex IT environments yet receive less scrutiny under user-blame heuristics.^[38]

Empirical Evidence on Human Error Causality

Empirical studies consistently identify human actions as a primary vector in cybersecurity incidents, with the Verizon 2024 Data Breach Investigations Report (DBIR) finding that the human element—encompassing errors, privilege misuse, and social engineering—was involved in 68% of analyzed breaches across 30,000+ incidents.^[23] Similarly, the IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report 2024, based on 553 organizations, attributes 16% of breaches directly to lost or stolen credentials often tied to human handling errors, while broader human factors contribute to extended detection times averaging 277 days.^[39] These figures counter inflated claims exceeding 90% human causation, as Verizon's dataset emphasizes that while humans enable many exploits, technical vulnerabilities like unpatched systems account for the remainder without human intervention.^[23] Distinguishing direct human errors—such as fat-finger misconfigurations or inadvertent data exposure—from indirect ones reveals nuanced causality; for instance, Verizon reports errors like misconfigurations in 19% of breaches, representing immediate user actions, whereas social engineering (29%) often stems from systemic gaps like inadequate interface cues or training deficits that amplify user susceptibility.^[23] Human reliability analysis frameworks further differentiate these by measuring direct performance slips against indirect shaping factors, such as organizational pressures or tool ergonomics, which empirical reviews in high-reliability domains show inflate error rates by 2-5 times when unaddressed.^[40] In IT failures, direct errors manifest as observable slips (e.g., clicking phishing links, per IBM's 22% human error root cause share), but causal realism demands tracing indirect enablers like poor user experience design, which studies link to 40-60% of preventable incidents by failing to constrain erroneous inputs.^[39] This evidence underscores Layer 8's utility in diagnostics, as isolating human-initiated chains—verified in post-breach analyses—enables targeted remediation beyond purely technical layers; for example, IBM data shows breaches with human elements cost 13% more on average ($5.2 million vs. $4.6 million), highlighting the need to model users as an active causal layer rather than dismissing variability as irreducible noise.^[39] While media often prioritizes automated fixes, privileging these datasets reveals persistent human realism: even with advanced tools, unmodeled user behaviors sustain 60-70% of residual risks, affirming the extension's role in holistic failure attribution without overattributing to individuals.^[23]^[39]

Broader Implications

Influence on IT Training and Design

The conceptualization of Layer 8 has prompted IT training initiatives focused on mitigating human-induced errors through targeted simulations and behavioral conditioning, yielding measurable reductions in fault incidence. Empirical evaluations of usability-focused training in software environments have demonstrated error decreases of up to 60%, alongside 25% gains in user satisfaction metrics, by simulating real-world scenarios to reinforce error-avoidant habits.^[41] Such programs prioritize procedural adherence and cognitive awareness over rote memorization, enabling IT personnel to preempt Layer 8 disruptions like misconfigurations or oversight lapses, with studies on developer situation awareness training confirming fewer in-situ coding errors post-intervention.^[42] These training paradigms prove more economical than infrastructural overhauls, as they amplify returns on extant hardware by curbing downtime attributable to user actions, which constitute a predominant fraction of IT incidents. Analyses indicate that employee upskilling enhances technology utilization efficiency without the capital outlays of upgrades, often delivering sustained productivity lifts through minimized error propagation.^[43] For example, human-machine interface optimizations integrated into training protocols have slashed error rates by 30% in operational contexts, underscoring Layer 8 interventions as a high-leverage alternative to hardware-centric fixes.^[44] In IT design practices, Layer 8 awareness drives adoption of intuitive interfaces validated via A/B testing, which empirically curbs human faults by aligning system affordances with user expectancies. Prototyping iterations informed by such tests reveal design variants that expedite task resolution and diminish input inaccuracies, as evidenced in UX evaluations where streamlined layouts reduced cognitive load and error propensity.^[45] This user-centric pivot fosters faster issue triage in deployments, yet demands vigilance against tech over-dependence; by embedding causal accountability—tracing failures to specific human decisions rather than systemic excuses—designs promote resilient practices that balance automation with operator vigilance.^[46]

Causal Role in Systemic Failures

In large-scale IT incidents, Layer 8—encompassing human decision-making, oversight, and procedural lapses—frequently serves as the proximal amplifier of underlying technical vulnerabilities, rendering purely technological explanations incomplete. Post-mortems of major outages consistently reveal that human actions, such as erroneous configurations or inadequate validation, transform isolated flaws into cascading systemic disruptions affecting millions of users and billions in economic costs. For instance, the October 4, 2021, outage of Meta's platforms (Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp) stemmed from a faulty configuration change during routine backbone router maintenance, which severed BGP peering and DNS resolution, halting services for approximately six hours and impacting an estimated 3.5 billion users globally.^[47]^[48] This event underscored how Layer 8 interventions, intended to optimize network capacity, inadvertently isolated data centers from internal tools, prolonging recovery due to the absence of redundant access mechanisms.^[49] Similarly, the July 19, 2024, CrowdStrike Falcon sensor update incident exemplifies Layer 8's catalytic role, where a defective channel file—intended for enhanced threat telemetry—triggered kernel-level crashes (Blue Screen of Death) on up to 8.5 million Windows systems worldwide, disrupting airlines, hospitals, and financial services for days. CrowdStrike's preliminary post-incident analysis attributed the failure to a logic error in the content validator that permitted untested data to deploy without detection, compounded by insufficient end-to-end testing of the new rapid-response feature.^[50] While the root issue involved software bugs, human decisions to prioritize speed over exhaustive validation in the update pipeline escalated a containable error into a global cascade, halting an estimated $5.4 billion in daily economic activity.^[51] Industry analyses quantify this pattern: the Uptime Institute's 2025 Outage Analysis Report found that nearly 40% of organizations experienced major outages attributable to human error between 2022 and 2025, with 85% of such cases tracing to deviations from established procedures rather than malicious intent.^[52] In cloud environments, SentinelOne's 2024 report indicated that 82% of misconfigurations—often preceding outages—arose from human mistakes in policy setup or permission assignments, amplifying risks in multi-tenant architectures. These findings challenge narratives that attribute failures solely to infrastructural defects, as causal chains in complex systems invariably terminate in irreducible human agency: decisions to implement changes without full safeguards or to overlook edge cases in validation.^[53] Holistic modeling thus demands integrating Layer 8 to avoid underestimating failure probabilities; excluding it fosters over-reliance on automation myths, despite evidence that even automated systems require human-defined parameters prone to oversight. Proponents of full automation argue it circumvents Layer 8 pitfalls, yet post-mortems like those above reveal that deployment choices—such as forgoing simulated testing—persist as bottlenecks, with critics noting that 74% of broader IT disruptions involve procedural human elements per aggregated breach studies.^[13] True resilience requires acknowledging this agency without evasion, as sanitized attributions to "technical glitches" obscure preventable causal links and impede preventive redesigns like mandatory rollback protocols or AI-augmented oversight.^[54]

References

[1]
What is Layer 8? - Computer Hope
Dec 9, 2023 · While not an official layer of the OSI model, layer 8 is sometimes also called the human layer, social layer, user layer, and political layer.
[2]
What is the layer 8 issue? - IONOS
Aug 30, 2023 · The layer 8 issue describes problems with the software where the user is the problem. Sometimes the term is meant in a polite way, or it is also used as an in- ...
[3]
Ever heard of Layer 8? - Cisco Learning Network
When participating in the Layer 8/political process, acknowledge ownership where it is due. This is a joint effort and there must be joint responsibility.
[4]
Layer 8 monitoring: How to monitor the human element in networks
Jul 23, 2025 · Layer 8 monitoring addresses the human element in networks. Learn how PRTG Network Monitor helps prevent user-related IT issues through ...
[5]
https://www.lenovo.com/us/en/glossary/layer-8/
[6]
Conquering Layer 8 and 9 When Implementing Layer 7 Protection
Feb 26, 2021 · The OSI model is layer 1 through 7, right? Layer 8 is defined as a term used to refer to "user" or "political" layer on top of the 7-layer OSI ...Missing: origin | Show results with:origin
[7]
Layer 8 Performance Issues - Apposite Technologies
A PEBKAC error is the result of faulty layer 8 equipment. It's not uncommon for a PEBCAK error to result in catastrophic systems failure and should be ...
[8]
OSI: Securing the Stack, Layer 8 -- Social engineering and security ...
May 2, 2007 · OSI: Securing the Stack, Layer 8 -- Social engineering and security policy ... While not included in the OSI model, this human layer does exist.
[9]
Securing "Layer 8" – Open Sourcerers
Aug 2, 2021 · What is Layer 8 I hear you ask? The OSI model has been around since the early 80s and only contains 7 layers so you can't just add on new ones!Missing: origin | Show results with:origin<|control11|><|separator|>
[10]
What is OSI Model | 7 Layers Explained - Imperva
The OSI model describes seven layers that computer systems use to communicate over a network. Learn about it and how it compares to TCP/IP model.
[11]
What Is the OSI Model? - 7 OSI Layers Explained - AWS
What are the seven layers of the OSI model? · Physical layer · Data link layer · Network layer · Transport layer · Session layer · Presentation layer · Application ...Why is the OSI model important? · What are the seven layers of...
[12]
Layer 8 Technology: How We Protect Users at our Plattsburgh Office
Mar 18, 2021 · Layer 8 is a conceptual extension to OSI model that was created to cover the most complex element of a network, the end-user. End-users have a ...Missing: origin | Show results with:origin
[13]
Human error is responsible for 74% of data breaches - Infosec Institute
Nov 30, 2023 · Human error is responsible for 74% of data breaches ... The number of cybersecurity incidents and data breaches gets more alarming every year.
[14]
95% of data breaches involve human error, report reveals | SC Media
Mar 11, 2025 · Human error surpassed technological flaws as a contributing factor to data breaches in 2024, with 95% of breaches involving human mistakes.
[15]
Human Error Cybersecurity Statistics - IS Partners, LLC
Nov 6, 2024 · In 2024, 68% of breaches were due to human factors, and 95% of cybersecurity issues have some human element. 22% of organizations consider ...
[16]
What is TCP/IP and How Does it Work? - TechTarget
Sep 26, 2024 · Layer 7: the application layer, lets the user -- software or human -- interact with the application or network when the user wants to read ...How Are Tcp And Ip Different... · The 4 Layers Of The Tcp/ip... · Tcp/ip Model Vs. Osi Model<|separator|>
[17]
Layer 8 Errors Explained: How to Identify and Resolve Them | NSC
May 24, 2024 · Identifying common Layer 8 errors can help in understanding how pervasive and impactful they can be. Examples include using weak passwords, ...
[18]
[PDF] The Political Nature of TCP/IP - University of Pennsylvania
The five layers of abstraction in TCP/IP, from the most abstract layer to the least, are generally known as the application layer, the transport layer, the ...
[19]
An Overview of TCP/IP Protocols and the Internet
Jul 21, 2019 · This memo provides a broad overview of the Internet and TCP/IP, with an emphasis on history, terms, and concepts.
[20]
https://www.evergreen.insightglobal.com/common-help-desk-tickets/
[21]
What Is Unauthorized Access? 5 Key Prevention Best Practices
Unauthorized access refers to individuals gaining access to an organization's data, networks, endpoints, applications or devices, without permission.Missing: non- | Show results with:non-
[22]
Human error in network operations and how to deal with it
Aug 21, 2023 · Network outages can often be traced to four error-prone activities: fault analysis and response, configuration changes, scaling and failover, and security ...
[23]
[PDF] 2024 Data Breach Investigations Report | Verizon
May 5, 2024 · Phishing email report rate by click status. Figure 5. Select action ... increasingly successful in finding innovative ways to enable their fraud.
[24]
2025 Phishing Statistics: (Updated August 2025) - Keepnet Labs
Aug 13, 2025 · The human element was involved in 68% of breaches in 2024, per Verizon DBIR. 80-95% of breaches involve phishing, per Comcast Business ...Phishing Trends In 2025 · Current Phishing Statistics... · Phishing Stats By Attack...
[25]
[PDF] 2024 DBIR Executive Summary | Verizon
In security awareness exercise data contributed by our partners during. 2023, 20% of users reported phishing in simulation engagements, and 11% of the users who ...Missing: through | Show results with:through
[26]
83% of organizations reported insider attacks in 2024 | IBM
According to Cybersecurity Insiders' recent 2024 Insider Threat Report, 83% of organizations reported at least one insider attack in the last year.Overview · The rising concern of insider...
[27]
2025 Ponemon Cost of Insider Threats Global Report: Takeaways
Feb 26, 2025 · The cost of insider risk continues to rise, with the annual average reaching $17.4M – up from $16.2M in 2023 – largely driven by increased spending on ...
[28]
Cybersecurity Awareness Enhancement: A Study of the Effects ... - NIH
Nov 15, 2021 · The number of employees who opened the phishing email decreased by 71.5%. Therefore, this approach could be applied to cybersecurity enhancement ...
[29]
Cybersecurity Training Programs Don't Prevent Employees from ...
Sep 17, 2025 · Whether phishing training is effective is an important question. In ... training only reduced the likelihood of clicking on a phishing link by 2%.
[30]
A systematic review of current cybersecurity training methods
The analysis shows that the majority of studies report positive effects of training, regardless of the cybersecurity topic that was addressed or the training ...
[31]
https://ptgmedia.pearsoncmg.com/imprint_downloads/informit/promotions/learnsoa/soa_ebook-informit.pdf
[32]
Case Study 1: The £10 Billion IT Disaster at the NHS - Henrico Dolfing
Jan 20, 2019 · The National Program for IT (NPfIT) in the National Health Service (NHS) was the largest public-sector IT program ever attempted in the UK.
[33]
[PDF] The FBI Virtual Case File: A Case Study - CSUSB ScholarWorks
The impetus for the project was due to the FBI's aging technology infrastructure that included 386-based personal computers and a 12-year-old network system. In ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[34]
Layer 8: A Semantic Networking Layer for the Age of AI
Jul 2, 2024 · Layer 8 is my proposed extension to the OSI model that aims to address the unique requirements and capabilities of AI in the context of networking.
[35]
Common User Interface Design Flaws that can Induce Use Errors
Jan 25, 2024 · ... errors are induced by user interface design flaws ... design flaw is unlikely to cause every usability test participant to make a mistake.
[36]
Methods for Addressing Technology-Induced Errors: The Current State
... design flaws [40]. ... Technology induced error and usability: the relationship between usability problems and prescription errors when using a handheld ...
[37]
https://nursing.ufl.edu/2025/10/21/seeing-through-the-eyes-of-the-user-why-usability-in-health-technology-matters/
[38]
https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/topics/human-error
[39]
Cost of a Data Breach Report 2025 - IBM
The global average cost of a data breach, in USD, a 9% decrease over last year—driven by faster identification and containment. 0%.
[40]
(PDF) The Measure of human error: Direct and indirect performance ...
This paper explores the role of direct and indirect measures in human reliability analysis (HRA) and the implications that measurement theory has on analyses ...
[41]
Ultimate Guide to Usability Testing: Top 7 Proven Methods for ...
Oct 3, 2025 · 60% decrease in user errors; 25% improvement in user satisfaction ... Usability testing serves several critical purposes in the software ...
[42]
[PDF] Reducing Software Developer Human Errors by Improving Situation ...
The OODA loop is an established cognitive training method to improve situation awareness. We studied the in-situ development errors that ten professional ...
[43]
Optimizing IT Budgets: Cost-Effective Strategies for Technology ...
Jun 25, 2024 · Investing in employee training maximizes the effectiveness of technology investments. Well-trained staff can fully utilize new technologies, ...
[44]
7 Human Error Statistics For 2025 - DocuClipper
Mar 17, 2025 · Utilizing human-machine interfaces has proved to cut errors by 30% as compared to traditional systems.Cybersecurity Human Error... · Work Accidents Human Error... · Economic Impact
[45]
Intuitive Design: Guide & How To Test It - Testlio
Aug 9, 2024 · By anticipating user expectations, intuitive design enhances satisfaction and reduces the likelihood of errors. ... A/B testing is another useful ...
[46]
Understanding Human Over-Reliance On Technology - PMC - NIH
Implementing IT in medication-use systems reduces adverse drug events by decreasing human error. But over-reliance on technology can lead to automation bias ...
[47]
More details about the October 4 outage - Engineering at Meta
Oct 5, 2021 · This outage was triggered by the system that manages our global backbone network capacity. The backbone is the network Facebook has built to connect all our ...
[48]
Facebook blames 'faulty configuration change' for nearly six-hour ...
Oct 5, 2021 · Facebook Inc blamed a "faulty configuration change" for a nearly six-hour outage on Monday that prevented the company's 3.5 billion users ...
[49]
Understanding how Facebook disappeared from the Internet
Oct 4, 2021 · Facebook and its affiliated services WhatsApp and Instagram were, in fact, all down. Their DNS names stopped resolving, and their infrastructure IPs were ...
[50]
Falcon Content Update Preliminary Post Incident Report - CrowdStrike
Jul 24, 2024 · CrowdStrike released a content configuration update for the Windows sensor to gather telemetry on possible novel threat techniques.
[51]
The CrowdStrike Outage - A Detailed Post-Mortem - Futurum
Jul 22, 2024 · CrowdStrike caused global outages by pushing an update that caused 'blue screen of death' outages on Microsoft Windows machines running its software.
[52]
Uptime Announces Annual Outage Analysis Report 2025
May 6, 2025 · Nearly 40% of organizations have suffered a major outage caused by human error over the past three years. Of these incidents, 85% stem from ...
[53]
Cloud Misconfigurations: Still the Biggest Threat in 2025?
Oct 16, 2025 · ” According to Sentinel One's 2024 report, 82% of the time since cloud misconfigurations are due to human mistakes, not software errors.Missing: decisions | Show results with:decisions
[54]
Human error and power glitches to blame for most outages
May 7, 2025 · Nearly 40 percent of organizations have suffered a major outage caused by human error over the past three years, the report says.