Textual and Visual Content-Based Anti-Phishing: A Bayesian Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A novel framework using a Bayesian approach for content-based phishing web page detection is presented. Our model takes into account textual and visual contents to measure the similarity between the protected web page and suspicious web pages. A text classifier, an image classifier, and an algorithm fusing the results from classifiers are introduced. An outstanding feature of this paper is the exploration of a Bayesian model to estimate the matching threshold. This is required in the classifier for determining the class of the web page and identifying whether the web page is phishing or not. In the text classifier, the naive Bayes rule is used to calculate the probability that a web page is phishing. In the image classifier, the earth mover's distance is employed to measure the visual similarity, and our Bayesian model is designed to determine the threshold. In the data fusion algorithm, the Bayes theory is used to synthesize the classification results from textual and visual content. The effectiveness of our proposed approach was examined in a large-scale dataset collected from real phishing cases. Experimental results demonstrated that the text classifier and the image classifier we designed deliver promising results, the fusion algorithm outperforms either of the individual classifiers, and our model can be adapted to different phishing cases.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".