MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2431586189

Online Frauds in Banks with Phishing

2007· article· en· W2431586189 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Navtej Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpam and Phishing Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhishingPasswordFinancial institutionComputer scienceMalwareComputer securityTrojanCredit cardInternet privacyWorld Wide WebThe InternetBusinessFinance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hi-tech fraudsters have urbanized a new way of tricking on line banking customers. One such most well known and fast growing technique is phishing. Latest in phishing is application of Trojan program. Trojan horse program insinuates itself into a user's computer via an email and directs the user of the system to website which is exactly similar to financial institution web site. Crooks pick up passwords and account numbers as soon as customer logon to these sites. As it evident from table 1 phishing causes maximum loss to the customers/ institution in comparison to other similar techniques. Keeping in view, the serious threats of phishing attacks author analyzed the trends of major activities of the phishing across globe specifically in the banking sector. In addition, author analyzed the reasons for increase in fishng activities, types of phishing techniques, and process of phishing. Further author has presented recent cases of phishing specifically in banking/ financial sector. Towards the end it author has studied the measures to combat the fishing in online banking.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Internet Banking and CommerceSame topicSpam and Phishing DetectionFrench-language works237,207