A Survey of Machine Learning-Based Solutions for Phishing Website Detection
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the development of the Internet, network security has aroused people’s attention. It can be said that a secure network environment is a basis for the rapid and sound development of the Internet. Phishing is an essential class of cybercriminals which is a malicious act of tricking users into clicking on phishing links, stealing user information, and ultimately using user data to fake logging in with related accounts to steal funds. Network security is an iterative issue of attack and defense. The methods of phishing and the technology of phishing detection are constantly being updated. Traditional methods for identifying phishing links rely on blacklists and whitelists, but this cannot identify new phishing links. Therefore, we need to solve how to predict whether a newly emerging link is a phishing website and improve the accuracy of the prediction. With the maturity of machine learning technology, prediction has become a vital ability. This paper offers a state-of-the-art survey on methods for phishing website detection. It starts with the life cycle of phishing, introduces common anti-phishing methods, mainly focuses on the method of identifying phishing links, and has an in-depth understanding of machine learning-based solutions, including data collection, feature extraction, modeling, and evaluation performance. This paper provides a detailed comparison of various solutions for phishing website detection.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it