MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Malicious URL Detection using Logistic Regression

2021· article· en· W3198713703 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpam and Phishing Detection
Canadian institutionsBrandon University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceThe InternetSet (abstract data type)Logistic regressionComputer securityMalwareWeb application securityWorld Wide WebMachine learningWeb development

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the major challenges faced by the Internet in the present day is to deal with achieving web security from ever-rising diverse types of threats. Machine learning algorithms offer promising techniques to detect malicious websites performing unethical anonymous activities on the Internet. Attackers have been found to continuously evolve with updated techniques to attack web users using malicious Uniform Resource Locators (URLs). The main objective of such attacks is to gain financial benefits through acquiring personal information. In the present research, a machine learning (ML)-based approach is proposed to identify malicious users from URL data. An ML model is implemented using Logistic Regression to detect malicious URLs. The data set used in the study is collected from well-known sources like PhishTank, Kaggle.com, and Github.com. Our novel framework is further evaluated against traditional malicious URL models and our results highlight positive steps forward of the proposed approach.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.844
Threshold uncertainty score0.230

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Quick stats

Citations56
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpam and Phishing DetectionFrench-language works237,207