MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3216538978 · doi:10.5539/cis.v15n1p20

A Review of Factors Affecting the Effectiveness of Phishing

2021· review· en· W3216538978 on OpenAlex
Robert Karamagi

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer and Information Science · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpam and Phishing Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceHackerComputer securityPhishingDenial-of-service attackExploitAttack surfaceBotnetMalwareThe InternetOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Phishing has become the most convenient technique that hackers use nowadays to gain access to protected systems. This is because cybersecurity has evolved and low-cost systems with the least security investments will need quite advanced and sophisticated mechanisms to be able to penetrate technically. Systems currently are equipped with at least some level of security, imposed by security firms with a very high level of expertise in managing the common and well-known attacks. This decreases the possible technical attack surface. Nation-states or advanced persistent threats (APTs), organized crime, and black hats possess the finance and skills to penetrate many different systems. However, they are always in need of the most available computing resources, such as central processing unit (CPU) and random-access memory (RAM), so they normally hack and hook computers into a botnet. This may allow them to perform dangerous distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks and perform brute force cracking algorithms, which are highly CPU intensive. They may also use the zombie or drone systems they have hacked to hide their location on the net and gain anonymity by bouncing off around them many times a minute. Phishing allows them to gain their stretch of compromised systems to increase their power. For a normal hacker without the money to invest in sophisticated techniques, exploiting the human factor, which is the weakest link to security, comes in handy. The possibility of successfully manipulating the human into releasing the security that they set up makes the life of the hacker very easy, because they do not have to try to break into the system with force, rather the owner will just open the door for them. The objective of the research is to review factors that enhance phishing and improve the probability of its success. We have discovered that hackers rely on triggering the emotional effects of their victims through their phishing attacks. We have applied the use of artificial intelligence to be able to detect the emotion associated with a phrase or sentence. Our model had a good accuracy which could be improved with the use of a larger dataset with more emotional sentiments for various phrases and sentences. Our technique may be used to check for emotional manipulation in suspicious emails to improve the confidence interval of suspected phishing emails.

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)0.005
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score0.412

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.004
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.281 · 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