MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220949653 · doi:10.3390/app12062806

Investigating the Influence of Feature Sources for Malicious Website Detection

2022· article· en· W4220949653 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmad Chaiban, Dušan Sovilj, Hazem M. Soliman, Geoff Salmon, Xiaodong Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Sciences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpam and Phishing Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCredentialMachine learningPipeline (software)Feature (linguistics)Artificial intelligenceJavaScriptClassifier (UML)Information retrievalWorld Wide WebData miningComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Malicious websites in general, and phishing websites in particular, attempt to mimic legitimate websites in order to trick users into trusting them. These websites, often a primary method for credential collection, pose a severe threat to large enterprises. Credential collection enables malicious actors to infiltrate enterprise systems without triggering the usual alarms. Therefore, there is a vital need to gain deep insights into the statistical features of these websites that enable Machine Learning (ML) models to classify them from their benign counterparts. Our objective in this paper is to provide this necessary investigation, more specifically, our contribution is to observe and evaluate combinations of feature sources that have not been studied in the existing literature—primarily involving embeddings extracted with Transformer-type neural networks. The second contribution is a new dataset for this problem, GAWAIN, constructed in a way that offers other researchers not only access to data, but our whole data acquisition and processing pipeline. The experiments on our new GAWAIN dataset show that the classification problem is much harder than reported in other studies—we are able to obtain around 84% in terms of test accuracy. For individual feature contributions, the most relevant ones are coming from URL embeddings, indicating that this additional step in the processing pipeline is needed in order to improve predictions. A surprising outcome of the investigation is lack of content-related features (HTML, JavaScript) from the top-10 list. When comparing the prediction outcomes between models trained on commonly used features in the literature versus embedding-related features, the gain with embeddings is slightly above 1% in terms of test accuracy. However, we argue that even this somewhat small increase can play a significant role in detecting malicious websites, and thus these types of feature categories are worth investigating further.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations18
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied SciencesSame topicSpam and Phishing DetectionFrench-language works237,207