Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the many solutions proposed by industry and the research community to address phishing attacks, this problem continues to cause enormous damage. Because of our inability to deter phishing attacks, the research community needs to develop new approaches to anti-phishing solutions. Most of today's anti-phishing technologies focus on automatically detecting and preventing phishing attacks. While automation makes anti-phishing tools user-friendly, automation also makes them suffer from false positives, false negatives, and various practical hurdles. As a result, attackers often find simple ways to escape automatic detection. This paper presents iTrustPage - an anti-phishing tool that does not rely completely on automation to detect phishing. Instead, iTrustPage relies on user input and external repositories of information to prevent users from filling out phishing Web forms. With iTrustPage, users help to decide whether or not a Web page is legitimate. Because iTrustPage is user-assisted, iTrustPage avoids the false positives and the false negatives associated with automatic phishing detection. We implemented iTrustPage as a downloadable extension to FireFox. After being featured on the Mozilla website for FireFox extensions, iTrustPage was downloaded by more than 5,000 users in a two week period. We present an analysis of our tool's effectiveness and ease of use based on our examination of usage logs collected from the 2,050 users who used iTrustPage for more than two weeks. Based on these logs, we find that iTrustPage disrupts users on fewer than 2% of the pages they visit, and the number of disruptions decreases over time.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.045 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".