Phishing Attacks on Cryptocurrency Investors in the Arab States of the Gulf
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the rapid development of technology in all fields, including the financial field, people have flocked to invest in cryptocurrencies, sometimes without prior knowledge or experience. This has prompted hackers to prey on inexperienced investors through many types of fraud and attacks, especially phishing attacks. Cryptocurrency investment transactions take place without intermediaries such as banks and monetary institutions. Investing in cryptocurrencies is a form of peer-to-peer transaction and takes place without the involvement of physical wallets. This study addresses cases where people may become victims of phishing attacks due to the nature of cryptocurrency investments. The aim of this study was to understand the concepts of various phishing attacks on cryptocurrencies and to measure the awareness of cryptocurrency investors in the Arab Gulf countries regarding the security risks associated with cryptocurrency investments. This research was conducted by distributing a questionnaire among cryptocurrency investors and collecting and analyzing all the survey responses. The results reveal a lack of awareness about how to deal with the security risks associated with cryptocurrency investments. The research concludes that the majority of cryptocurrency investors are unaware of how to deal with phishing attacks. Finally, we address future research directions and recommend actions that can be taken to increase investors’ awareness of this issue.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".