评估Twitter上网络钓鱼报告的有效性

S. Roy, Unique Karanjit, Shirin Nilizadeh
{"title":"评估Twitter上网络钓鱼报告的有效性","authors":"S. Roy, Unique Karanjit, Shirin Nilizadeh","doi":"10.1109/eCrime54498.2021.9738786","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Phishing attacks are an increasingly potent web-based threat, with nearly 1.5 million such websites being created on a monthly basis. In this work, we present the first study towards identifying phishing attacks through reports shared by security conscious users on Twitter. We evaluated over 16.4k such reports posted by 701 Twitter accounts between June to August 2021, which contained 11.1k unique URLs, and analyzed their effectiveness using various quantitative and qualitative measures. Our findings indicate that not only these reports share a high volume of legitimate phishing URLs, but they also contain more information regarding the phishing websites (which can expedite the process of identifying and removing these threats), when compared to two popular open-source phishing feeds: PhishTank and OpenPhish. We also noticed that the URLs in the Twitter reports had very little overlap with the URLs found on PhishTank and OpenPhish, and also remained active for longer periods of time. However, despite having these attributes, we found that these reports have very low interaction from other users on Twitter, especially from the domains and organizations which were targeted by the reported URLs. Moreover, nearly 31% of these URLs were still active even after a week of them being reported while also being detected by very few anti-phishing tools. This suggests that a large majority of these reports remain undiscovered and underutilized. Thus, this work highlights the utility of phishing reports shared on Twitter, and the benefits of using them as an open source knowledge base for identifying new phishing websites.","PeriodicalId":228129,"journal":{"name":"2021 APWG Symposium on Electronic Crime Research (eCrime)","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating the Effectiveness of Phishing Reports on Twitter\",\"authors\":\"S. Roy, Unique Karanjit, Shirin Nilizadeh\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/eCrime54498.2021.9738786\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Phishing attacks are an increasingly potent web-based threat, with nearly 1.5 million such websites being created on a monthly basis. In this work, we present the first study towards identifying phishing attacks through reports shared by security conscious users on Twitter. We evaluated over 16.4k such reports posted by 701 Twitter accounts between June to August 2021, which contained 11.1k unique URLs, and analyzed their effectiveness using various quantitative and qualitative measures. Our findings indicate that not only these reports share a high volume of legitimate phishing URLs, but they also contain more information regarding the phishing websites (which can expedite the process of identifying and removing these threats), when compared to two popular open-source phishing feeds: PhishTank and OpenPhish. We also noticed that the URLs in the Twitter reports had very little overlap with the URLs found on PhishTank and OpenPhish, and also remained active for longer periods of time. However, despite having these attributes, we found that these reports have very low interaction from other users on Twitter, especially from the domains and organizations which were targeted by the reported URLs. Moreover, nearly 31% of these URLs were still active even after a week of them being reported while also being detected by very few anti-phishing tools. This suggests that a large majority of these reports remain undiscovered and underutilized. Thus, this work highlights the utility of phishing reports shared on Twitter, and the benefits of using them as an open source knowledge base for identifying new phishing websites.\",\"PeriodicalId\":228129,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2021 APWG Symposium on Electronic Crime Research (eCrime)\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2021 APWG Symposium on Electronic Crime Research (eCrime)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/eCrime54498.2021.9738786\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2021 APWG Symposium on Electronic Crime Research (eCrime)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/eCrime54498.2021.9738786","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

网络钓鱼攻击是一种日益强大的基于网络的威胁,每月有近150万个这样的网站被创建。在这项工作中,我们通过具有安全意识的用户在Twitter上分享的报告,首次提出了识别网络钓鱼攻击的研究。我们评估了701个Twitter账户在2021年6月至8月期间发布的超过16.4万份此类报告,其中包含11.1万个唯一url,并使用各种定量和定性措施分析了它们的有效性。我们的研究结果表明,与两种流行的开源网络钓鱼源(PhishTank和OpenPhish)相比,这些报告不仅共享了大量的合法网络钓鱼url,而且还包含了更多关于网络钓鱼网站的信息(这可以加快识别和消除这些威胁的过程)。我们还注意到,Twitter报告中的url与PhishTank和OpenPhish上发现的url几乎没有重叠,而且活跃的时间也更长。然而,尽管具有这些属性,我们发现这些报告与Twitter上其他用户的互动非常少,特别是与报告url所针对的域名和组织的互动。此外,近31%的这些url在被报告一周后仍然活跃,而且很少有反网络钓鱼工具能检测到。这表明这些报告中的绝大多数仍未被发现和充分利用。因此,这项工作强调了Twitter上共享的网络钓鱼报告的效用,以及将它们用作识别新网络钓鱼网站的开源知识库的好处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Evaluating the Effectiveness of Phishing Reports on Twitter
Phishing attacks are an increasingly potent web-based threat, with nearly 1.5 million such websites being created on a monthly basis. In this work, we present the first study towards identifying phishing attacks through reports shared by security conscious users on Twitter. We evaluated over 16.4k such reports posted by 701 Twitter accounts between June to August 2021, which contained 11.1k unique URLs, and analyzed their effectiveness using various quantitative and qualitative measures. Our findings indicate that not only these reports share a high volume of legitimate phishing URLs, but they also contain more information regarding the phishing websites (which can expedite the process of identifying and removing these threats), when compared to two popular open-source phishing feeds: PhishTank and OpenPhish. We also noticed that the URLs in the Twitter reports had very little overlap with the URLs found on PhishTank and OpenPhish, and also remained active for longer periods of time. However, despite having these attributes, we found that these reports have very low interaction from other users on Twitter, especially from the domains and organizations which were targeted by the reported URLs. Moreover, nearly 31% of these URLs were still active even after a week of them being reported while also being detected by very few anti-phishing tools. This suggests that a large majority of these reports remain undiscovered and underutilized. Thus, this work highlights the utility of phishing reports shared on Twitter, and the benefits of using them as an open source knowledge base for identifying new phishing websites.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A qualitative mapping of Darkweb marketplaces Out of the Dark: The Effect of Law Enforcement Actions on Cryptocurrency Market Prices Toad in the Hole or Mapo Tofu? Comparative Analysis of English and Chinese Darknet Markets Understanding Risk and Risk Perceptions of Cybercrime in Underground Forums Tokyo, Denver, Helsinki, Lisbon or the Professor? A Framework for Understanding Cybercriminal Roles in Darknet Markets
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1