An Analysis of Phishing Blacklists: Google Safe Browsing, OpenPhish, and PhishTank

Simon Bell, P. Komisarczuk
{"title":"An Analysis of Phishing Blacklists: Google Safe Browsing, OpenPhish, and PhishTank","authors":"Simon Bell, P. Komisarczuk","doi":"10.1145/3373017.3373020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Blacklists play a vital role in protecting internet users against phishing attacks. The effectiveness of blacklists depends on their size, scope, update speed and frequency, and accuracy - among other characteristics. In this paper we present a measurement study that analyses 3 key phishing blacklists: Google Safe Browsing (GSB), OpenPhish (OP), and PhishTank (PT). We investigate the uptake, dropout, typical lifetimes, and overlap of URLs in these blacklists. During our 75-day measurement period we observe that GSB contains, on average, 1.6 million URLs, compared to 12,433 in PT and 3,861 in OP. We see that OP removes a significant proportion of its URLs after 5 and 7 days, with none remaining after 21 days - potentially limiting the blacklist’s effectiveness. We observe fewer URLs residing in all 3 blacklists as time-since-blacklisted increases – suggesting that phishing URLs are often short-lived. None of the 3 blacklists enforce a one-time-only URL policy - therefore protecting users against reoffending phishing websites. Across all 3 blacklists, we detect a significant number of URLs that reappear within 1 day of removal – perhaps suggesting premature removal or re-emerging threats. Finally, we discover 11,603 unique URLs residing in both PT and OP – a 12% overlap. Despite its smaller average size, OP detected over 90% of these overlapping URLs before PT did.","PeriodicalId":297760,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Australasian Computer Science Week Multiconference","volume":"137 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"52","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the Australasian Computer Science Week Multiconference","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3373017.3373020","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 52

Abstract

Blacklists play a vital role in protecting internet users against phishing attacks. The effectiveness of blacklists depends on their size, scope, update speed and frequency, and accuracy - among other characteristics. In this paper we present a measurement study that analyses 3 key phishing blacklists: Google Safe Browsing (GSB), OpenPhish (OP), and PhishTank (PT). We investigate the uptake, dropout, typical lifetimes, and overlap of URLs in these blacklists. During our 75-day measurement period we observe that GSB contains, on average, 1.6 million URLs, compared to 12,433 in PT and 3,861 in OP. We see that OP removes a significant proportion of its URLs after 5 and 7 days, with none remaining after 21 days - potentially limiting the blacklist’s effectiveness. We observe fewer URLs residing in all 3 blacklists as time-since-blacklisted increases – suggesting that phishing URLs are often short-lived. None of the 3 blacklists enforce a one-time-only URL policy - therefore protecting users against reoffending phishing websites. Across all 3 blacklists, we detect a significant number of URLs that reappear within 1 day of removal – perhaps suggesting premature removal or re-emerging threats. Finally, we discover 11,603 unique URLs residing in both PT and OP – a 12% overlap. Despite its smaller average size, OP detected over 90% of these overlapping URLs before PT did.
网络钓鱼黑名单分析:Google安全浏览、OpenPhish和PhishTank
黑名单在保护互联网用户免受网络钓鱼攻击方面发挥着至关重要的作用。黑名单的有效性取决于它们的大小、范围、更新速度和频率以及准确性——以及其他特征。在本文中,我们提出了一项测量研究,分析了3个关键的网络钓鱼黑名单:谷歌安全浏览(GSB), OpenPhish (OP)和PhishTank (PT)。我们调查了这些黑名单中url的吸收、退出、典型生存期和重叠。在我们75天的测量期间,我们观察到GSB平均包含160万个url,而PT为12,433个,OP为3,861个。我们看到,OP在5天和7天后删除了很大一部分url, 21天后一个都没有留下——这可能限制了黑名单的有效性。我们观察到,随着黑名单时间的增加,驻留在所有3个黑名单中的url越来越少——这表明网络钓鱼url通常是短暂的。这3个黑名单都没有强制执行一次性URL策略,因此可以保护用户免受网络钓鱼网站的再次攻击。在所有3个黑名单中,我们检测到在删除后1天内重新出现的大量url -可能表明过早删除或重新出现的威胁。最后,我们发现了11,603个位于PT和OP中的唯一url,重叠了12%。尽管OP的平均大小较小,但它比PT检测到90%以上的重叠url。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信