多数据集网站钓鱼检测分类算法的比较研究

W. Sarasjati, Supriadi Rustad, Purwanto, H. Santoso, Muljono, Abdul Syukur, Fauzi Adi Rafrastara, De Rosal Ignatius Moses Setiadi
{"title":"多数据集网站钓鱼检测分类算法的比较研究","authors":"W. Sarasjati, Supriadi Rustad, Purwanto, H. Santoso, Muljono, Abdul Syukur, Fauzi Adi Rafrastara, De Rosal Ignatius Moses Setiadi","doi":"10.1109/iSemantic55962.2022.9920475","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Phishing has become a prominent method of data theft among hackers, and it continues to develop. In recent years, many strategies have been developed to identify phishing website attempts using machine learning particularly. However, the algorithms and classification criteria that have been used are highly different from the real issues and need to be compared. This paper provides a detailed comparison and evaluation of the performance of several machine learning algorithms across multiple datasets. Two phishing website datasets were used for the experiments: the Phishing Websites Dataset from UCI (2016) and the Phishing Websites Dataset from Mendeley (2018). Because these datasets include different types of class labels, the comparison algorithms can be applied in a variety of situations. The tests showed that Random Forest was better than other classification methods, with an accuracy of 88.92% for the UCI dataset and 97.50% for the Mendeley dataset.","PeriodicalId":360042,"journal":{"name":"2022 International Seminar on Application for Technology of Information and Communication (iSemantic)","volume":"111 3S 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Study of Classification Algorithms for Website Phishing Detection on Multiple Datasets\",\"authors\":\"W. Sarasjati, Supriadi Rustad, Purwanto, H. Santoso, Muljono, Abdul Syukur, Fauzi Adi Rafrastara, De Rosal Ignatius Moses Setiadi\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/iSemantic55962.2022.9920475\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Phishing has become a prominent method of data theft among hackers, and it continues to develop. In recent years, many strategies have been developed to identify phishing website attempts using machine learning particularly. However, the algorithms and classification criteria that have been used are highly different from the real issues and need to be compared. This paper provides a detailed comparison and evaluation of the performance of several machine learning algorithms across multiple datasets. Two phishing website datasets were used for the experiments: the Phishing Websites Dataset from UCI (2016) and the Phishing Websites Dataset from Mendeley (2018). Because these datasets include different types of class labels, the comparison algorithms can be applied in a variety of situations. The tests showed that Random Forest was better than other classification methods, with an accuracy of 88.92% for the UCI dataset and 97.50% for the Mendeley dataset.\",\"PeriodicalId\":360042,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2022 International Seminar on Application for Technology of Information and Communication (iSemantic)\",\"volume\":\"111 3S 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2022 International Seminar on Application for Technology of Information and Communication (iSemantic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/iSemantic55962.2022.9920475\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2022 International Seminar on Application for Technology of Information and Communication (iSemantic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/iSemantic55962.2022.9920475","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

网络钓鱼已经成为黑客窃取数据的主要方法,并且还在不断发展。近年来,已经开发了许多策略来识别使用机器学习的网络钓鱼网站尝试。然而,已经使用的算法和分类标准与实际问题相差很大,需要进行比较。本文提供了几种机器学习算法在多个数据集上的性能的详细比较和评估。实验中使用了两个网络钓鱼网站数据集:来自UCI的网络钓鱼网站数据集(2016)和来自Mendeley的网络钓鱼网站数据集(2018)。因为这些数据集包含不同类型的类标签,所以比较算法可以应用于各种情况。实验表明,Random Forest的分类准确率在UCI和Mendeley数据集分别达到了88.92%和97.50%,优于其他分类方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative Study of Classification Algorithms for Website Phishing Detection on Multiple Datasets
Phishing has become a prominent method of data theft among hackers, and it continues to develop. In recent years, many strategies have been developed to identify phishing website attempts using machine learning particularly. However, the algorithms and classification criteria that have been used are highly different from the real issues and need to be compared. This paper provides a detailed comparison and evaluation of the performance of several machine learning algorithms across multiple datasets. Two phishing website datasets were used for the experiments: the Phishing Websites Dataset from UCI (2016) and the Phishing Websites Dataset from Mendeley (2018). Because these datasets include different types of class labels, the comparison algorithms can be applied in a variety of situations. The tests showed that Random Forest was better than other classification methods, with an accuracy of 88.92% for the UCI dataset and 97.50% for the Mendeley dataset.
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
×
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