PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
October 4, 2007510 citations

A comparison of machine learning techniques for phishing detection

View Full Paper
SASaeed Abu‐NimehDNDario NappaXWXinlei Wang

Key Points

  • Compare the predictive accuracy of multiple machine learning algorithms for identifying phishing emails.
  • Evaluated six machine learning classifiers: Logistic Regression (LR), Classification and Regression Trees (CART), Bayesian Additive Regression Trees (BART), Support Vector Machines (SVM), Random Forests (RF), and Neural Networks (NNet).
  • Trained and tested models using 43 features on a dataset containing 2,889 phishing and legitimate emails.
  • Comparative predictive accuracy across all six evaluated machine learning classifiers was benchmarked for phishing email identification.

Abstract

There are many applications available for phishing detection. However, unlike predicting spam, there are only few studies that compare machine learning techniques in predicting phishing. The present study compares the predictive accuracy of several machine learning methods including Logistic Regression (LR), Classification and Regression Trees (CART), Bayesian Additive Regression Trees (BART), Support Vector Machines (SVM), Random Forests (RF), and Neural Networks (NNet) for predicting phishing emails. A data set of 2889 phishing and legitimate emails is used in the comparative study. In addition, 43 features are used to train and test the classifiers.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Abu‐Nimeh et al. (2007) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a0da52d88250cfcc2a50b67https://doi.org/10.1145/1299015.1299021
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper