No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

In recent times, there has been a dramatic shift from bulk spam emails to targeted email phishing campaigns. Such attacks have started to cause huge brand, financial and operational damage to organisations globally. Phishing attacks involve simple, straightforward, masquerading methodology. 1 The aim is to lure and trick an unsuspecting victim in order to elicit as much information as possible, using SMS, email, WhatsApp and other messaging services, or phone calls that have been spoofed to appear is if they are from known, reliable friends or colleagues. 2

Recent technological advancements have enabled mobile devices to provide mobile users with substantial capability and accessibility. Energy is evidently one of the most critical resources for such devices; in spite of the substantial gain in popularity of mobile devices, such as smartphones, their utility is severely constrained by battery life. Mobile users are very interested in accessing the Internet while it is one of the most expensive operations in terms of energy and cost. HTTP/2 has been proposed and accepted as the new standard for supporting the World Wide Web. HTTP/2 is expected to offer better performance, such as reduced page load time. Consequently, from the mobile users point of view, question arises: Does HTTP/2 offer improved energy consumption performance achieving longer battery life? In this paper, we compare the energy consumption of HTTP/2 with its predecessor (i.e., HTTP/1.1) using a variety of real world and synthetic test scenarios. We also investigate how Transport Layer Security (TLS) impacts the energy consumption of the mobile devices. Our study suggests that Round Trip Time (RTT) is one of the biggest factors in deciding how advantageous is HTTP/2 compared to HTTP/1.1. We conclude that for networks with higher RTTs, HTTP/2 has better energy consumption performance than HTTP/1.1.