The Effect of Feature Selection on Phish Website Detection

Abstract

Abstract-Recently, limited anti-phishing campaigns have given phishers more possibilities to bypass through their advanced deceptions. Moreover, failure to devise appropriate classification techniques to effectively identify these deceptions has degraded the detection of phishing websites. Consequently, exploiting as new; few; predictive; and effective features as possible has emerged as a key challenge to keep the detection resilient. Thus, some prior works had been carried out to investigate and apply certain selected methods to develop their own classification techniques. However, no study had generally agreed on which feature selection method that could be employed as the best assistant to enhance the classification performance. Hence, this study empirically examined these methods and their effects on classification performance. Furthermore, it recommends some promoting criteria to assess their outcomes and offers contribution on the problem at hand. Hybrid features, low and high dimensional datasets, different feature selection methods, and classification models were examined in this study. As a result, the findings displayed notably improved detection precision with low latency, as well as noteworthy gains in robustness and prediction susceptibilities. Although selecting an ideal feature subset was a challenging task, the findings retrieved from this study had provided the most advantageous feature subset as possible for robust selection and effective classification in the phishing detection domain.

Machine Learning Techniques for True and Fake Job Posting

“…This algorithm could meet the expectations to a great extent. This calculation demonstrates to have preferred execution over all the strategies utilized in the papers referred (18)(19)(20)(21)(22).…”

A Comprehensive Survey for Intelligent Spam Email Detection

“…Equation (11) is a linear combination of all of the weak classifiers (simple learners), where K is the total number of weak classifiers, h k (p) is the output of weak classifier t (can only be -1 or 1). α k is the weight applied to classifier k. The final decision is derived by looking at the sign (+/-) of (13 In addition, as pointed out in [160], Adaboost as a classifier might incur issues such as high computational cost and nonscalability. Apart from this, the work does not address any header information, leaving a loophole for number of different types of spam emails.…”

Feature Selection Based on Minimum Overlap Probability (MOP) in Identifying Beef and Pork

“…This area was determined by the positions of ordinates Fb (4) and Fs (5). Fo area could be determined by ordinates Fs and Fb, so Fo area was Fo= ((x 3 ,y 3 ),(x 2 ,y 3 );(x 3 ,y 2 ),(x 2 ,y 2 )) (7) Ordinate points in (7) were overlapped ordinate points which were, respectively, (x 3 ,y 3 ) which equaled to feature value Fs fpr (min,min), (x 2 ,y 3 …”

“…Feature selection is very effective in supporting performance in special tasks [3][4][5][6][7]. Several special tasks in image and computer vision processing are classification [8][9][10], clustering [11], computational neuroscience, imaging genomics [12 and 13], protein property prediction [14], text mining, image annotation, [15 and 16].…”