Detecting Phishing Websites Using Machine
Learning
2022 International Congress on Human-Computer Interaction, Optimization and Robotic Applications (HORA) | 978-1-6654-6835-0/22/$31.00 ©2022 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/HORA55278.2022.9799917
Safa Alrefaai
Computer Engineering Computer Engineering
Istanbul Kultur University Istanbul Kultur University
Istanbul, Turkey Istanbul, Turkey
1700005186@stu.iku.edu.tr 1800004497@stu.iku.edu.tr
Abstract—Phishing, a cybercriminal’s attempted attack, is a
social web-engineering attack in which valuable data or personal
information might be stolen from either email addresses or
websites. There are many methods available to detect phishing,
but new ones are being introduced in an attempt to increase
detection accuracy and decrease phishing websites’ success to
steal information. Phishing is generally detected using Machine
Learning methods with different kinds of algorithms. In this
study, our aim is to use Machine Learning to detect phishing
websites. We used the data from Kaggle consisting of 86 features
and 11,430 total URLs, half of them are phishing and half of
them are legitimate. We trained our data using Decision Tree
(DT), Random Forest (RF), XGBoost, Multilayer Perceptrons,
K-Nearest Neighbors, Naive Bayes, AdaBoost, and Gradient
Boosting and reached the highest accuracy of 96.6using XGBoost.
Index Terms—Phishing websites, legitimate websites, features,
machine learning, detection
I. I NTRODUCTION
With technological enhancement, Internet-oriented devices
and their applications gain huge popularity around the World.
Although they are considered as new technology, IoT devices
gain increased attention not only for their security issues, but
also other for internet-connected computer security issues, lots
of works have been tried to solve them, and machine learning
algorithms are mostly preferred in their implementations [1-
3]. Phishing is a well-known assault that deceives people into
viewing harmful content and revealing personal information.
Most phishing webpages use the same website interface and
universal resource location (URL) as legitimate websites. An
intelligent strategy to safeguard consumers from cyber-attacks
is in high demand. We present a URL detection technique
based on machine learning approaches in this research. To de-
tect phishing websites using URLs, a recurrent neural network
approach is used. As phishing attempts become more common,
our study intends to improve cipher attack detection rates by
providing high detection accuracy and low false-negative and
false-positive rates. The false-negative rate refers to phishing
sites that are mistaken for valid sites, while the false-positive
rate refers to legitimate sites that are mistaken for phishing
sites Fig. 1 depicts a simple explanation of phishing. Phishing
begins when a victim visits a website and then clicks on an
978-1-6654-6835-0/22/$31.00 ©2022 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: M S RAMAIAH INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on April 24,2023 at 04:32:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Ghina Özdemir Afnan Mohamed
Computer Engineering
Istanbul Kultur University
Istanbul, Turkey
1900004466@stu.iku.edu.tr
external link, such as an advertisement or another pop-up link.
If the user clicks on a phishing link, the user is taken to
that website. The attacker then takes the victim’s information
and uses it to get access to other legitimate websites. To
detect this type of phishing attack many different detection
processes are suggested and implemented in the literature. The
simplest approach is about the use of signature-based/rule-
based detection methods [4]. In this approach, the signature of
this phishing attack is stored in a list. For phishing detection,
this link can be the name of the URL addresses for example.
Fig. 1. Phishing Life Cycle.
Fig. 1. Phishing Lifecycle Although this approach is effi-
cient for the implementation and also detection time, it has
a great disability in the detection of new attacks. Therefore,
new research focused on this model of detection by defining
the normal model and trying to discriminate the abnormal
ones. In this approach generally, traditional machine learning
models or in some cases deep learning models are preferred
[5-7]. Additionally, some authors emphasize by only looking
at the name of the web page is not sufficient. Therefore, the
content should be investigated by using some text-based tools
in content-based approaches [8, 9]. However, for making this
analysis, firstly the user should download the whole page,
therefore detection time is increased. In this project, we will
follow multiple steps to test websites for being phishing or
legitimate. First, we will collect the dataset from Kaggle.
Then we will use a python programming language in order
to define the functions for each attribute in the dataset that
 is made to test different features of the website. Then we
will build models such as Support Vector Machine (SVM),
Multilayer Perceptrons (MLP), Random Forest Tree (RFT),
XGBoost, Naive Bayes (NB), K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN),
AdaBoost, Gradient Boosting, and Decision Tree (DT). Next,
we will train the model using the dataset from Kaggle. Finally,
we will test the models using random URLs. The rest of
the paper is organized as follows. Section II presents the
related effort on categorizing phishing URLs using a Literature
Review. Section III explains the data collection and methods
in depth, whereas Section IV presents the test findings. Section
V summarizes the current study’s conclusion and the aim for
future development.
II. R ELATED W ORK
Phishing websites are websites that look to be authentic but
are meant to capture personal information from visitors. These
websites attempt to trick people into providing their personal
information. Due to the fact that phishing has emerged as a
significant issue in recent years, a great deal of effort has been
put into developing methods to identify fraudulent websites.
The following is an overview of some of these documents.
In the year 2020, Alsariera, Adeyemo, Balogun, and Alaz-
zawi utilized a total of four distinct meta-learner models in or-
der to recognize phishing websites. The acronyms AdaBoost-
Extra Tree (ABET), Bagging-Extra Tree (BET), Rotation
Forest - Extra Tree (RoFBET), and LogitBoost-Extra Tree
were used to refer to these models respectively (LBET) [10].
When compared to other ML-based models, the performance
of these models is superior when it comes to detecting phishing
attacks. Phishing website datasets that included the most recent
features were used to fit the models, which allowed for the
effectiveness of the models to be evaluated. The study was
successful in achieving a high accuracy rate of almost 98
percent, along with a low falsepositive rate of 0.018 (when
using the ABET approach) and a low false-negative rate of
0.033 from the (LBET method). According to the findings of
the investigation, each of the four processes that were carried
out functioned extraordinarily well.
Deep learning served as the foundation for Tang and
Mahmoud’s framework, which they presented in 2021 for
identifying phishing websites. They implemented their solu-
tion in the form of a browser plug-in (the Google Chrome
extension). The user receives real-time results from this plugin
regarding the phishing website risk, and a warning is displayed
if phishing website detection occurs [11]. This approach,
which consisted of whitelist filtering, blacklist interception,
and machine learning (ML) prediction, was devised with the
objectives of improving accuracy, reducing the number of false
positives (FP), and speeding up the amount of time needed for
the calculation. The study incorporated a total of seven distinct
datasets, each of which was derived from one of four distinct
pre-existing data sources. Support Vector Machine (SVM),
Logistic Regression, Random Forest, and RNN-GRU were the
models that were put to use in this investigation. The RNN-
GRU model was found to have the highest accuracy, coming
Authorized licensed use limited to: M S RAMAIAH INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on April 24,2023 at 04:32:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
in at 99.18 percent, based on the findings, which led to this
conclusion being reached.
In 2019, Yang et al. published a paper in which they de-
scribed a multidimensional feature phishing detection (MFPD)
methodology that was based on a rapid detection method
applying deep learning. The paper was titled ”Phishing Detec-
tion Using Multidimensional Features.” Phishing attacks can
be carried out in a wide variety of guises, which served as
the inspiration for this method [12]. They began by taking
the URL that was provided to them and extracting character
sequence features from it so that they could use those features
in a deep learning classification. At this point in the process,
the method of dynamic category choice was put into place in
order to reduce the total amount of time necessary for detection
(DCDA). The following step was to combine the statistical
characteristics of URLs, the characteristics of webpage codes,
the characteristics of webpage texts, and the outcomes of deep
learning’s rapid categorization into multidimensional charac-
teristics. Performing this step allowed for verification of the
detection’s precision. For this project’s testing, a dataset that
included millions of phishing and benign URLs was utilized.
The final product achieves an accuracy level of 98.99 percent,
while the rate of false positives is only 0.59 percent. This is a
significant achievement. According to the results of the study,
the performance was adequate in each of the following three
areas: accuracy, rate of false positives, and speed.
In the year 2020, Ali and Maleberry devised a novel method
for improving the accuracy of the identification of phishing
websites by utilizing a strategy known as particle swarm
optimization. This allowed them to identify phishing websites
with a higher degree of precision (PSO) [13]. During the
process of selecting PSO-based website features, the signif-
icance of a website feature in determining whether or not a
website is a phishing site and whether or not it is a legitimate
site is taken into consideration. When employing the PSO
method, a training dataset will have between 7 and 57 percent
of its unnecessary characteristics eliminated. The following
methods were presented for learning: back-propagation neural
network (BPNN), support vector machine (SVM), k-nearest
neighbor (KNN), decision tree (C4.5), random forest (RF), and
naive Bayes classifier (NB). In comparison to the standalone
machine learning models, the algorithms that made use of the
PSO approach produced results that were superior in terms of
accuracy as well as TPR, TNR, FPR, and FNR improvements.
This was achieved by making use of a significantly reduced
number of the website attributes that were previously utilized
in the identification of phishing websites.
In 2018, Pham, Nguyen, Tran, Huh, and Hong came up with
the concept for a developed neuro-fuzzy framework, and they
called it Fi-NFN. This anti-phishing model is built into this
framework, which protects users of fog from being the targets
of phishing attempts [14]. The model, which was developed
specifically for implementation in fog networks, makes use
of the detecting capabilities offered by the blacklist/whitelist
and web-structure approaches. The model is able to recognize
phishing without the need for IF-THEN rules because, in
 addition to recognizing phishing URLs in real-time, it also
contains design input features that are able to recognize
phishing websites. Phishing can therefore be identified by
the model. The input features consist of three Web traffic
features as well as three helpful URL features known as
PrimaryDomain, SubDomain, and PathDomain (PageRank,
AlexaReputation, and GoogleIndex). The approach that was
applied resulted in improved detection performance in addition
to an increase in the accuracy of phishing detection when
compared to other approaches that were already in use. This
comparison was made using the approach that was applied.
According to the findings, the Fi- NFN approach is superior
to other methods in terms of its ability to maintain accuracy,
consistency, and efficiency.
In the year 2021, Abdullateef and a few other researchers
[15] proposed Functional Tree (FT)-based meta-learning mod-
els as a method for identifying phishing websites. Within the
scope of this research project, an empirical investigation of FT
was carried out with the purpose of improving the identifica-
tion of phishing websites. FT combines a decision tree with a
linear function through the process of positive induction. This
results in a decision tree that has multivariate decision nodes
and leaf nodes that use discriminant functions to generate
predictions. Through the utilization of empirical research on
FT, the objective of the study was to develop methods that are
more effective at identifying phishing websites. The strategy
that was taken aims to implement the FT algorithm and its
variants to detect benign and phishing websites, implement
Bagging, Boosting, and Rotation Forest Meta-learners to im-
prove FT performance and conduct a comparison between the
proposed methods and the existing methods of phishing. The
results of testing and analyzing these algorithms demonstrated
that FT and its variants are superior to other models in the
majority of situations. This conclusion was reached based on
the findings. In comparison to other methods, the FT has a
lower rate of false positives while maintaining a higher level
of accuracy overall. The presented method has demonstrated
that meta-learners are an intelligent algorithm, which enables
the construction of phishing website detection models that are
more accurate and consistent.
The effectiveness of the machine learning-based largescale
phishing detection method that had been proposed by Liu,
Gang, Jin, and Wang in the year 2021 was demonstrated
through the use of two different types of experiments: com-
parative experiments on various features and detection models
on CASE and a one-year phishing discovery experiment in
the real web environment. These were the two types of
experiments that were used to demonstrate the effectiveness
of the method. The concept of machine learning served as the
foundation for this approach.
The authors proposed that CASE is an acronym that refers
to ”Counterfeiting, Affiliation, Stealing, and Evaluation,” and
that it encompasses both machine learning and deep learning
strategies that are based on a constructed and complex dataset.
This was presented in [16]. [CASE] is an acronym that
refers to ”Counterfeiting, Affiliation, Stealing, and Evalua-
Authorized licensed use limited to: M S RAMAIAH INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on April 24,2023 at 04:32:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
tion.” CASE takes into account the spoofing nature of phishing
and encompasses the feature space that corresponds to it. It
also ensures the discrimination and generalization of features
and provides assistance at the feature level for more effective
phishing detection. In addition to this, it is suggested that
a multistage detection model be utilized, one that possesses
accurate recognition and efficient filtering. It is intended that
a generated dataset will be utilized, and this dataset will consist
of websites that were obtained from a wide variety of different
sources. These websites will offer a wide variety of languages,
levels of content quality, and brands, and there will be a
significant number of both good and poor examples available.
According to the findings of the strategy that was suggested,
the model improves detection outcomes by cutting down on
the amount of time it takes to carry out its operations and
by improving its overall performance. Self-attention CNN is
a CNN and multi-head self-attention coupled deep learning
strategy that has a high success rate in identifying phishing
websites. It is anticipated that Xiao, Xiao, Dian Yan Zhang,
and a few other writers will present it in 2021 [17]. First,
in order to guarantee that the dataset used for training is
representative of the real world, we generate phishing URLs
with GAN. The next step in the process of identifying phishing
websites involves the creation of a brand new deep network
that makes use of CNN and multi-head self-attention. Even
III. M ETHODOLOGY
A. Dataset
The dataset used in this project is collected from Kaggle.
It consists of 11,430 URLs. The dataset is divided into
50legitimate URLs and 50contains a total of 87 features. It is
divided into 3 classes: 56 URL features, 24 features extracted
from the page, and 7 external features. The detailed feature
explanation is listed in table 1. Some feature values, such as
the existence of and (), are binary; moreover, 0 represents
legitimate and 1 represents phishing websites. Other features
are represented in decimals. After a specific threshold, those
featured websites turn from legitimate to phishing websites. In
order to make sure the dataset is in a good shape, we checked
for null values to delete them. There is one target feature in
the dataset. This target feature is binary, in which 1 represents
phishing and 0 represents legitimate websites. After checking
the dataset and understanding it, we divided the dataset to train
and test it. The ratio of training to testing used was 75:25
percent. The next step is to train the models on the dataset,
which is explained in part B.
B. Classifiers
This project used the above dataset in order to compare
the performance of nine models. These models are Sup-
port Vector Machine (SVM), Multilayer Perceptrons (MLP),
Random Forest Tree (RFT), XGBoost, Naive Bayes (NB),
KNearest Neighbors (KNN), AdaBoost, Gradient Boosting,
and Decision Tree (DT).
In order to locate a hyperplane in an N-dimensional space,
the Support Vector Machine (SVM) algorithm is utilized.
 In this context, N refers to the total number of features. The
decision points that classify the data points are represented
by the hyperlanes that were found. The number of features
dictates the size of the hyperlane, which in turn is determined
by the total number of features. Given that there are 87
different features, the situation at hand is rather challenging.
The data points that are located closer to the hyperlane are
what are known as support vectors. Because of the role they
play in determining the location of the hyperlane, they play a
crucial role in the construction of the SVM. The objective of
the SVM is to achieve a margin that is as large as possible
between the data points and the hyperlane [21].
The goal of the Support Vector Machine (SVM) algorithm is
to locate the optimal line or decision boundary for classifying
n-dimensional space into classes. This will allow additional
data points to be easily positioned in the appropriate category
in the future.
One kind of neural network is called Multilayer Percep-
trons (MLP for short). The MLP has three layers: the input
layer, the hidden layer, and the output layer. The input layer
is the one that gets the signal to begin the training, the hidden
layer, which is made up of many layers, contains the main
engine for the MLP, and the output layer is the one that is in
charge of the required task, which in this case is determining
whether or not the website in question is a phishing site. An
algorithm known as back propagation learning is used to train
the neurons that make up an MLP [22].
The number of features that can be used to identify phishing
websites is equal to the number of units that are present in the
input layer of the MLP. On the other hand, the number of
classes that can be created using these features is equal to the
number of units that are present in the output layer. MLP is
utilized to find solutions to problems that are not linear, and it
is suitable for our investigation because we have a significant
number of characteristics.
RFT stands for Random Forest Tree, which is an algorithm
for machine learning that can be applied to problems involving
classification and regression. It is part of the supervised learn-
ing technique and is based on the model of ensemble learning.
Ensemble learning refers to the process of combining different
types of classifiers in order to solve difficult problems. Because
of this, RFT is effective at enhancing the overall performance
of the model. When training the dataset, Random Forest is also
utilized because, in comparison to other algorithms, it requires
significantly less time. There are a total of 5 steps involved
in the RFT process. To begin, a sample of the information
contained in the training set is chosen at random (K). Second,
construct decision trees based on the data points you’ve chosen
(subsets). Third, determine the value of N for the decision
trees that will be constructed. Fourth, do steps 1 and 2 again.
Five new data points are added to the decision tree that was
determined to be the best [23].
Extreme Gradient Boosting is the abbreviation for XG-
Boost, which refers to the library of machine learning algo-
rithms known as a gradient-boosted decision tree (GBDT).
Parallel tree boosting is available through XGBoost. It is
Authorized licensed use limited to: M S RAMAIAH INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on April 24,2023 at 04:32:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
most commonly applied to problems involving regression,
classification, and ranking. Because it produces speed and
performance that are optimized, we decided to use XGBoost.
The Bayes theorem serves as the foundation for the Naive
Bayes method, which is a supervised learning approach to the
problem of dealing with classification issues. The majority of
its applications involve the classification of text and images
using extensive data sets for training. The Naive Bayes Clas-
sifier is a straightforward classification method that has been
shown to be both effective and efficient. It contributes to the
development of rapid machine learning models that are able
to make accurate predictions in a timely manner.
One of the only calculations in Machine Learning to be
based on an Administered Learning strategy is called the K-
Nearest Neighbor calculation. The K-NN calculation pre-
supposes that there is a similarity between the most recent
case and data and the cases that are accessible. It then places
the new case in the category that is most comparable to the
categories that are available. You may also hear it referred to
as Adaptive boosting. It is an algorithm for machine learning
that makes use of the Ensemble Method. This method chooses
the most accurate prediction from among all of the classifiers.
The Adaboost algorithm can be broken down into three distinct
phases. First, it constructs a model and then allocates the
weight to each of the data points that are available. After that,
it gives incorrectly categorized points a higher weight than
other points. Last but not least, in the following model, all
of the points that have a higher weight have been prioritized
as being more important. Adaboost will not stop training the
models until an acceptable level of error has been achieved.
A Gradient Boosting classifier is a collection of ma-
chine learning calculations that create a robust predictive
demonstration by combining a great number of rudimentary
learning models into a single cohesive whole. When doing
gradient boosting, choice trees are typically used as part of the
process. Calculations that are performed to boost performance
play a significant role in the management of the inclination
fluctuation trade-off. Unlike bagging calculations, which only
control for tall change in a show, boosting controls both
aspects (bias and variance), and is therefore considered to be
more compelling. Bagging calculations only control for the tall
changes in a show. Decision trees are a form of supervised
learning that can be applied to a variety of problems, in-
cluding those involving classification and regression; however,
in most circumstances, they are best suited for resolving
classification issues. This is a tree-structured classifier, with the
internal nodes representing the characteristics of the dataset,
the branches representing the decision rules, and each leaf
node representing the outcome of the classification.
C. Evaluate the models
In this stage we evaluate the models by entering the dataset
with predictor variables to each model, then the models will
predict the targeting variable according to the prediction results
and we will compare it with real values. In Fig. 2 there is a
learning model of the proposed work.
 TABLE I
C OMPARISON O F METHODS

ML Model Train Accuracy Test Accuracy

Decision Tree 0.979 0.937
Random Forest 0.992 0.964
XGBoost 0.996 0.964
MLP 0.825 0.811
KNN 0.931 0.832
Naive Bayes 0.734 0.738
AdaBoost 0.954 0.953
Gradient Boosting 0.993 0.964
SVM 0.600 0.596
Fig. 2. Learning model from prposed system.

IV. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
If you want to validate a machine learning model so that
it may be used in classification tasks, accuracy is perhaps the
most well-known way to do it. It is widespread application
can be attributed, in part, to the fact that it can be carried out
with a reasonable amount of simplicity. It is not difficult to
understand and not difficult to put into practice. Accuracy is a
helpful criterion to employ for evaluating the performance of
a model for simple scenarios, and it can be derived based on
Equations 1 and 2 below. A metric known as accuracy, which
is utilized while dealing with classification challenges, enables
one to ascertain the proportion of accurate predictions that may
be made. In order to calculate it, we must first take the total
number of forecasts and divide that number by the number of
predictions that turned out to be accurate. The accuracy of the
suggested model can be determined by following the steps in
Table III.
N umberof correctpredictions
Accuracy =
T otalnumberof predictions
TP + TN
Accuracy =
TP + TN + FP + FN
Where TP: True Positives, FP: False Positives, TN: True
Negatives, FN: False Negatives.
This project has applied the prediction model of the pro-
posed phishing website by utilizing various points of view,
which are related to the classification technique. The purpose
of this application is for experimental evaluation. I measured
the accuracy of predicting which URL website is phishing
by using a variety of algorithms. The XGBoost classifier
proved to be the most effective in giving a high rate of testing
accuracy, which was 96.4 percent.
V. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
In this project, we used machine learning methods in order
to decrease phishing websites’ success rates by detecting them.
We selected our dataset from Kaggle with a 50:50 ratio for
training and testing, 11,430 URLs, and 89 features. The dataset
used differs from another dataset by the high number of
features, which helped increase the accuracy rate. We used
9 machine learning algorithms for training our dataset. The
algorithms used were XGBoost, Gradient Boosting, Random
Forest Tree, Adaboost, Decision Tree, K-Nearest Neighbors,
Multilayer Perceptrons, Naive Bayes, and Support Vector
Machine. Between the used algorithms, XGBoost had the
highest test accuracy of 96.4 , recall of 96.3, and precision
of 96.5 .
Our results show that XGBoost is the best algorithm for
detecting phishing websites. With such high accuracy, our
methods used for detecting phishing websites make our project
better than previous projects. We intend to increase the accu-
racy rate by increasing the dataset size in our future work.
Therefore some big data may be used for the implementation.
On the other side use of Big Data needs the use of Deep
learning approaches as mentioned in [24] and to decrease the
training time there is a need to use parallel execution of the
code, especially with the use of GPU technologies [25].
R EFERENCES
(1)
[1] Leon Reznik, ”Computer Security with Artificial Intelligence, Machine
Learning, and Data Science Combination,” in Intelligent Security Sys-
tems: How Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning and Data Science
Work For and Against Computer Security , IEEE, 2022, pp.1- 56, doi:
(2) 10.1002/9781119771579.ch1.
[2] O. K. Sahingoz, U. Cekmez and A. Buldu, ”Internet of Things
(IoTs) Security: Intrusion Detection using Deep Learning” 2021, Jour-
nal of Web Engineering, 2021, pp. 1721–1760, vol. 20, iss. 6, doi:
10.13052/jwe1540-9589.2062.
[3] R. Yetis and O. K. Sahingoz, ”Blockchain Based Secure Communication
for IoT Devices in Smart Cities,” 2019 7th International Istanbul Smart
Grids and Cities Congress and Fair (ICSG), 2019, pp. 134-138, doi:
10.1109/SGCF.2019.8782285.
[4] A. Awasthi and N. Goel, ”Generating Rules to Detect Phish-
ing Websites Using URL Features,” 2021 1st Odisha International
Conference on Electrical Power Engineering, Communication and
Computing Technology(ODICON), 2021, pp. 1-9, doi: 10.1109/ODI-
CON50556.2021.9429003.
[5] M. Korkmaz, O. K. Sahingoz and B. Diri, ”Detection of Phishing
Websites by Using Machine Learning-Based URL Analysis,” 2020
11th International Conference on Computing, Communication and Net-
working Technologies (ICCCNT), 2020, pp. 1-7, doi: 10.1109/ICC-
CNT49239.2020.9225561.
[6] L. Tang and Q. H. Mahmoud, ”A Deep Learning-Based Framework for
Phishing Website Detection,” in IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 1509-1521,
2022, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3137636.
[7] M. Korkmaz, O. K. Sahingoz and B. Diri, ”Feature Selections for
the Classification of Webpages to Detect Phishing Attacks: A Sur-
vey,” 2020 International Congress on Human-Computer Interaction,
Optimization and Robotic Applications (HORA), 2020, pp. 1-9, doi:
10.1109/HORA49412.2020.9152934.

Authorized licensed use limited to: M S RAMAIAH INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on April 24,2023 at 04:32:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 [8] E. Kocyigit, M. Korkmaz, O.K. Sahingoz, B. Diri, “Real-Time Content-
Based Cyber Threat Detection with Machine Learning”. In: Abraham,
A., Piuri, V., Gandhi, N., Siarry, P., Kaklauskas, A., Madureira, A.
(eds) Intelligent Systems Design and Application, 2021, ISDA 2020.
Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 1351. Springer,
Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71187-0129.
[9] U. Ozker and O. K. Sahingoz, ”Content Based Phishing Detection with
Machine Learning,” 2020 International Conference on Electrical Engi-
neering (ICEE), 2020, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1109/ICEE49691.2020.9249892.
[10] Y. A. Alsariera, V. E. Adeyemo, A. O. Balogun and A. K. Alazzawi,
”AI Meta-Learners and Extra-Trees Algorithm for the Detection of
Phishing Websites,” in IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 142532-142542, 2020,
doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3013699.
[11] L. Tang and Q. H. Mahmoud, ”A Deep Learning-Based Framework for
Phishing Website Detection,” in IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 1509-1521,
2022, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3137636.
[12] P. Yang, G. Zhao and P. Zeng, ”Phishing Website Detection Based on
Multidimensional Features Driven by Deep Learning,” in IEEE Access,
vol. 7, pp. 15196-15209, 2019, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2892066.
[13] W. Ali and S. Malebary, ”Particle Swarm Optimization-Based Feature
Weighting for Improving Intelligent Phishing Website Detection,” in
IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 116766-116780, 2020, doi: 10.1109/AC-
CESS.2020.3003569.
[14] C. Pham, L. A. T. Nguyen, N. H. Tran, E. -N. Huh and C. S.
Hong, ”Phishing-Aware: A Neuro-Fuzzy Approach for Anti-Phishing
on Fog Networks,” in IEEE Transactions on Network and Ser-
vice Management, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 1076-1089, Sept. 2018, doi:
10.1109/TNSM.2018.2831197.
[15] Abdullateef O. et al., “Improving the phishing website detection using
empirical analysis of Function Tree and its variants”, Heliyon, vol 7,
Issue 7, 2021, e07437, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07437.
[16] Dong-Jie Liu, Guang-Gang Geng, Xiao-Bo Jin, Wei Wang, An ef-
ficient multistage phishing website detection model based on the
CASE feature framework: Aiming at the real web environment,
Computers Security, vol 110, 2021, 102421, ISSN 0167-4048,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2021.102421.
[17] Xi Xiao, Wentao Xiao, Dianyan Zhang, Bin Zhang, Guangwu Hu,
Qing Li, Shutao Xia, Phishing websites detection via CNN and mul-
tihead self-attention on imbalanced datasets, Computers Security, Vol
108,2021,102372,ISSN 0167-4048.
[18] A.V. Ramana, Rao, K.L. Rao, R.S. Stop-Phish: an intelligent phishing
detection method using feature selection ensemble. Soc. Netw. Anal.
Min. 11, 110 (2021). https://ezproxy.iku.edu.tr:2444/10.1007/s13278-
021-00829-w.
[19] SatheeshKumar, M., Srinivasagan, K.G. UnniKrishnan, G. A
lightweight and proactive rule-based incremental construction ap-
proach to detect phishing scam. Inf Technol Manag (2022).
https://ezproxy.iku.edu.tr:2444/10.1007/s10799-021-00351-7.
[20] A. Hannousse, Salima Yahiouche, Towards benchmark datasets for
machine learning based website phishing detection: An experimen-
tal study, Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence,Volume
104,2021,104347,ISSN 0952-1976.
[21] Gandhi, R. (2018, July 5). Support Vector Machine - intro-
duction to machine learning algorithms. Medium. Retrieved May
18, 2022, from https://towardsdatascience.com/support-vector-machine-
introductionto- machine-learning-algorithms-934a444fca47.
[22] Multilayer Perceptron. Multilayer Perceptron - an overview
— ScienceDirect Topics. (n.d.). Retrieved May 18,
2022, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-
science/multilayerperceptron.
[23] Machine learning random forest algorithm - javatpoint.
www.javatpoint.com. (n.d.). Retrieved May 18, 2022, from
https://www.javatpoint.com/machine-learning-random-forestalgorithm
[24] S. C. Kalkan and O. K. Sahingoz, ”Deep Learning Based Classification
of Malaria from Slide Images,” 2019 Scientific Meeting on Electrical-
Electronics Biomedical Engineering and Computer Science (EBBT),
2019, pp. 1-4, doi: 10.1109/EBBT.2019.8741702.
[25] S. I. Baykal, D. Bulut and O. K. Sahingoz, ”Comparing deep learning
performance on BigData by using CPUs and GPUs,” 2018 Electric Elec-
tronics, Computer Science, Biomedical Engineerings’ Meeting (EBBT),
2018, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1109/EBBT.2018.8391429.

Authorized licensed use limited to: M S RAMAIAH INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on April 24,2023 at 04:32:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.