Similarity Report ID: oid:27535:15688990

PAPER NAME

Performance analysis of Data mining, Ma

chine learning and Fuzzy logic algorithm
s for detecting phish

WORD COUNT CHARACTER COUNT

5287 Words 28796 Characters

PAGE COUNT FILE SIZE

6 Pages 149.5KB

SUBMISSION DATE REPORT DATE

Apr 4, 2022 10:51 PM GMT+5:30 Apr 4, 2022 10:55 PM GMT+5:30

26% Overall Similarity

The combined total of all matches, including overlapping sources, for each database.
16% Internet database 15% Publications database
Crossref database Crossref Posted Content database
17% Submitted Works database

Excluded from Similarity Report

Bibliographic material Quoted material
Cited material Small Matches (Less then 10 words)

Summary
 Performance analysis of Data mining, Machine
learning and Fuzzy logic algorithms for detecting
phishing URLs
Aryan Dosajh (2K18/MC/023) Ashmeet (2K18/MC/025)
(Mathematics and Computing) (Mathematics and Computing)
Delhi Technological University Delhi Technological University
Delhi, India Delhi, India
aryandosajh2 k18mc23@dtu.ac.in ashmeet2 k18mc025@dtu.ac.in
Sumedha Seniaray
(Mathematics and Computing)
Delhi Technological University
Delhi, India
sumedhaseniaray@dtu.ac.in
Abstract—Phishing is now one of the leading Cyber threats,
where the victim’s sensitive information like Username, Pass-
word, Payment Card details are obtained by an illegitimate
website whose link is generally shared via E-mails. Such sites
are generally fake created by the crook which is made similar to
the trustworthy site. These web applications look like an official
page of any company such as an e-commerce websites, bank
applications, college portals, etc. but have a slight variation in the
URLs which the user generally misses out on. These websites can
also be unique websites which aren’t clones of any other websites
but instead promise the user of some kind of rewards in exchange
for their personal details. Our aim through this project is to
detect such websites so that we can caution the user to proceed to
such websites only if necessary. We’ve implemented two different
approaches to solve this problem. One being a machine learning
classification approach which includes Fuzzy pattern classifiers
both the top down and bottom up algorithms while the other
makes use of data mining as data mining techniques can be an
effective tool to detect phishing websites.
Index Terms—Fuzzy logic, phishing, data mining, malicious
urls
I. I NTRODUCTION
Every day, everyone who uses the internet uses a web
application. They may be accessed through our smartphone
applications, some on our desktops or laptops, or through a
web browser. Consider the following scenario: we’re using a
web browser to purchase something online. Now, when we
look for a thing, we come across several websites and we
like the goods on two of them. Now, one of these websites
is a well-known, secure, and reliable e-commerce site, while
the other is less secure and well-known yet offers you a
considerably higher discount on your product. Now that we’ve
decided to pay for our merchandise online, we must input
our credit/debit card information. The next question is, which
website would you trust with your personal or sensitive infor-
Anirudh Awasthi (2K18/MC/016)
(Mathematics and Computing)
Delhi Technological University
Delhi, India
anirudhawasthi2 k18mc016@dtu.ac.in
Payal Dabas
(Mathematics and Computing)
Delhi Technological University
Delhi, India
payaldabas@dtu.ac.in
mation, such as our credit/debit card information? Obviously,
you will be less hesitant when entering your credentials into a
trusted e-commerce website, and you will be concerned when
submitting your data into a website where you are hearing
the name for the first time. This is because you’ve never used
this website before, and you’re more likely to input critical
information on a website that you’ve used previously and have
a high trust-factor for. Now, hackers generally take advantage
of this psychology, or to put it another way, this trust-factor,
and pose as a trustworthy company in order to steal your
sensitive data or personal information. This is referred to as
phishing. Phishing is an assault on a target’s personal/sensitive
information, such as passwords, bank account numbers, and
email addresses, by impersonating a convincing company.
Fishing, as the name implies, is a sport in which we utilise
a worm or other bug as a bait to capture fish. In a phishing
assault, the bait is the website, which is generally a cloned
version that appears to be genuine. But then we submit our
useful information and fall prey to hacker’s seduction. You are
tricked into entering your personal information on that website
by a hacker.
II. TYPES OF PHISHING TECHNIQUES
A. Email Phishing
The majority of phishing assaults are carried out via email.
In email phishing, the target is generally unknown. The hacker
or thief sends an automated email that looks like it came from
one of our social networking sites. The thief then acquires
access to your email account by tricking you into putting your
sensitive credentials or data into that. Because your contacts
are linked to your email account, hackers gain access to all of
them and send them an email including your ID, which they
use to deceive them. This is how it all comes together.
B. Spear Phishing
It is more personalized and more targeted form of phishing.
The target is known well here, a typical scenario is where
a hacker knows everything about the target such as their
name, occupation, address, family members, and even their
hobby. Then the attacker sends an email to the target which is
professionally created or cloned as per say which seems like
it comes from a believable source. Then the email is tailored
to each recipient
C. Angular Phishing
It is also called social media phishing (phishing through
social media). In this form of phishing, a hacker sends out an
email or posts a message on your social media with a link
or pretending as a customer service agent and the crook lures
victims to hand over confidential information.
D. Social Engineering
Social contact is used to carry out this sort of phishing. It
employs psychological techniques to fool users into disclosing
security information. This form of attack is carried out in a
series of phases. First, the scammer researches the probable
weak areas of the targets that would be used in the attack.
The scammer then attempts to acquire the victim’s trust
before presenting a circumstance in which the target provides
sensitive information. Baiting, scareware, pretexting, and spear
phishing are some social engineering phishing techniques.
E. Links manipulation
The major focus of phishing is on links. There are various
ingenious techniques to modify a URL so that it seems to be a
real URL. One approach is to display harmful URLs as hyper-
links with names on websites. Another way is to use misspell
URLs that appear like valid URLs, such as ghoogle.com. IDN
Spoofing is a type of typosquatting that is much more difficult
to detect than the previously mentioned link manipulation
3 IV. PROPOSED METHODOLOGY
methods because the attackers use a character in a non-English
language that looks exactly like an English character, such as
a Cyrillic ”c” or ”a” instead of their English counterparts.
III. RELATED WORK
Anti-phishing technology is meant to keep you safe from
phishing scams. Many anti-phishing approaches, including
software-based anti-phishing strategies, have been presented.
The following are some of those methods: a) Detection by
Blacklist, b) Detection by Visual similarity c) Detection by
12
Heuristic based approach. For an effective phishing detection
approach based on machine learning, overall testing findings
reveal that when combined with the help of SVM classifier,
the suggested approach has the best performance, successfully
12
discriminating 95.66 percent of phishing and suitable websites
while utilising just 22.5 percent of the original functionality
[11]. People have used many machine learning models to
detect phishing websites. We have compared these studies
of the following papers and the Machine Learning methods
they have used to implement and get a comparative study of
which method is more effective and which makes more sense
to use for determination of these websites from the original
or the good websites [?], [6]. Since it is feasible to rely on an
accurate clustering algorithm that can handle a large number
of samples in a reasonable length of time. As a result, a novel
16
approach, fuzzy rough set–Web robot detection (FRS-WRD),
16
based on fuzzy rough set theory, is suggested in this study to
better classify and cluster Web visitors of three real-world Web
18
sites. [28]. In [21], the author used the URL to detect phishing
sites automatically by extracting and verifying different terms
20
of a URL through search engine. A real-time anti-phishing
system based on seven distinct classification algorithms and
natural language processing (NLP) characteristics is proposed
in this paper. The method differs from prior research in the
15
literature in the following ways: language independence, use
of a large amount of phishing and genuine data, real-time
execution, identification of new websites, independence from
third-party services, and use of feature-rich classifiers. A fresh
19
dataset is created to measure the system’s performance, and
the experimental findings are tested on it. According to the
experimental and comparative findings of the developed clas-
sification algorithms, the Random Forest method with solely
NLP-based characteristics performs best, with more than 95
13
percent accuracy rate in detecting phishing URLs [12]. Fuzzy
pattern tree induction, a unique machine learning approach
26
for categorization, was recently introduced. A pattern tree is
a hierarchical, tree-like structure with inner nodes denoted by
4
generalised (fuzzy) logical operators and leaf nodes denoted
by fuzzy predicates on input characteristics. A pattern-tree
classifier is made up of a collection of these pattern trees, one
for each class label. This sort of classifier is intriguing for a
13
number of reasons. The learning method switches the pattern
tree construction direction from bottom-up to top-down. In
addition, a new termination criterion is presented that is more
suited to the learning issue at hand [1].
As we have discussed earlier, what phishing is, types of
phishing and the related anti-phishing approaches, that are
generally used in system software and antivirus. Now, there’s
one more feature named Data mining which not only confirms
24
the full-scale features of the URLs as per the heuristic design
but also work for very large dataset’s in order to remove those
classes where heuristics couldn’t work up on and to correct
verdict. Please refer to Fig. 1. to understand the logical flow.
Now the techniques we have used are
A. Dataset Description
One of the most difficult aspects of our research was the
paucity of phishing datasets. Despite the fact that several sci-
3
entific publications on phishing detection have been published,
most of them have not given the dataset that they utilized in
their research. We have used 2 different datasets to implement
our code and algorithms. The first dataset that we used in our
research has been sourced from the UCI repository. It contains
25 features which can be classified into 4 types namely,

B. Machine Learning algorithms
Decision Tree, Random Forest ,K near Neighbours, Gradient
Boosting etc.
Fig. 1. Flowchart depicting the approach of the project.
23
Address Bar Features, Abnormal Based Features, HTML and
Java Script Based Features and Domain Based Features. The
second dataset which is a part of our work has been sourced
from Kaggle. It contains more than 130,000 unique entries.
It comprises of 2 columns, the URL itself and the prediction
column which has two classes - good or bad. Good indicates
that the URL has nothing phishy going on and the website is
safe to visit while bad signals that the URL contains malicious
stuff and must be avoided. The granular level details of the
first dataset are as follows:-
1
1) Address bar based features
• Use the IP address
• Long url to hide the suspicious part
• Using URL shortening services ”TINY URL”
• URLs having ”@” symbols
• Redirection using ”//”
• Adding prefix and suffix seperated by ”(-)” to the
domain
• Sub domains and multi sub domains
• HTTPS
• Domain registration length
• Favicon
• Using non standard port
• Existence of ”HTTPs” token to the domain part of
the URL
2) Abnormal based features
• Request URL
• URL of Anchor
• Links in ¡meta¿, ¡script¿ and ¡link¿ tags
• Server form handler (SFH)
• Submitting information to email
• Abnormal URL
3) HTML and Javascript based features
• Website Forwarding
Status bar Customization
•
Disabling right click
•
• Using pop-up window
• IFrame Redirection
4) Domain based features
• Age of Domain
• DNS record
We’ve used multiple classification algorithms which include
• Decision Tree- A well-known classification approach is
5
decision tree classifiers. A decision tree is a tree struc-
ture that looks like a flowchart, with an internal node
representing a feature or characteristic, a branch repre-
senting a decision rule, and each leaf node representing
the conclusion.The root node is the topmost node in a
decision tree. It learns to split data according on the
value of an attribute. It recursively splits the tree, which
3
is known as recursive partitioning. This feature offers
the tree classifier more resolution, allowing it to cope
with a wider range of data sets, whether numerical or
categorical.However, the decision tree has a number of
flaws that cause it to abuse data. Furthermore, upgrading
a decision tree with fresh samples is challenging.
6
• Linear SVC- The Linear Support Vector Classifier (SVC)
approach conducts classification using a linear kernel
function and works well with a large number of data.
When compared to the SVC model, the Linear SVC adds
extra parameters such as penalty normalisation (’L1’ or
’L2’) and loss function. Because linear SVC is based on
the kernel linear technique, the kernel method cannot be
7
modified. A Linear SVC (Support Vector Classifiergoal
)’s is to fit to the data you give, providing a ”best
fit” hyperplane that divides or categorises your data.
After obtaining the hyperplane, you can next input some
characteristics to your classifier to get the ”predicted”
class. This distinguishes this particular algorithm rather
suitable for our uses, though you can use this for many
situations
• RBF SVC- Radial Basis Function (RBF) kernel support
11
Vector Classifier(SVC). RBF is the default kernel used
11
within the sklearn’s SVM classification algorithm. we
can control individual points’ influence on the overall
algorithm. The larger gamma is, the closer other points
must be to affect the model.
• NuSVC - The nu-support vector classifier (Nu-SVC) is
similar to the SVC with the only difference that the
nu-SVC classifier has a nu parameter to control the
2
number of support vectors. The nu-SVM was proposed by
Scholkopf et al has the advantage of using a parameter
nu for controlling the number of support vectors. The
parameter C in the ordinary SVM formulation is replaced
by a parameter nu which is bounded by 0 and 1. Earlier
 the parameter C could have taken any positive value, thus
this additional bound is beneficial in implementation. The
parameter nu represents the lower and upper bound on the
number of examples that are support vectors and that lie
on the wrong side of the hyperplane, respectively
10
• One Class SVC - SVM is also increasingly being utilised
in one-class problems, in which all of the data belongs
to a single class. In this example, the algorithm is trained
to understand what is ”normal,” so that when new data is
presented, the algorithm can determine whether or not it
belongs to the group. If not, the new data is categorised
as unusual or anomalous. The machine learning applica-
tion’s purpose is to use training data to differentiate test
9
data from a variety of classifications. But what if you just
have data from one class and your purpose is to evaluate
fresh data to see whether it is similar or dissimilar to the
training data? A method for this task, which gained much
popularity the last two decades, is the One-Class Support
Vector Machine.
21
• Random Forest- Random Forest, as the name indicates,
is made up of a vast number of distinct decision trees
3 • URL Length- It is observed that extremely lengthy URLs
that work together to determine the output. In a random
forest, each tree provides the class prediction, and the
outcome is the most predicted class among the decision
of trees. Random Forest achieves such fantastic results
3 length less than 54 gets a value of 1, length between
because the trees defend each other from individual faults.
Although some trees may anticipate the incorrect answer,
28
many other trees will correct the final forecast, allowing
the trees to advance in the proper direction as a group.The
fundamental disadvantage of Random Forests is their lack
of repeatability due to the random nature of the forest
generation process. Furthermore, because the final model
and subsequent outcomes comprise numerous separate
decision trees, they are difficult to comprehend [21].
• K near neighbours- K-nearest Neighbors (KNN) is a
non-parametric and lazy machine learning approach used
for regression and classification problems. In KNN, no
assumptions about the underlying data distribution are
14
required. The KNN method predicts the values of new
data points based on feature similarity, which means that
a value will be assigned to the new data point based on
how closely it resembles the points in the training set.
• Gradient Boosting- Gradient boosting is a type of ma-
chine learning enhancement. It is based on the idea that
when the best probable future model is combined with
past models, the overall prediction error is minimised.
The key concept is to establish the intended outcomes
for the next model in order to minimise error. How
are the goals established? The desired outcome for each
occurrence in the data is defined by how much changing
the forecast of that case changes the total prediction
inaccuracy.
17
• Fuzzy Pattern Classifier- a technique for automatically
training the knowledge-representing membership func-
tions of a Fuzzy-Pattern-Classification system, which
works even when there is little data available and the
universal set is not well specified. Numerous classifier
systems (classifier ensembles) combine the choices of
multiple classifiers to generate a single (crisp or soft)
class label [19].
4
• Fuzzy Pattern Tree Top Down Classifier - Fuzzy pattern
tree induction was recently developed as a revolutionary
machine learning approach for classification. A pattern
tree is a hierarchical, tree-like structure with inner nodes
4
denoted by generalised (fuzzy) logical operators and leaf
nodes denoted by fuzzy predicates on input characteris-
tics. A pattern-tree classifier is made up of a collection of
these pattern trees, one for each class label. This sort of
25
classifier is intriguing for a number of reasons,[R. Senge
and E. Hüllermeier, ”Top-Down Induction of Fuzzy Pat-
tern Trees,” [1].
We implemented these methods on our first data set. Using
the textual URL present in our dataset, we have generated
multiple features out of it. All our features are categorical and
have either 1/0 or -1/0/1 as output values. A few examples of
the categorical variables created are as follows:
have a greater chance of being phishy URLs. Hence we
created this as a feature to verify this using our algorithms
and see its impact on the classification. A URL with
54 and 75 gets a value of 0 while all others get a value
of -1 since a length of more than 75 is indicative that the
website may be phishy.
• Use of URL Shortening Services- Since phishing web-
sites obviously can’t have the exact same name as a
legitimate website, it’s possible that some people might
be able to spot this difference and won’t fall prey to
the scam. To tackle this challenge scammers tend to use
URL shortening services (like bitly) since these services
are also used by legitimate websites and are trust worthy
amongst people on the first look. So any website which
has a shortened URL gets the value of 1 under this
column while others get 0.
We look at many more characteristics of the URL like
presence of prefix or suffix, URL having @ symbol, presence
of double slash (//) redirecting, whether the URL has a
subdomain or not, etc. and add these to our list of features
as well.
8
C. Data mining
Data mining is the technique of predicting outcomes by
identifying anomalies, patterns, and correlations in huge data
sets. You may utilize this information to enhance revenues,
lower expenses, strengthen customer connections, reduce risks,
and more by employing a variety of ways [15]. We’re using
these techniques on our second dataset as we aim to achieve
better results. Since we have created categorical values based
on our first dataset, to have a different approach while classi-
fying the URLs we decided to stay close to Natural Language
Processing techniques in the second one. This would give more
 versatility to our results and help us determine which data TABLE I
pre-processing techniques are better suited for our problem M ACHINE L EARNING C LASSIFIERS
statement of classifying phishy URLs. The techniques we have CLASSIFIERS ACCURACY
used for data mining are as follows:- DECISION TREE 95.587832
RANDOM FOREST 96.875856
• Tokenizer - We’ve used tokenizer because the URL LINEAR SVC 92.765141
string contains some words which are more useful than RBF SVC 94.738284
others in detecting whether the URL is genuine or not. NuSVC 92.244451
One class SVM 48.835297
Examples of such words are ’virus’, ’.dat’, ’.exe’, etc. K NEAREST NEIGHBOURS 95.039737
RegexpTokenizer was used to implement this. This would GRADIENT BOOSTING 95.533023
help our algorithms focus more on such repetitive words.
• Snowball Stemmer - This helps us in identifying the root
words of the different words obtained from the URLs. TABLE II
F UZZY PATTERN C LASSIFIERS
This is useful because not all phishing URLs would
contain identical words but there is a good chance that CLASSIFIERS ACCURACY
they’ll have some words originating from a common root FuzzyPatternClassifier 45.21786791
FuzzyPatternTreeTopDownClassifier 89.03809263
word. Using snowball stemmer we aim to identify such
words and use them in our classification algorithms.
• The final preprocessing step is to remove punctuation TABLE III
marks like commas from our text column so that it can DATA M INING T ECHNIQUES
be passed as input to the algorithms.
CLASSIFIERS ACCURACY
We used our second dataset for this approach by splitting it Logistic Regression 96
into the standard 75-25 train test split ratio. This allowed us Multinomial Naı̈ve Bayes 96
to have a textual data set on which we used algorithms like
logistic regression and multinomial naı̈ve bayes.
VI. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE SCOPE
D. Fuzzy logic approach Phishing url intro 2 lines– This research study shows the
comparison of various techniques of Machine learning and
The aim of our research was to make use of a classifier
data mining classifiers for phishing URL detection with high
that had not been used extensively in previous experiments.
accuracy along with fuzzy techniques and/or its classifiers. Af-
We used the FuzzyPatternTreeTopDownClassifier along with 29
ter performing the experiments, it was concluded that Random
the standard FuzzyPatternClassifier. The first algorithm builds
forest outperformed the others achieving the highest accuracy
fuzzy pattern trees using the top-down method. Basically it is a
of 96.87 per cent. As publicly available dataset was used in
tree like structure which is hierarchical in nature. Its leaf nodes
this work, we plan to employ our model along with NLP
have fuzzy predicates on input attributes and has its inner
techniques for real time phishing URL dataset.
nodes marked with generalized fuzzy-logical operators. The
standard FuzzyPatternClassifier uses the traditional bottom-up R EFERENCES
approach to build fuzzy pattern trees. In simple terms, it is a
27
collection of fuzzy pattern trees where each tree is associated [1] R. Senge and E. Hüllermeier, ”Top-Down Induction of Fuzzy Pattern
22 Trees,” in IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, vol. 19, no. 2, pp.
with a class and for classifying a new instance a prediction 241-252, April 2011, doi: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2010.2093532.
is made in favor of the class whose tree produces the highest [2] E. Hullermeier, “Fuzzy sets in machine learning and data mining: Status
score. We implemented the fylearn python library to apply the ¨ and prospects,” Fuzzy Sets Syst., vol. 156, no. 3, pp. 387–406, 2005.
[3] Phishtank, “Out of the Net, into the Tank.” [Online].
algorithms to our dataset. The first dataset with the categorical [4] Statistics on Phishing, https://www.statista.com/statistics/266161/websites-
variables was used with these three algorithms and the results most-affected-by-phishing/
obtained in all the three approaches were compared to establish [5] Statistics and Information about Phishing Websites,
the best and ideal method to classify phishing websites [43] https://www.tessian.com/blog/phishing-statistics-2020/, By Maddie
Rosenthal, 12 January 2022
[6] Singh, Priyanka, Yogendra PS Maravi, and Sanjeev Sharma. ”Phishing
websites detection through supervised learning networks.” Computing
V. RESULT and Communications Technologies (ICCCT), 2015 International Con-
ference on. IEEE, 2015, pp. 61-65
We performed 3 approaches using 2 different datasets. First [7] J. Crowe, ‘Phishing by the Numbers: Must-Know Phishing Statistics
approach is where we have used different machine learning 2016’, 2016.
[8] Hawanna, Varsharani Ramdas, V. Y. Kulkarni, and R. A. Rane. ”A novel
classifiers using dataset 1 .In Second approach, we have used algorithm to detect phishing URLs.” Automatic Control and Dynamic
data mining techniques which only includes logistic regression Optimization Techniques (ICACDOT), International Conference on.
and multinomial naive bayes using dataset 2. Third and last IEEE, 2016, pp. 548-552.
[9] Dutta AK (2021) Detecting phishing websites using
approach includes the fuzzy pattern classifiers using dataset 1. machine learning technique. PLoS ONE 16(10): e0258361.
Below are the tables showing different accuracies accordingly. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258361
[10] Wu CY, Kuo CC, Yang CS,” A phishing detection system based on
machine learning” In: 2019 International Conference on Intelligent
Computing and its Emerging Applications (ICEA), pp 28–32, 2019.
[11] J. Rashid, T. Mahmood, M. W. Nisar and T. Nazir, ”Phishing Detection
Using Machine Learning Technique,” 2020 First International Confer-
ence of Smart Systems and Emerging Technologies (SMARTTECH),
2020, pp. 43-46, doi: 10.1109/SMART-TECH49988.2020.00026.
[12] Ozgur Koray Sahingoz, Ebubekir Buber, Onder Demir, Banu Diri,
Machine learning based phishing detection from URLs, Expert Systems
with Applications, Volume 117, 2019, Pages 345-357, ISSN 0957-4174,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2018.09.029.
[13] Ping Yi, Yuxiang Guan, Futai Zou, Yao Yao, Wei Wang, Ting Zhu,
”Web Phishing Detection Using a Deep Learning Framework”, Wireless
Communications and Mobile Computing, vol. 2018, Article ID 4678746,
9 pages, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/4678746
[14] Maher Aburrous, M.A. Hossain, Keshav Dahal, Fadi Thabtah, Intelligent
phishing detection system for e-banking using fuzzy data mining, Expert
Systems with Applications, Volume 37, Issue 12, 2010, Pages 7913-
7921, ISSN 0957-4174, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.04.044.
[15] Neda Abdelhamid, Aladdin Ayesh, Fadi Thabtah, Phishing detection
based Associative Classification data mining, Expert Systems with
Applications, Volume 41, Issue 13, 2014, Pages 5948-5959, ISSN 0957-
4174, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.03.019.
[16] Gandotra, E., Gupta, D. (2021). An Efficient Approach for Phishing
Detection using Machine Learning. In: Giri, K.J., Parah, S.A., Bashir,
R., Muhammad, K. (eds) Multimedia Security. Algorithms for Intelligent
Systems. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8711-
5-12
[17] Ensieh Modiri Dovom, Amin Azmoodeh, Ali Dehghantanha, David
Ellis Newton, Reza M. Parizi, Hadis Karimipour, Fuzzy pattern tree
for edge malware detection and categorization in IoT, Journal of
Systems Architecture, Volume 97, 2019, Pages 1-7, ISSN 1383-7621,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sysarc.2019.01.017.
[18] Y. -S. Chen, Y. -H. Yu, H. -S. Liu and P. -C. Wang, ”Detect phishing
by checking content consistency,” Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE 15th
International Conference on Information Reuse and Integration (IEEE
IRI 2014), 2014, pp. 109-119, doi: 10.1109/IRI.2014.7051880.
[19] H. Chapla, R. Kotak and M. Joiser, ”A Machine Learning Approach
for URL Based Web Phishing Using Fuzzy Logic as Classifier,” 2019
International Conference on Communication and Electronics Systems
(ICCES), 2019, pp. 383-388, doi: 10.1109/ICCES45898.2019.9002145.
[20] M. Aydin and N. Baykal, ”Feature extraction and classification phish-
ing websites based on URL,” 2015 IEEE Conference on Com-
munications and Network Security (CNS), 2015, pp. 769-770, doi:
10.1109/CNS.2015.7346927.
[21] J. Stobbs, B. Issac and S. M. Jacob, ”Phishing Web Page Detec-
tion Using Optimised Machine Learning,” 2020 IEEE 19th Interna-
tional Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and
Communications (TrustCom), 2020, pp. 483-490, doi: 10.1109/Trust-
Com50675.2020.00072.
[22] M. Zabihimayvan and D. Doran, ”Fuzzy Rough Set Feature Selec-
tion to Enhance Phishing Attack Detection,” 2019 IEEE International
Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE), 2019, pp. 1-6, doi:
10.1109/FUZZ-IEEE.2019.8858884.
[23] Ozgur Koray Sahingoz, Ebubekir Buber, Onder Demir, Banu Diri,
Machine learning based phishing detection from URLs, Expert Systems
with Applications, Volume 117, 2019, Pages 345-357, ISSN 0957-4174,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2018.09.029.
[24] Babagoli, M., Aghababa, M.P. Solouk, V. Heuristic nonlinear regression
strategy for detecting phishing websites. Soft Comput 23, 4315–4327
(2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-018-3084-2
[25] DIDIER DUBOIS HENRI PRADE (1990) ROUGH FUZZY SETS
AND FUZZY ROUGH SETS*, International Journal of General Sys-
tems, 17:2-3, 191-209, DOI: 10.1080/03081079008935107
[26] Dan Meng, Xiaohong Zhang, Keyun Qin, Soft rough fuzzy sets
and soft fuzzy rough sets, Computers Mathematics with Applica-
tions, Volume 62, Issue 12, 2011, Pages 4635-4645, ISSN 0898-1221,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.camwa.2011.10.049.
[27] Anna Maria Radzikowska, Etienne E. Kerre, A comparative study
of fuzzy rough sets, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Volume 126, Issue 2,
2002, Pages 137-155, ISSN 0165-0114, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-
0114(01)00032-X.
[28] Hamidzadeh, J., Zabihimayvan, M. Sadeghi, R. Detection of Web site
visitors based on fuzzy rough sets. Soft Comput 22, 2175–2188 (2018).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-016-2476-4
[29] N. Sanglerdsinlapachai and A. Rungsawang, ”Using Domain Top-page
Similarity Feature in Machine Learning-Based Web Phishing Detection,”
2010 Third International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data
Mining, 2010, pp. 187-190, doi: 10.1109/WKDD.2010.108.
[30] R. B. Basnet and T. Doleck, ”Towards Developing a Tool to Detect
Phishing URLs: A Machine Learning Approach,” 2015 IEEE Inter-
national Conference on Computational Intelligence Communication
Technology, 2015, pp. 220-223, doi: 10.1109/CICT.2015.63.
[31] D. Vaishnavi, S. Suwetha, Y. B. Jinila, R. Subhashini and S. P. Shyry, ”A
Comparative Analysis of Machine Learning Algorithms on Malicious
URL Prediction,” 2021 5th International Conference on Intelligent
Computing and Control Systems (ICICCS), 2021, pp. 1398-1402, doi:
10.1109/ICICCS51141.2021.9432138.
[32] H. Ishibuchi, T. Nakashima and T. Murata, ”Performance evaluation
of fuzzy classifier systems for multidimensional pattern classification
problems,” in IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics,
Part B (Cybernetics), vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 601-618, Oct. 1999, doi:
10.1109/3477.790443.
[33] Hisao Ishibuchi, Yusuke Nojima, Analysis of interpretability-accuracy
tradeoff of fuzzy systems by multiobjective fuzzy genetics-based
machine learning, International Journal of Approximate Reason-
ing, Volume 44, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 4-31, ISSN 0888-613X,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijar.2006.01.004.
[34] Julián Luengo, Francisco Herrera, Domains of competence of fuzzy rule
based classification systems with data complexity measures: A case of
study using a fuzzy hybrid genetic based machine learning method,
Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Volume 161, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 3-19, ISSN
0165-0114, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fss.2009.04.001.
[35] S. Ahn et al., ”A Fuzzy Logic Based Machine Learning Tool for Sup-
porting Big Data Business Analytics in Complex Artificial Intelligence
Environments,” 2019 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems
(FUZZ-IEEE), 2019, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1109/FUZZ-IEEE.2019.8858791.
[36] M. Yeganejou and S. Dick, ”Classification via Deep Fuzzy c-Means
Clustering,” 2018 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems
(FUZZ-IEEE), 2018, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1109/FUZZ-IEEE.2018.8491461.
[37] J. Rhuggenaath, Y. Zhang, A. Akcay, U. Kaymak and S. Verwer,
”Learning fuzzy decision trees using integer programming,” 2018 IEEE
International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE), 2018, pp.
1-8, doi: 10.1109/FUZZ-IEEE.2018.8491636.
[38] R. Altilio, A. Rosato and M. Panella, ”A Sparse Bayesian Model for
Random Weight Fuzzy Neural Networks,” 2018 IEEE International
Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE), 2018, pp. 1-7, doi:
10.1109/FUZZ-IEEE.2018.8491645.
[39] P. Melin, E. Ramirez and G. Prado-Arechiga, ”A new variant of Fuzzy
K-Nearest Neighbor using Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Logic,” 2018 IEEE
International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE), 2018, pp.
1-7, doi: 10.1109/FUZZ-IEEE.2018.8491472.
[40] Kuncheva, Ludmila. (2008). Fuzzy classifiers.. Scholarpedia. 3. 2925.
10.4249/scholarpedia.2925.
[41] AlexaRank, https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo.
[42] IC3 Annual Report 2018 https://pdf.ic3.gov/2018IC3Report.pdf
[43] Ensieh Modiri Dovom, Amin Azmoodeh, Ali Dehghantanha, David
Ellis Newton, Reza M. Parizi, Hadis Karimipour, Fuzzy pattern tree
for edge malware detection and categorization in IoT, Journal of
Systems Architecture, Volume 97, 2019, Pages 1-7, ISSN 1383-7621,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sysarc.2019.01.017.
 Similarity Report ID: oid:27535:15688990

26% Overall Similarity

Top sources found in the following databases:
16% Internet database 15% Publications database
Crossref database Crossref Posted Content database
17% Submitted Works database

TOP SOURCES
The sources with the highest number of matches within the submission. Overlapping sources will not be
displayed.

abacademies.org
1 3%
Internet

K. J. Somaiya College of Engineering Vidyavihar, Mumbai on 2020-03-01

2 2%
Submitted works

arxiv.org
3 2%
Internet

en.cs.uni-paderborn.de
4 2%
Internet

Rochester Institute of Technology on 2021-05-30

5 2%
Submitted works

Coventry University on 2021-06-14

6 1%
Submitted works

University of Florida on 2016-04-26

7 1%
Submitted works

HCUC on 2022-04-01
8 1%
Submitted works

Sources overview
 Similarity Report ID: oid:27535:15688990

crownstone.rocks
9 <1%
Internet

Liverpool John Moores University on 2021-11-09

10 <1%
Submitted works

towardsdatascience.com
11 <1%
Internet

D. Vaishnavi, S. Suwetha, Y.Bevish Jinila, R. Subhashini, S.Prayla Shyry...

12 <1%
Crossref

Senge, R, and E Hu llermeier. "Top-Down Induction of Fuzzy Pattern Tr...

13 <1%
Crossref

University of Greenwich on 2021-12-17

14 <1%
Submitted works

researchgate.net
15 <1%
Internet

link.springer.com
16 <1%
Internet

th-owl.de
17 <1%
Internet

Ba Lam To, Luong Anh Tuan Nguyen, Huu Khuong Nguyen, Minh Hoa...
18 <1%
Crossref

avesis.yildiz.edu.tr
19 <1%
Internet

ijict.itrc.ac.ir
20 <1%
Internet

Sources overview
 Similarity Report ID: oid:27535:15688990

Coventry University on 2021-08-06

21 <1%
Submitted works

coek.info
22 <1%
Internet

Kolati Sri Rama Chandra Murthy, Tanay Bhattacharya, Narendran Rajag...

23 <1%
Crossref

Mehek Thaker, Mihir Parikh, Preetika Shetty, Vinit Neogi, Shree Jaswal....
24 <1%
Crossref

yuhuaqian.net
25 <1%
Internet

pure.aber.ac.uk
26 <1%
Internet

tojqi.net
27 <1%
Internet

Liverpool John Moores University on 2022-03-05

28 <1%
Submitted works

National College of Ireland on 2019-04-07

29 <1%
Submitted works

Sources overview