Machine Learning Models for Phishing Detection

By: Ameya Sree Kasa, Department of Computer Science & Engineering (Artificial Intelligence), Madanapalle Institute of Technology & Science, Angallu (517325), Andhra Pradesh. ameyasreekasa@gmail.com

Abstract:

Phishing attacks have increased in both sophistication and frequency, hence posing severe threats to personal and organizational security, whereby individuals are fooled into giving away sensitive information. Traditional techniques of detection are usually very ineffective against such high attackers. Machine learning is a strong technology that has the capability of assessing extensive datasets for the recognition of patterns indicative of phishing operations. This paper discusses some machine learning models used in phishing detection. It dissects the principles of their operations, advantages, and limitations and provides full comparative analysis. We assess the efficacy of these machine learning models for the strengthening of cybersecurity defence against phishing assaults.

Keywords: Phishing, Machine Learning, Classification models

1. Introduction:

Phishing is a cyber-attack in which the attackers mimic themselves as some genuine entity to steal user details like username, password, and credit card information. Most of the traditional security techniques often fail to counter today’s phishing attacks which recently been a new surge in interests in exploring ML techniques for more efficient detection and prevention. ML models can check email content, URLs, and other related factors in real time and gives out the possibility of their detection and reducing phishing. The article involves an in-depth analysis of several ML models applied for phishing detection, and also including their efficiency, implementation, and potential for improving cybersecurity defences.

2. Machine Learning for phishing:

Phishing attacks are one of the serious problems in cybersecurity. The machine learning approaches are effective ways of identifying such attacks by assessing the trends and features of data. Here is a summary of the main algorithms of ML used in phishing detection: [1]

2.1. Classification model for phishing detection:

Decision trees

• Purpose: Divide the data into subsets based on the values of the features.
• Features used: URL length, age of the domain, and special characters.
• Pros: Easy to understand, simple, and very good for exploratory analysis. [2]

Random Forests

• Ensemble method of many Decision Trees.
• Functions used: A lot including emails and URLs.
• Pros: More accurate model because of the finding average of the predictions which reduces overfitting and makes the results more reliable. [3]

Support Vector Machines (SVMs)

• Purpose: The purpose is to find the best hyperplane to split the different classes in the feature space.
• Features used: Email headers, body content, URLs
• Advantages: Accurately classifies genuine and phishing communications with accuracy.

Neural Networks

• Purpose: It is a method by which the machine learns complex patterns from large data-sets.
• Features Emails and websites provided textual and graphic details.
• Advantages: Good in detecting subtle indicators of a phishing.[4]

2.2. Feature Extraction:

Effective phishing detection is dependent on extracting important information from emails, URLs, and website content. Common characteristics include:

• URL-based features include URL length, the number of dots, the existence of IP addresses, and suspicious domains.
• Email-specific features include the sender address, the existence of hyperlinks, specific keywords, and peculiar layout.
• Content-based features include HTML content, attachments, embedded scripts, and visual resemblances to genuine websites. [5]

2.3. Training and evaluation:

Vast labelled datasets for both phishing and real emails are used for training and evaluation of ML models developed for phishing detection. With such large training data, the algorithm is trained on how to effectively distinguish between malicious and benign messages. The process used in training is that in the given attributes of phishing, particularly those related to the patterns and features in URL structures, email content, and sender information. After the model has been trained, its performance will be tested using several performance metrics. [6] Accuracy assesses overall correctness of model prediction, while precision represents the ratio of actual phishing emails identified correctly out of all emails that are categorized as such. The F1 score is the balanced metric that considers both precision and recall of the method. Recall reflects the model’s ability to single out all actual phishing emails. These criteria show that the model not only works well for the detection of phishing attempts but also well for the real reduction of false positives and negatives, making it useful for real-world applications. [7]

2.4. Experimental Results:

In the experimental setup, various ML models would be trained and tested on datasets consisting of phishing and legitimate e-mails to determine the accuracy of such models. This will require exhaustive treatment where each such model would be trained on a good chunk of the dataset so that it learns the various distinguishing features of phishing attacks. The trained models would be tested on another subset of the dataset to determine the accuracy of e-mail classification[8]. The models’ effectiveness is determined by their performance in different criteria such as accuracy, precision, recall, and F1. [9] Accuracy is the percentage of valid predictions that actually come from the model; precision is the percentage of actual phishing emails compared with those detected as phishing emails. Recall tests the model for the ability to find all actual phishing attempts, and the F1 score balances between precision and recall; thus, the F1 score gives a complete performance overview of the model. The performance results of these studies are shown in a tabular form as a comparative study. We summarize all strengths and flaws of each model. An instance would be that more complex models like neural networks will tend to present better accuracy and F1 scores, while other simpler models like decision trees allow faster prediction and better interpretability. Such comparative evaluations are important for selecting the right candidate model for practical deployment purposes in the systems designed for phishing detection so that the protection against phishing threats is strong and reliable.[10]

3. Conclusion:

The attacks through vulnerabilities in phishing attacks steal sensitive information and create substantial cybersecurity-related difficulties that established solutions often fail to handle. Machine learning provides an important solution by assessing big datasets for the detection of subtle patterns of phishing. In this paper, a number of machine learning models Decision Trees, Random Forests, Support Vector Machines, and Neural Networks have been examined with their techniques, strengths, and limits. Effective phishing detection requires extracting relevant information from the email, URLs, and website content. The models are trained against a labelled data set recognizing features of phishing and their performance benchmarked using accuracy, precision, recall, and the F1 score. It was found in experiments that against higher accuracy obtained with complex models like Neural Networks, simpler models like Decision Trees provide faster forecasts and better interpretability. Such machine learning approaches can be used in phishing detection systems that can work reliably with real-time performance against sophisticated cyber threats.

4. References:

1. A.-V. Andriu, “Adaptive Phishing Detection: Harnessing the Power of Artificial Intelligence for Enhanced Email Security,” Romanian Cyber Secur. J., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 3–9, May 2023, doi: 10.54851/v5i1y202301.
2. S. Douzi, F. A. AlShahwan, M. Lemoudden, and B. El Ouahidi, “Hybrid Email Spam Detection Model Using Artificial Intelligence,” Int. J. Mach. Learn. Comput., vol. 10, no. 2, Feb. 2020, doi: 10.18178/ijmlc.2020.10.2.937.
3. Rahaman M (2024) Foundations of Phishing Detection Using Deep Learning: A Review of Current Techniques, Insights2TechinfoAvailable: https://insights2techinfo.com/foundations-of-phishing-detection-using-deep-learning-a-review-of-current-techniques/
4. E. Gandotra and D. Gupta, “An Efficient Approach for Phishing Detection using Machine Learning,” in Multimedia Security: Algorithm Development, Analysis and Applications, K. J. Giri, S. A. Parah, R. Bashir, and K. Muhammad, Eds., Singapore: Springer, 2021, pp. 239–253. doi: 10.1007/978-981-15-8711-5_12.
5. A. Nyalapelli, S. Sharma, P. Phadnis, M. Patil, and A. Tandle, “Recent Advancements in Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning for 5G Technology: A Review,” in 2023 2nd International Conference on Paradigm Shifts in Communications Embedded Systems, Machine Learning and Signal Processing (PCEMS), Apr. 2023, pp. 1–8. doi: 10.1109/PCEMS58491.2023.10136039.
6. A. K. Abdallah and R. K. Abdallah, “Smart Solutions for Smarter Schools: Leveraging Artificial Intelligence to Revolutionize Educational Administration and Leadership,” in Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, Sixth Edition, IGI Global, 2025, pp. 1–14. doi: 10.4018/978-1-6684-7366-5.ch078.
7. P. Pappachan, Sreerakuvandana, and M. Rahaman, “Conceptualising the Role of Intellectual Property and Ethical Behaviour in Artificial Intelligence,” in Handbook of Research on AI and ML for Intelligent Machines and Systems, IGI Global, 2024, pp. 1–26. doi: 10.4018/978-1-6684-9999-3.ch001.
8. M. Rahaman, F. Tabassum, V. Arya, and R. Bansal, “Secure and sustainable food processing supply chain framework based on Hyperledger Fabric technology,” Cyber Secur. Appl., vol. 2, p. 100045, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.csa.2024.100045.
9. T. S. Guzella and W. M. Caminhas, “A review of machine learning approaches to Spam filtering,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 36, no. 7, pp. 10206–10222, Sep. 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2009.02.037.
10. A. Alhogail and A. Alsabih, “Applying machine learning and natural language processing to detect phishing email,” Comput. Secur., vol. 110, p. 102414, Nov. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.cose.2021.102414.
11. Vajrobol, V., Gupta, B. B., & Gaurav, A. (2024). Mutual information based logistic regression for phishing URL detection. Cyber Security and Applications, 2, 100044.
12. Abd El-Latif, A. A., Hammad, M. A., Maleh, Y., Gupta, B. B., & Mazurczyk, W. (Eds.). (2023). Artificial Intelligence for Biometrics and Cybersecurity: Technology and Applications. IET.

Cite As

Kasa A.S. (2024) Machine Learning Models for Phishing Detection, Insights2Techinfo, pp.1

737200cookie-checkMachine Learning Models for Phishing Detectionyes