PDMLP: PHISHING DETECTION USING MULTILAYER PERCEPTRON

International Journal of Network Security & Its Applications (IJNSA) Vol. 12, No.3, May 2020
DOI: 10.5121/ijnsa.2020.12304 59
PDMLP: PHISHING DETECTION USING
MULTILAYER PERCEPTRON
Saad Al-Ahmadi1
and Tariq Lasloum2
1
Department of Computer Science, College of Computer and Information Science, King
Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
2
Department of Computer Engineering, College of Computer and Information Science,
King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
ABSTRACT
A phishing website is a significant problem on the internet. It’s one of the Cyber-attack types where
attackers try to obtain sensitive information such as username and password or credit card information.
The recent growth in deploying a Detection phishing URL system on many websites has resulted in a
massive amount of available data to predict phishing websites. In this paper, we purpose a new method to
develop a phishing detection system called phishing detection based on a multilayer perceptron (PDMLP),
which used on two types of datasets. The performance of these mechanisms evaluated in terms of
Accuracy, Precision, Recall, and F-measure. Results showed that PDMLP provides better performance in
comparison to KNN, SVM, C4.5 Decision Tree, RF, and RoF to classifiers.
KEYWORDS
MLP, Phishing, machine learning, Features.
1. INTRODUCTION
Phishing is one of Cyber-attack types. This attack takes place by stealing secret information or
luring users into giving sensitive information, such as usernames, passwords, and credit card
number. Also, phishing attacker mostly lures those victim users to have them enter their privet
information into the phishing pages [1]. APWG (Anti-Phishing Working Group) in 2019, a total
number of 162,155 was detected as phishing sites in the fourth quarter of 2019, where the third
quarter decreased by 266,387, and decreased by 182,465 in the second quarter, and the fourth
quarter of 2018 shows an increase of 138,328 [2]. Statistics study from the Kaspersky Lab, in
2019, 19.8% of targeted computer users were attacked by Malware-class. It also showed that web
antivirus components identified a total of 273,782,113 URLs as malicious [3].
Phishing URLs are established to provide phishing attacks. Mostly, every legitimate URL has
common characterization such as syntax: <protocol>://<hostname><path>. For example:
https://www.linkedin.com/login?fromSignIn=true&trk=guest_homepage-basic_nav-header-
signin.
“https://www.linkedin.com” indicates the base URL. To get the requested resource, the first part
to be used is the protocol of the URL. For example, HTTP, HTTPS, and FTP are generally the
most used protocols. <hostname> represents the webserver identifier on Internet. In the URL
shown above, the hostname is www.linkedin.com, while the domain is the LinkedIn name and

60
the TLD (Top Level Domain) is (.com). <path> in the URL contains different punctuation marks
such as /, ., -, ...etc. The path is represented by the content, which happened after the first forward
slash and, comes after the <hostname> [4]. Looking to a phishing URL that unoriginal such as
Amazon: https://www.co- amazon.us.net.jp.a7w8errq8tcs9bn gt6rxa.net/signin/, where the
design is as follows:
- Protocol: https
- Subdomain: co-amazon.us.net
- Domain: a7w8errq8tcs9bngt6rxa.net
- Hostname:amazon.co.jp.a7w8errq8tcs9bngt6rxa.ne
- Free URL: sign in.
The attacker provides a fake website that generally has a login form, therefore when a user opens
it and login in with personal information, the attacker will have access to that information [5].
Also, these are steps involved in a phishing attack:
- Attackers establish fake webpage.
- The attacker sends a link to the fake webpage to the victim.
- Users open the fake webpage and submit secret and confidential information.
- Attackers have secret and confidential information about the victim.
Machine learning is the most critical recent phishing URL detection research, which is the
phishing URL detection based. The extracted features quality plays an essential role in the
machine learning methods’ final results. The extraction and selection of the most useful features
is a more important thing of recent research before processing them [6].
It's necessary to understand the most fundamentals required for any designed system only so that
we could detect phishing URLs. Those fundamentals are features, datasets, and classifiers. Based
on studies, each website mostly consists of 31 features. Moreover, the dataset must be obtainable
from many websites such as Alexa,Phishtank, and Kaggle website. Dataset classified into two
parts: legitimate and phishing. The dataset mostly should be separated into a training dataset and
testing data set. However, the classifier used to classify the dataset, for example, Random Forest
classifier (RF), Recurrent Neural Networks (RNN), Support Vector Machine (SVM), K-Nearest
Neighbours (KNN), and Multilayer Perceptron (MLP). The results obtained will be based on
Accuracy, Precision, Recall, F-measure, and Confusion Matrix.
The proposed work is structured as the following: Section 2 discusses practices and different
methods presented in the literature for phishing detection of websites. Section 3 introduces the
proposed methodology by merely using a multilayer perceptron. In part 4, we have explained the
experiment results, two types of datasets applied to the proposed classifier for the detection of
phishing websites—finally, the conclusion is given in Section 5.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Based on cascading style sheet (CSS), Phishing-Alarm is proposed by authors in [1] to detect
phishing websites, where this solution based on three phases, feature extraction, compute the
similarity, and phishing decision. First, the CSS rule extracted for suspicious page and target
page, calculates the similarity between them if the difference between them notified, then the
website is phishing. Dataset collected almost 9,307 phishing websites from PhishTank, where
testing use approximately 3,115 and training use 6,192. Using Recall, F1 and precision will help
determine the performance for this proposed and compared with other approaches, and this is the
best when Recall is 97.92%, F1 is 0.99 and, precision is 100%.

61
Auto-updated white-list of legitimate sites is a system proposed by authors in [5], which is made
of multiple modules that prevent phishing attacks. The first one is the DNS and URL
matching,which has a white-list that consists of two factors, domain name and its IP address. The
second one is phishing identification; it checks if the website is phishing or benign. It’s essential
to test the hyperlinks features to decide by extracting the hyperlinks from the website and then
applying the algorithm that detects phishing. Notice to the user will be shown in the case of
website phishing after examination for legitimacy. However, the system will update the white-list
by adding the domain if the website is legitimate. Based on three factors of hyperlinks, the
algorithm for phishing detection takes the decision. Those factors are a website that does not
have hyperlinks, null links in the source code, and foreign links in the source code. As a result,
that method is very efficient with protection toward phishing attacks. It has an 86.02 % true
positive rate and a false positive rate of 1.48 % and an accuracy of 89.38%.
It is essential to apply deep learning Machine by two types of features: interaction feature and
original features, which detect the phishing URL. Deep Belief Networks (DBN) used to discover
phishing websites. From ISP (Internet Service Provider), real IPs is used for testing. Fishing
features can be extracted from the data set by DBN. Contrastive Divergence (CD) is selected as a
training algorithm. However, when (TPR) is being used as an evaluation criterion, the result
shows that 90% true positive rate (TPR), while 0.6% is a false positive rate (FPR) [7].
The authors in [8] proposed a new solution to detect phishing attacks called PhishLimiter. This
solution used Artificial Neural Network (ANN), which is developed using the PhishLimiter
Score (PLS) system to classify phishing signatures. Two-type inspection approaches are used:
Store and Forward (SF) as well as Forward and Inspect (FI). To evaluate PhishLimiter, Gruber,
Spoon, and Rodney Approaches are used. However, the Gruber approach is the most efficient
because of its minimum inspection time needed for every URL. The result shows PhishLimiter
accuracy is very high, with an approximate average of 98.39%.
To make the classification, constructing a phishing webpage detection model SSM (SAE-
Softmax model) is based on Stacked Auto-encoder (SAE) and uses of the Softmax regression
model proposed by authors in [9]. Using the SAE network helps with data reconstruction
implementation, while Softmax helps with adjusting the network. A total of 52 extracted features
are classified into two categories: URL related features and HTML based features. After many
experiments, it’s been shown that the best number of hidden layers is 2. Moreover, the width of
the first hidden layers is 50, while the second hidden layers are 40. Finally, the result shows a
99,95% accuracy with 0.08 times of computation for one iteration.
The authors in [10] applying machine learning models helps to predict the phishing site by
comparing feature-engineering for random forest classifier (RF) and feature-engineering for
Long Short Term Memory (LSTM) which is a new method for recurrent neural networks (RNN).
First, it extracts a set of 14 features rather than an algorithm to classify and build this model by
the random forest (RF) method. In the training process, 2 million URLs were used, 50% were
phishing, which was from Phishtank, and 50% of them were legitimate, which were from Crawl.
Results showed that the LSTM network is 98.7% average accuracy with a 98% average of F1-
Score while in RF, the average accuracy is 93.5%, and the average of F1-Score is 93%.
The authors in [11] proposed a new approach using machine learning detection to classify URLs.
This new approach is depending on natural language processing features by using word vector
representation and models that called ngram as the most critical features on the blacklist word.
Providing classification and criteria with those features extracted from ngram models, word
vector representation, and other lexical properties will use the Support Vector Machine (SVM) as
a machine learning algorithm. The total number of extracted features from the word2vec model

62
is 100. However, out of 150,397 URLs, 107,615 were benign, while 42,782 were malicious. The
result shows that we can see that SVM achieves the highest level of accuracy rate of 97.1% and
0.95 F1 score while maintaining the classification time of 0.01 second.
To enhance the phishing website prediction, the authors in [12] suggested using the deep neural
networks (DNNs) with evolutionary algorithm-based feature selection and weighting procedures
during the hybrid intelligent phishing website prediction in order to come up with new
suggestions which could be helpful in the reduction of the phishing. First, after that pre-
processing phase, collecting phishing and data set of legitimate websites is responsible for
extracting features, preparing the training data set, and extracting popular features of the website
to be mainly used to construct and train a DNN classifier which is converted into whether
numerical or categorical features. However, it’s best to use the Genetic algorithm (GA) to get the
highest influential features and the best weights after that utilizing the features with DNN to
enhance the detection of the phishing webpage. Finally, the DNN training and evaluation phase
will take place to finalized,improving the phishing website prediction. By comparing DNNs and
other classifiers without and with GA-based feature selecting and weighting the classification
accuracies of BPNN, DNN, C4.5, and KNN significantly improved by applying the GA-based
feature selection method from 87.14, 88.77, 84.92, and 87.07% to 89.36, 90.39, 85.37, and
87.8%, respectively. The classification accuracies of BPNN, DNN, C4.5, and KNN with GA
based feature weighting increased further to 89.28, 91.13, 85.37, and 88.99%, respectively.
To detect the phishing website, the authors in [13] proposed a model called Resource Description
Framework (RDF) used as well as ensemble learning algorithms for the classification of a web
page. First, construction of the RDF by using 21 features is done. Then, extracting keywords
from the website fed into the search engine and obtained the top 10 pages. After that comparing
those ten pages with the suspicious website, if they were similar, then the page is legitimate.
Otherwise, the page inserts to random forest classifier to decide if this page is phishing or
legitimate. To sum up, the 2056 website used with 1256 phishing and 800 legitimate websites.
The result shows the accuracy of this method is 98.68%, the true positive rate is 98.8%, and the
false-positive rate is 1.5%.
The authors in [14] designed a framework to detect phishing URLs by using fuzzy logic as a
classifier. To clarify and check the websites are phishing or legitimate, the extract features will
have designed rules, where those rules depend on (If … then).From Phishtank, almost 1000
URLs collected to collect datasets, which the result shows the accuracy of this method is 91.46%.
DF.GWO-BPNN module is proposed by authors in [15] to classify the phishing websites. All
websites that processed are always caching by using this module. The URL composition extracts
and classifies features such as, (Extraction and classification module). In addition to this module,
the URL features consist of two criteria: dominant and recessive.URLs feed the DF.GWO-BPNN
Classifier for more procession with recessive. Therefore, 3000 phishing sites are tested out of a
total of 6000 URL. The result shows the Accuracy of DF.GWO-BPNN is 98.78 %, which the
best after comparing it with other famous used classification models such as SVM, PSOBPNN,
and the BPNN model.
In [16], the authors used different modules to detect the phishing website and compare them for
accuracy. Those modules are the Random Forest Classifier, k-Nearest Neighbour (k-NN),
Artificial Neural Networks (ANN), C4.5 Decision Tree, Support Vector Machine (SVM) and
Rotation Forest (RoF). They used datasets brought from the available public. The result shows
that the Accuracy for Random Forest Classifier is best with 97.36%, where the accuracy for other
modules is k-NN 97.18 %, SVM 97.17%, ANN 96.91%, RoF 96.79% and C4.5 95.88%.
The authors in [17] proposed a module to detect phishing websites. A module has been used as
the main solution which uses the Random Forest algorithm. However, for accurate results, three

63
main factors play a role in processing these data, which are Parsing, Heuristic Classification of
data, Performance Analysis. Moreover, The RStudio tool and random forest classification
algorithm are very beneficial, considering that it specifies how effective it is. Parsing helps
analyze the feature set, which represents 8 out of 31. Second, Heuristic Classification of data is
done where RStudio was used for the implementation of the Random forest algorithm with 70%
training 30% testing. Finally, Performance Analysis, the result showed that the random forest has
the best outcome with an accuracy of 95%. Table 1 represents the results of the comparative
evaluation.
Table 1. summary of phishing URLs detection approaches
Work Algorithm
Data Set Performance
Acc.,Prec.,
Rec.
Dataset source Dataset size
Legitimate Phishing Legitimate Phishing
[1] Phishing-
Alarm: Based
on the
cascading
style sheet
(CSS) to
detect the
phishing
websites.
_ PhishTank _ 9,307 _, 100, 97.92
[5] white-list: The
DNS and URL
matching has
a white-list
that consists
of two factors,
domain name
and its IP
address.
Alexa
Stuffgate
Online
payment
service
provider
PhishTank 200
150
55
1120 89.38, _, _
[7] CD:
Contrastive
Divergence
(CD) is
selected as a
training
algorithm.
ISP ISP _ _ _, _, _
[8] ANN:
Artificial
Neural
Network.
PhishLimiter:
a new solution
to detect
phishing
attacks.
_ _
4,150
1,185
11,055
1897
4,559
3,718
98.39, _, _
[9] SSM: is
phishing
webpage
detection
Alexa PhishTank 8,848 11,321 99.95, _, _

64
model (SAE-
Softmax) is
based on the
Stacked Auto
encoder.
[10] LSTM: New
method for
recurrent
neural
networks
(RNN).
Common
Crawl
PhishTank 1M 1M 98.76, 98.60,
98.93
[11] SVM: Support
Vector
Machine as a
machine
learning
algorithm
DMOZ MDL+
Mac0de+
CleanMX
107,615 42,782 97.1, 93, 97
[12] GA: Genetic
algorithm to
get the highest
influential
features and
the best
weights.
UCI UCI 548 702 91.13, _, _
[13] RDF:
Resource
Description
Framework is
being used as
well as
ensemble
learning
algorithms for
the
classification
of webpage
Alexa+
Google’s
top 1000
most
visited
Sites
PhishTank
+
Reasonabl
e-
Phishing
Web
pages List
800 1256 98.68, _, _
[14] Fuzzy logic:
To clarify and
check the
websites is
phishing or
legitimate,
where those
rules depend
on (If …
then).
_ PhishTank _ 1000 91.46, _, _
[15] DF.GWO-
BPNN: To
classify the
phishing
websites
where this
Security
Alliance
PhishTank
APWG
4300 4500 98.78, _, _

65
module have
two criteria,
dominant
feature and the
recessive
features
[16] ANN, KNN,
RF and SVM
are classifiers
used to detect
phishing
websites.
_ _ _ _ 97.36, _, _
[17] RF: The
Random
Forest
algorithm is a
classifier to
detect the
phishing
webpage.
_ PhishTank _ _ 95, _, _
3. THE PROPOSED PDMLP METHOD
The proposed PDMLP is based on the multilayer perceptron (MLP), which is the most important
model from the deep neural network. Figure 1 shows the different layers of MLP, which is made
of three or more layers. These layers are the input layer, one or more hidden layers, and the
output layer. They contain threshold, weight, and transfer function for data to transfer from the
anterior to the posterior and then to the output layer. If the error isn't up to the target between the
known data and the data of the output layer, the threshold of the layers and weights will be
adjusted from the back forward.
By forming a group of linear, the Perceptron is calculating single output from many inputs based
on its outputs weights. Producing an output y requires a function called activation function,
which multiplies inputs made up of x1, x2, …, xn with corresponding weights made up of w1, w2,
…, wn. After that, it puts the outputs through a non-linear activation function. Which is written
mathematically as followed:
𝑦 = 𝜑(∑ 𝑤𝑖 𝑥𝑖 + 𝑏)
𝑛
𝑖=1
= 𝜑(𝑤 𝑇
𝑥 + 𝑏) (1)
Where w represents the weights vector, x represents the inputs vector, b represents the bias, and φ
represents the activation function [18].

66
Figure 1. Multilayer Perceptron
We will use the MLP to classify data and detect the phishing website by following the next stages:
3.1 The dataset
Several high-quality datasets are available on many reliable websites. Alexa, Phishtank, UCI, and
Kaggle website are well-known sources for a lot of exciting datasets. In this work, the UCI, and
Kaggle websites will be used for experimental purposes. Every database consists of up to 31
features, as shown in table 2. The last attribute is " Result " which refers to the presence of a
phishing website.
Table 2. Table Type Styles
# Attributes
1 having_IP_Address 17 Submitting_to_email
2 URL_Length 18 Abnormal_URL
3 Shortining_Service 19 Redirect
4 having_At_Symbol 20 on_mouseover
5 double_slash_redirecting 21 RightClick
6 Prefix_Suffix 22 popUpWidnow
7 having_Sub_Domain 23 Iframe
8 SSLfinal_State 24 age_of_domain
9 Domain_registeration_length 25 DNSRecord
10 Favicon 26 web_traffic
11 port 27 Page_Rank
12 HTTPS_token 28 Google_Index
13 Request_URL 29 Links_pointing_to_page
14 URL_of_Anchor 30 Statistical_report
15 Links_in_tags 31 Result
16 SFH

67
We used two types of datasets which are; first, Phishing website 1, which consists of 11,055
rows, and second, Phishing websites 2, which consists of 2456 rows, will be divided into two
parts. First part (80%) will be used for training the classifier whereas the second part (20%) will
be used for testing purpose. Analysis of the dataset, Figure 2 shows a correlation matrix of the
features where is no specific feature has a very high correlation in our target value except for
Favicon with popup Window. Moreover, some features have a negative correlation with the
target value, and others have positive.
Figure 2. Correlation Matrix of Features
3.2. Result feature
The samples of the dataset which we are working on should be roughly balanced. An unbalanced
dataset can obligate the classifier to be biased into one or two classes with many samples,
whereas reducing other classes with fewer samples. Our dataset is unbalanced, and it contains
more samples for class Phishing, than it does for class Legitimate.
4. EXPERIMENT RESULTS
We implement an MPL classifier with two hidden layers and 100 neurons. We used two types of
datasets. The first type contains 11,055 URLs where 6,157 is legitimate, and 4,898 is phishing,
the second type is containing 2,456 URLs where 1,094 is legitimate, and 1,362 is phishing. The
following parameters are used for reporting results [19]:

68
4.1. Accuracy
The ratio of instances classified vs. overall number of instances.
𝐴𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑦 =
𝑇𝑃 + 𝑇𝑁
𝑇𝑃 + 𝑇𝑁 + 𝐹𝑃 + 𝐹𝑁
(2)
4.2. Precision
The ratio of relevant instances properly identified by classifier vs. the overall number of
classified relevant instances.
𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 =
𝑇𝑃
𝑇𝑃 + 𝐹𝑃
(3)
4.3. Recall
The ratio of relevant instances properly identified by classifier vs. the overall number of relevant
instances.
𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑙 =
𝑇𝑃
𝑇𝑃 + 𝐹𝑁
(4)
4.4. F1-score
Also called F-measure or F-score, which means the harmonic mean of Recall and Precision.
𝐹1 =
2 ∗ 𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑙 ∗ 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛
𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑙 ∗ 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛
(5)
One of the challenges that we faced us is to figure out the strength of Accuracy, Precision,
Recall, and F1- measure in PDMLP. We added other classifiers such as KNN, SVM C4.5
Decision, RF, and RoF to compare them with PDMLP. Table 3 compares our proposed with
several types of machine learning tools, namely KNN, SVM, C4.5 Decision Tree, RF, and
Rotation Forest RoF, to classify the phishing website. The performance of these classifiers
evaluated in terms of Accuracy, Precision, Recall, F1-measure.

69
Table 3. Results
Type Dataset name Accuracy Precision Recall F1-measure
PDMLP
Phishing website1 0.9665 0.9665 0.9665 0.9665
Phishing Websites2 0.9573 0.9578 0.9573 0.9572
KNN
SVM
C4.5 Decision
Tree
RF
RoF
Figure 3 shows a comparison between the accuracy of PDMLP and the accuracy of other
classifiers such as KNN, SVM, C4.5 Decision Tree, RF, and RoF in two types of phishing
websites. In Phishing website 1, The accuracy of PDMLP is better than the accuracy of the other
classifiers; also, the accuracy of PDMLP is better than the accuracy of the different classifiers in
Phishing websites 2. Regarding the increase of the dataset, an improvement in the accuracy will
be seen.
Figure 3. The accuracy for PDMLP and other classifiers
In the PDMLP precision compressed to the other classifiers, we can say PDMLP precision is
better than the precision of the KNN, SVM, C4.5 Decision Tree, RF, and RoF, as shown in
Figure 4.

70
Figure 4. The precision for PDMLP and other classifiers
Figure 5 shows the difference between the Recall of the PDMLP and other classifiers. So, we
notify the Recall of PDMLP is better than Recall of the different classifiers.
Figure 5. The difference of the recall for PDMLP and other classifiers
Figure 6 provides a comparison of the F1-measure of the two different datasets for the PDMLP
and other classifiers where the F1-measure with PDMLP has better results than with KNN, SVM,
C4.5 Decision Tree, RF, and RoF also the F1-measure of the PDMLP is better if datasets are
large.

71
Figure 6. The comparison of F1-measure for PDMLP and other classifiers
5. CONCLUSIONS
We have presented a new method for phishing website detection called PDMLP, which is based
on MLP classifier. We used two types of datasets. The first one is 11,055, and the second one is
2456, where 31 features are used. The performance of PDMLP has been evaluated in terms of
Accuracy, Precision, Recall, and F-measure. From experiment results, the performance of our
proposal is better than that of KNN, SVM, C4.5 Decision Tree, RF, and RoF.
REFERENCES
[1] J. Mao, W. Tian, P. Li, T. Wei, and Z. Liang, “Phishing-Alarm: Robust and Efficient Phishing
Detection via Page Component Similarity,” IEEE Access, vol. 5, pp. 17020–17030, 2017, doi:
10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2743528.
[2] Phishing Attack Trends Report-4Q 2019.Online. Available: https://apwg.org/trendsreports.
[3] Kaspersky Security Bulletin:Overallstatisticals for 2017. [Online]. Available:
https://securelist.com/kaspersky-security-bulletin-2019-statistics/95475/, accessed December 12,
2019.
[4] S. G. Selvaganapathy, M. Nivaashini, and H. P. Natarajan, “Deep belief network based detection and
categorization of malicious URLs,” Inf. Secur. J., vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 145–161, 2018, doi:
10.1080/19393555.2018.1456577.
[5] A. K. Jain and B. B. Gupta, “A novel approach to protect against phishing attacks at client side using
auto-updated white-list,” Eurasip J. Inf. Secur., vol. 2016, no. 1, 2016, doi: 10.1186/s13635-016-
0034-3.
[6] P. Yang, G. Zhao, and P. Zeng, “Phishing website detection based on multidimensional features
driven by deep learning,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, no. January, pp. 15196–15209, 2019, doi:
10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2892066.
[7] P. Yi, Y. Guan, F. Zou, Y. Yao, W. Wang, and T. Zhu, “Web phishing detection using a deep
learning framework,” Wirel. Commun. Mob. Comput., vol. 2018, 2018, doi: 10.1155/2018/4678746.
[8] T. Chin, K. Xiong, and C. Hu, “Phishlimiter: A Phishing Detection and Mitigation Approach Using
Software-Defined Networking,” IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 42513–42531, 2018, doi:
10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2837889.

72
[9] J. Feng, L. Zou, and T. Nan, “A phishing webpage detection method based on stacked autoencoder
and correlation coefficients,” J. Comput. Inf. Technol., vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 41–54, 2019, doi:
10.20532/cit.2019.1004702.
[10] A. C. Bahnsen, E. C. Bohorquez, S. Villegas, J. Vargas, and F. A. Gonzalez, “Classifying phishing
URLs using recurrent neural networks,” eCrime Res. Summit, eCrime, pp. 1–8, 2017, doi:
10.1109/ECRIME.2017.7945048.
[11] Q. T. Hai and S. O. Hwang, “Detection of malicious URLs based on word vector representation and
ngram,” J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 5889–5900, 2018, doi: 10.3233/JIFS-169831.
[12] W. Ali and A. A. Ahmed, “Hybrid intelligent phishing website prediction using deep neural networks
with genetic algorithm-based feature selection and weighting,” IET Inf. Secur., vol. 13, no. 6, pp.
659–669, 2019, doi: 10.1049/iet-ifs.2019.0006.
[13] V. Muppavarapu, A. Rajendran, and S. K. Vasudevan, “Phishing detection using RDF and random
forests,” Int. Arab J. Inf. Technol., vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 817–824, 2018.
[14] H. Chapla, R. Kotak, and M. Joiser, “A Machine Learning Approach for URL Based Web Phishing
Using Fuzzy Logic as Classifier,” Proc. 4th Int. Conf. Commun. Electron. Syst. ICCES 2019, no.
Icces, pp. 383–388, 2019, doi: 10.1109/ICCES45898.2019.9002145.
[15] E. Zhu, D. Liu, C. Ye, F. Liu, X. Li, and H. Sun, “Effective phishing website detection based on
improved BP neural network and dual feature evaluation,” Proc. - 16th IEEE Int. Symp. Parallel
Distrib. Process. with Appl. 17th IEEE Int. Conf. Ubiquitous Comput. Commun. 8th IEEE Int. Conf.
Big Data Cloud Comput. 11th IEEE Int. Conf. Soc. Comput. Netw. 8th IEEE Int. Conf. Sustain.
Comput. Commun. ISPA/IUCC/BDCloud/SocialCom/SustainCom 2018, pp. 759–765, 2019, doi:
10.1109/BDCloud.2018.00114.
[16] A. Subasi, E. Molah, F. Almkallawi, and T. J. Chaudhery, “Intelligent phishing website detection
using random forest classifier,” 2017 Int. Conf. Electr. Comput. Technol. Appl. ICECTA 2017, vol.
2018-January, pp. 1–5, 2017, doi: 10.1109/ICECTA.2017.8252051.
[17] S. Parekh, D. Parikh, S. Kotak, and S. Sankhe, “A New Method for Detection of Phishing Websites:
URL Detection,” Proc. Int. Conf. Inven. Commun. Comput. Technol. ICICCT 2018, no. Icicct, pp.
949–952, 2018, doi: 10.1109/ICICCT.2018.8473085.
[18] I. Tereikovskyi, I. Subach, O. Tereikovskyi, L. Tereikovska, S. Toliupa, and V. Nakonechnyi,
“Parameter Definition for Multilayer Perceptron Intended for Speaker Identification,” no. 1, pp. 227–
231, 2020, doi: 10.1109/atit49449.2019.9030504.
[19] A. El Aassal, S. Baki, A. Das, and R. M. Verma, “An In-Depth Benchmarking and Evaluation of
Phishing Detection Research for Security Needs,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 22170–22192, 2020, doi:
10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2969780.

PDMLP: PHISHING DETECTION USING MULTILAYER PERCEPTRON

More Related Content

What's hot (17)

Similar to PDMLP: PHISHING DETECTION USING MULTILAYER PERCEPTRON (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

PDMLP: PHISHING DETECTION USING MULTILAYER PERCEPTRON