1
Master Project Report
PhishLurk:
A Mechanism for Classifying and
Preventing Phishing Websites
by: Mohammed Alqahtani
1. Committee Members and Signatures:
Approved by
Date
__________________________________
_____________
Advisor: Dr. Edward Chow
__________________________________
_____________
Committee member: Dr. Albert Glock
__________________________________
Committee member: Dr. Chuan Yue
_____________
2
Abstract
Phishing attackers have been improving and sophisticating their attempts using different
ways and methods to target users. At the same time, users are using varieties ways to access the
internet with different platforms, different computation capabilities and various level of
protection support which expands the surface for phishing attackers and complicates the
provisioning of security protection.
I proposed PhishLurk, an anti-phishing search website that classifies and prevents
phishing attacks. PhishLurk provides the protection from the server side and uses the coloring
scheme and warning for classification in order to consume as little computation and screen
resource as possible on the client-side. It can work efficiently with varieties of devices having
different capabilities. PhishLurk uses PhishTank as the blacklist provider and checks the list in
real time to achieve the maximum possible accuracy. The idea of PhishLurk can be a useful
enhancement, if it is adopted by major search engines, e.g., Google and Yahoo. Besides the
mechanism can be optimized to apply and work efficiently for smartphones.
3
1. Introduction
Phishing is a cybercrime when an attacker tries to gather personal and financial
information, such as usernames, passwords, and credit card numbers, from recipients by
pretending to be a legitimate website. Mostphishing attacks come into two types: emails and
webpages that spoof or lure the user to enter sensitive information. On other words, phishing is
directing users to fraudulent web sites in order to get the sensitive information. The sensitive
information can be confidential information or financial data [22]. Fiugre 1 shows a sample of
phishing website. Phishers used to utilize emails to lure the targets to give away some
information. Lately, Phishers started to used different methods to lure and steal the targeted
users’ information, Methods such as faked websites, trojans, key-loggers and screen captures
[23].
Fiugre1 : Sample of a phishing website (source: www.phishtank.com)
1.1 Impact of phishing
Phishing has been a major concern in the IT security. In the U.S., companies lose more
than $2 billion every year as results of phishing attacks [6]. 1.2 million users in the U.S. were
phished between May 2004 & May 2005 which approximately cost $929 million[6]. AOL-UK
announced that one out of twenty users has lost money from phishing attacks [25]. In 2010 a
4
survey indicates that generally between half a billion dollars to $1 trillion every year is the loss
from cybercrime due to the loss of confidential banking information or corporate data [25].
2. Background
Recently, Users started to have more varieties of access to surf the internet for example
notebooks, PC, game console, handhelds, and smartphones , However; using more varieties of
devises made in different abilities and features make it complicate to provide a full protection,
especially from phishing attacks . Currently there is no perfect protection. One of the most used
devices is smartphones. According to a survey of ComScore, Inc. the number of smartphones
subscribers increased 60 percent in 2010 compared to 2009 [4]. Another report by Nielsen
Company indicates that by 2011 half of cell-phones users would be using smartphones [5]. Users
prefer to use these types of access to do their activities and tasks due to the advantages they
provide. Smartphone is preferred to use because of the easiness, flexibility, and mobility. Some
activities such as online banking, paying bills, online shopping, emailing, and social
networking[5] demand users to enter sensitive information to complete the authentication and
authorization process. Sensitive information could be credit-cards numbers, password and
usernames. In fact, having varieties of accesses to the internet expands the surface for phishing
attackers and complicate the protection.
2.1 History of Phishing
The idea of luring people to give away their sensitive information started back in the
seventies [27]. Phishers used the combined phishing technique: making phone calls “Phreaking”
and luring the target client “Fishing”. In mid-1990’s, the main target of phishing attackers was
America Online (AOL). Phishers keep sending instant messages to users, using social
engineering and similar domain names like www.ao1.com, to lure users to reveal their
passwords. Then, utilize users’ account for free. Later attackers started seeking for more details
and information such as credit card numbers and social security numbers. During the past ten
years, Phishing attackers start attacking at a higher level and target users withfinancial service
and online payment directly such as E-buyers, PayPal, eBay and banks. In addition to the
previous techniques, attackers used more advance techniques such as key-logging, browser
vulnerabilities, and link obfuscation [27].
5
2.2 Most Targeted Industries
As result of the denseconfidential content and financial use, the financial services and
online payment are the most targeted industries by phishing attackers [22]. Figure 2 shows the
distribution of the phishing activities by the targeted areas.
Figure 2. Phishing Activity Trends Report - 2nd Half 2010 - Anti-Phishing Working Group (APWG)
2.3 Why Phishing Works
Phishing works because of many reasons. One of the most common reasons is the users’
carelessness and ignorance about how to differentiate whether the website is legitimate or
phishing [1]. Moreover, phishing attackers work hard by sending millions of messages and
attempts, looking for vulnerabilities, and seeking for sensitive information.
2.4 Existing Work Anti-Phishing:
Many techniques have been proposed focusing on anti-phishing, using different methods
of filtering and detection, such as black lists, plugs-in, extensions, and toolbars for browsers [2].
The developers of browsers try hard to provide a solid protection such as warning the user by
displaying a box massage if the website is a potential phishing website, or contains invalid or
6
expired SSL certificates. Often a third party and black-lists are involved to display and identify
phishing websites [3].
3. Related Work
PhishTank is an nonprofit project aimed to build dependable database of phishing URLs
[7]. The project is to collect, verify, track, and share phishing data. In order to report a phishing
link, the user has to be registered as a member. So the admin can learn and judge each member's
contribution. The phishing websites can be reported and submitted via emails or via PhishTank’s
websites. The data are verified by a committee after they are submitted by the members.
PhishTank’s database can be shared via an API. The links in the original database are only
classified as “phishing” and “unknown”. We propose to classify the phishing links based on
PhishTank database with a more precise modification. PhishTank has been working effectively
to fight against phishing attacks, thousands of phishing links are detected and verified as valid
phishing sites monthly [9]. It uses the public’s effort and contribution to build a trustworthy and
dependable database that is open for everyone to use and share. As a result, several well-known
organizations and browsers started using PhishTank database such as Yahoo mail, Opera,
MacAfee, and Mozilla Firefox [10]. In my prototype, I use PhishTank as a phishing blacklist
provider.
In the paper titled “Large-Scale Automatic Classification of Phishing Pages [2]”, Colin
Whittaker, Brian Ryner, and Marria Nazif proposed an automatic classifier to detect phishing
websites. The classifier maintains Google’s phishing blacklist automatically and analyzes
millions of pages a day including examining the URL and the contents to verify whether the page
is phishing or not. The paper proposed a classifier works automatically with large-scale system
which will maintain a false positive rate below 0.1% and reduce the life time of phishing page.
They used machine learning technique to analyze the web page content. In my project, the
determination is based on Phishtank’s blacklist, My goal is not to determine whether the page
phishing or not, but to provide a new method to classify phishing links and considering two
factors: consuming as less memory and screen space as possible which eventually improve the
overall classification efficiency.
7
In the paper titled “PhishGuard: A Browser Plug-in for Protection from Phishing [8],
Joshi, Y. Saklikar, S. Das, D. Saha, proposed a mechanism to detect a forged website via
submitting fake credentials before the actual credentials during the login process of a website,
then the server-side analyzes the responses of the submissions of all those credentials to
determine whether the website is phishing or not. The mechanism was implemented on browsers
side “user-side” as plug-in of Mozilla Firefox, However; the mechanism only detects during the
log-in process for a user. If another user log-in to the same phishing website, he will goes
through the same detection process. In my project, if the website reported as phishing site, no
other user can get access, the reported link will be blocked, to the reported website.
In the paper titled “BogusBiter: A Transparent Protection Against Phishing Attacks [17]”
Chuan Yue and Haining Wang proposed a client-side tool called BogusBiter that send a large
number of bogus credentials to suspected phishing sites and hides the real credentials from
phishers . BogusBiter is unique and help legitimate web sites detect stolen credentials in a
timely manner by having the phisher to verify the credentials he has collected at that legitimate
web site. Bogus Biter was implanted as Firefox 2 extension. My project is different since it uses
the server side to provide the protection.
In the paper titled “The Battle Against Phishing: Dynamic Security Skins [18]” Rachna
Dhamija and J. D. Tygar proposed an anti-phishing tools helps user distinguishing if they are
interacting with a trusted site or not by [1]. This approach uses shared cryptographic image that
remote web servers use to proof their identities to users, in a way that supports easy verification
for humans being and hard for attackers to spoof/ It can’t provide protection when we have
users utilizing a public access because the approach requires support from both client-sides and
server-side. In my project there is no dependency on the client-side.
3.1 Blacklisting
Blacklisting is the idea of denying
the access to resources based on a list. The
blacklisting is determined either by a mechanism automatically e.g., Google’s blacklist [2] or by
the users’ feedback as the case in PhishTank [7], where users submit and report the suspicious
websites. The object of a blacklist can be a user, IP, website, or software.
8
We can classify varieties of blacklists as follows:

Content filter: It is a proxy server to filter the content. The proxy server not only blocks
banned URLs using blacklist but also use keywords, metadata, and pictures to filter the
content. Examples of content filters include DansGuardian [28] and SquidGuard [Refs]. In
SquidGuard, The proxy use advance web filtering polices to prevent inappropriate content
for the organization or company. The filter blocks URLs using blacklist, controls the content
by using the inferred keywords blocking from the metadata and the page content.
SquidGuard are used mostly at educational environments and for kids’ protection. The main
goal of content filter is to speed up the access control management efficiently. In
DansGuardian, the client requests URLs, DansGuardian collects them and compare against
the blacklist and whitelist. In case the request is clean, DansGuardian passes along the URL
request. If the URL is not clean, DansGuardian blocks it [28].

E-mail spam filter: It monitors, prevents, and blocks spam emails and phishing emails using a
blacklist of spam emails resource. It prevents them from reaching the client side. There are
many blacklists of emails’ anti spams, e.g., GFI MailEssentials’s list, ATL Abuse Block List,
Blacklist Master, Composite Blocking List (CBL), and SpamCop.

Many web-browsers and companies use their own blacklist against spams and phishing, e.g.,
IE, Google, and Norton.
3.2 Current Browser’s Phishing Protection
Most popular browsers provide a phishing filter that warns users from malicious websites
including phishing websites. Filters mainly depend on certain lists to detect the malicious
websites. IE7 used “Phishing Filter” that has been improved to be SmartScreen Filter in later
version of IE due to the weak protection phishing filter provides [15]. In IE 8 and IE 9
"SmartScreen Filter" verifies the visited websites based on the updated list of malicious websites
that Microsoft created and updated continuously [11] [12]. Similar to IE, Safari browser has
filters checking the websites while the user browsing against a list of phishing sites. After the
warning of PayPal to its members that Safari is not safe for their service [13], Safari started to
use an extended validation certificates to support analyzing websites [14]. Earlier versions of
Firefox take advantage of ant-phishing companies such as GeoTrust, or the Phish-Tank, using
9
their list to support identifying malicious websites. The current version of Firefox has adopted
Google's anti-phishing program to support its phishing protection.
Many research projects have proposed mechanisms that implemented as browser plugs-in
or tool-bar against phishing attack. The main problem with plugs-in and tool bar is the need for
users’ cooperation. Users may not cooperate and install the tool. Some users occasionally prefer
to turn their filter off to brows faster [16]. Plugs-in and tools bar in some devices may not be as
effective as in desktop browser due to the limitation in the performance and the screen space as
the case in smartphones.
3.3 Classification of Phishing Defense
The different phishing defense approaches can be further classified based on where the
alerts are generated:
•
Browsers themselves: IE9, Firefox 5.
•
Browsers extensions or plug-ins: BogusBiter, PhishGuard.
•
Anti-phishing Search Site: PhishLurk “my project”.
•
Proxy server: Dansguardian [20].
•
Anti-phishing Server: OpenDNS [19], GFI MailEssentials [21], and some browser
extensions use server side partially such as Skins [18].
According to the official website [20], DansGuardian is an active web content filter that
filters web sites based on a number of criteria including website URL, words and phrases
included in the page, file type, mime type and more. DansGuardian is configured as a proxy
server that control, filter, and monitor all content.Therefore it functions more than anti-phishing.
There is no such a project using proxy server as anti-phishing but it can be really an effective
technique to classify and prevent phishing websites.
4. The Proposed Project
In this project we propose to create a software tool, called PhishLurk, aiming to classify
and block phishing links. PhishLurk uses PhishTank as the provider of the blacklist. PhishLurk
10
indicates the risk to users and consumes as little computation and screen recourses as possible,
using coloring scheme and warning annotation. The process is fully done on the search server
side and delivers classified and protected links to the users. Even if the phishing protection was
disabled or uninstalled on client-side, PhishLurk still provide protected and classified links to the
user. Figure 3 shows explains PhishLurk’s scenario against phishing sites. In addition, PhishLurk
has a database which contains records for the visits of each website, and how many times the
website has been visited.
Figure 3: Diagram explains PhishLurk’s scenario against phishing sites
5. Design of PhishLurk
5.1 PhishLurk Components:

Classifier: to assesses and classifies the links based on PhishTank’s blacklist.

Logger: records the visits of each link, how many times the link has been visited.

Blacklist: an updated blacklist and Live checking using API.

Database: to store every single visited link, the number of visits for each link and
the link’s class.
Figure 4 is a diagram shows the design of PhishLurk.
11
Figure 4: Diagram shows the design of PhishLurk
Classifier: PhishLurk’s mechanism assesses and classifies the links based on PhishTank’s
blacklist, The mechanism classifies as following:

Phishing link (Red): It is an absolute phishing link. The link will be disabled, so even if
the user is ignorant or surfing carelessly as we saw in the survey [1], there is no way to
access the link.

Unknown link (Orange): It is a suspicious link. It might potentially be a phishing link. It
could be a link indicate the same name or part of a real company's name asking the user
to provide sensitive information. The link is submitted as a phishing link but it hasn’t
been verified yet. If the user clicks and gets access to this type of sites, it is their own
responsibility. The user gets warned before accessing the link.

Safe Link (Blue): These are safe links, totally not phishing. The user can access the link
without triggering warning messages. Figure 5 shows the categories of links that
PhishLurk classifies.
12
Type
Description
Phishing link
A valid phishing link, high risk.
Unknown link
Suspicious links, might be
phishing, but not verified yet.
Safe Link
links that are not blacklisted.
Color
Red
potentially
Orange
Blue
Treatment
Disabled, Users will be warned highly not to access
the links.
Users are warned about potential impact.
user can access the link without triggering warning
messages
Figure 5: Table showing the categories of links PhishLurk classifies

BlackList: PhishLurk utilizes PhishTank’s blacklist. In order to achieve the possible
maximum accuracy, PhishLurk updates the blacklist using two different methods:
-
Updating the blacklist periodically: downloading it every 24 hours.
-
Live checking using API.
Here the live checking is referred to checking individual url with PhishTank. If you have 10 urls
in the web page, 10 queries to PhishTank will be issued. Therefore there are trade-offs between
these two approaches.

Logger: PhishLurk has a logger that records the number of visits for every single visited link
within the web application and stores the data’s logs in PhishLurk’s database including
URLs, visits and the current class of the URL.

Database: It is a database to store the records of every single visited link including the
number of visits for each link and the link’s class. Users can have an access to the database to
view the table of the all likes have been visited by PhishLurk’s users; the links are also
colored based on their class on the revised web page.
6. Implementation
PhishLurk’s is programmed in PHP. PHP is widely used in web server side programing
and deployed on many web servers. PHP currently is supported by most of web servers including
Apache and Microsoft Internet Information Server. PHP works easily with HTML and provides
the ability to interact with the user dynamically.
Given that PhishLurk’s mechanism is aimed to use as less space and competition as
possible in the client side, PhishLurk uses CSS for classifying and indicating the risk level of the
13
links, due to the light computation CSS consumes. I created a database using MySQL to store the
logs records. I used two methods to read and to update the blacklist from PhishTank: Live
checking and periodic downloaded blacklist.
6.1 The Information flow
The information flow in PhishLurk starts by receiving the keywords queries from the
user. Next, the keyword is transferred to the search engine to execute the queries. Then, the
PhishLurk Classifier received query results and classifies them based on PhishTank’s blacklist.
After the classification, PhishLurk creates log records for all the visited URLs and registers the
visit. Finally, requested URLs are delivered to users’ browsers. Figure 6 explains the information
flow in PhishLurk.
Figure 6: Flowchart showing the information flow in PhishLurk.
PhishLurk needs a search engine to process the search queries. I used Google.com to
process the queries. I will explain why I use Google in Section 8. To send quires to Google, I
used the following statements:
$gg_url = 'http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q='. urlencode($query) . '&start=';
$ch = curl_init($gg_url.$page.'0');
curl_setopt_array($ch,$options);
$scraped="";
$scraped.=curl_exec($ch);
curl_close( $ch );
$results = array();
preg_match_all('/a href="([^"]+)" class=l.+?>.+?<\/a>/',$scraped,$results);
14
Toreceive the results back from Google and to show them, PhishLurk uses the following
statements:
$ch = curl_init($gg_url.$page.'0');
curl_setopt_array($ch,$options);
$scraped="";
$scraped.=curl_exec($ch);
curl_close( $ch );
$results = array();
preg_match_all('/a href="([^"]+)" class=l.+?>.+?<\/a>/',$scraped,$results);
For each link of the page results, Metadata function is used to show the website’s title and the
description related to the URL.
$content = file_get_contents($url);
$title = getMetaTitle($content);
$description = getMetaDescription($content);
6.2 Blacklist
PhishLurk needs to use the blacklist to classify a link. To check against the blacklist I
used two methods: updated blacklist and live checking.
6.2.1 Updated Blacklist
PhishTank provides a downloadable database “blacklist” and updated hourly to facilitate
utilizing PhishTank’s blacklist and phishing detection in your application. The PHP format of the
blacklist is available on: (http://data.phishtank.com/data/online-valid.php_serialized). The
blacklist file is big. The average size of the black list is between 13 and 17 MB, which takes time
to process and slows the performance during the update.
To improve the performance, I minimize size of the blacklist by first changing its format from \
Phish-id
Phish_detail_url
URL
Submission_time
Verified
to
Phish-id
URL
I removed the fields that I don’t use in my prototype.
Class
Verification_time
Online
Target
15
I created a function that reads the list from the file Blist.txt and if the link is blacklisted,it is
classified as “phishing”. If a link are reported as a potential phishing link but not yet verified, it
is classified as “unknown”.
$class= 0;
$file_handle = fopen("blist.txt", "rb");
while (!feof($file_handle) )
{
$line_of_text = fgets($file_handle);
$parts = explode(',', $line_of_text);
if ($url==$parts[0])
{ $class= $parts[1];}
elsif ($url==$parts[0])
{ $class= $parts[2];}
}
fclose($file_handle);
Due to the parsing errors in processing the blacklist, I resort to use the Excel’s function. The
drawback is that the process is changed to partially manual. The problem is solved by using live
checking.
6.2.2 Checking the URLs Live:
I used the API to make a live checking with the blacklist. This method also works with
HTTP POST request, the same PhishLurk uses, and responds with the URL's status in the
database. I created a parameter called $phishtank that PhishLurk sends it to the PhishTank APIchecking:
$phishtank = file_get_contents("http://checkurl.phishtank.com/checkurl/index.php?url=$url");
For example the Link “www.uccs.edu” has been received from the search results and will be sent to get
live checked to PhishTank.
$phishtank=file_get_contents("http://checkurl.phishtank.com/checkurl/index.php?url=http://www.ucc
s.edu/");
The response appears in XML format as the following.
<response>
<meta>
<timestamp>2011-08-18T04:09:22+00:00</timestamp>
<serverid>2d5c2cb</serverid>
<requestid>192.168.0.109.4e4c90729dea26.99932296</requestid>
</meta>
<results>
16
<url0>
<url>
<![CDATA[ http://www.uccs.edu/ ]]>
</url>
<in_database>false</in_database>
</url0>
</results>
</response>
6.3 Classification
After the checking, the links go through the classification function. The process is explained
further.
Phishing Links:
if ($class == 1) {
Shows a note = "This web page has been reported as a phishing webpage based on our security
preferences"
the user redirected to warning.php with class1 and its URL.
Scheme color colors the link red and prints small tag next to the title (Phishing Link).
Unknown Links:
Elseif ($class
==2){
Shows a note ="This web page might potentially be p an phishing page"
the user redirected to
warning.php with class 2 and its URL.
Scheme color colors the link orange and prints small tag next to the title (Known Link).
Safe Links:
Else ($class
== 0){
the user transferred directly to the logger ” log.php” with class 0 and its URL. Then to the
targeted URL through
}
6.4 Warning:
I created a dynamic page, “warning.php” for the generateing the warnings. Having one
dynamic warning page for all classes is useful to control the writing of the log records. First, the
warning page recognizes the link’s class using ($_GET['class']
warning of that class. The process is as follows:
if the class == 1 // phishing link
{
Print “Phishing Site!”
== “class # ”)
. Then it shows the
17
Display:
“A warning note: This web page is reported as phishing website. We recommend you to exit,
otherwise, click on “Proceed”.
This URL has been visited: “visits number” by PhishLurk's users
}
Elseif if the class == 2 // Unknown link
{
Print “Unknown page!”
Display a warning note: This web page might potentially be a phishing page. If you
trust this page click “Proceed”, otherwise, exit.
This URL has been visited: “visits number” by PhishLurk's users
else
{
die (); }
If the class number is not listed or the user tries to use unlisted class number, PhishLurk kills the
request by using the PHP function Die ();.
In order to show the user how many times the link has been visited by PhishLurk’s users, I
created visited.php to connect to the database and querying about the link visits, The function as
following:
<?php
$link = mysql_connect('server-name', 'root', 'password');
mysql_select_db('visits',$link);
$sql = "SELECT * FROM `visits` WHERE `link` = '$url'"; // looking for the link
$result = mysql_query($sql);
if (mysql_num_rows($result) == 1) // if the link exited, it will have one records
{$line = mysql_fetch_array($result) ;
// leave message for the user
echo "<br>This URL has been visited:
$line[2] <td>by PhishLurk's users";
}
// zero visits if there is not a record.
else{ echo "<br>This URL has been visited:
0 <td>by PhishLurk's users";
}
?>
6.5 Logger
The logger function is to count the visit of each URL and display the log’s records from the
database.
18
6.5.1 Creating and updating the records
After the user decides to access a website, the browser will be directed to go.php whether via
warning page” warning.php” by clicking on “Proceed” or directly from the results’ page, in case
the link was safe.
href="go.php?url=<? echo $”url”; ?>&class=”class number">
Next, go.php receives the URL and its class, and record the new visit. Then, go.php connects
to the database and looks for the URL. If the URL has a record, it increases the number of visits;
otherwise; it creates a new record. If the URL doesn’t have a record, that means it is a new
visited URL.
$url = $_GET['url'];
$class = $_GET['class'];
// Connecting to the DB
$link = mysql_connect('server-name', 'root', 'password');
mysql_select_db('visits',$link);
// Performing SQL query about the visited URL in the DB
$sql = "SELECT * FROM `visits` WHERE `link` = '$url'";
$result = mysql_query($sql);
if (mysql_num_rows($result) == 1) // if there is a records
{
$line = mysql_fetch_array($result) ;
$id= $line[0];
$old_visits = $line[2];
$new_visits = $old_visits+1; // count one more visit
$sql = "UPDATE `visits` SET `visits` = '$new_visits', `class` = '$class' WHERE
mysql_query($sql); // update the DB
}
else
{ // if there is nothing, add a new record for the new URL
$sql = "INSERT INTO `visits` VALUES (0, '$url', 1, $class)";
mysql_query($sql);
}
?>
Finally the browser is immediately redirected to the requested URL.
<META http-equiv="refresh" content="0;URL=<? echo $url; ?>">
6.5.2 View the logs
The logger uses log.php to display the entire logs’ records.
<?php
// reading the logs
`id` = '$id'";
19
if (mysql_num_rows($result) >= 1)
{
while ($line = mysql_fetch_array($result, MYSQL_NUM)) {
?>
<tr >
<td class="style<?php echo $line[3]; ?>"> <?php echo $line[1]; ?> </td> // 1st Col= URL
<td class="style<?php echo $line[3]; ?>"> <?php echo $line[2]; ?></td> // 2nd Col= visits #
<td class="style<?php echo $line[3]; ?>"> <?php echo $line[3]; ?></td> // 3rd Col= Class #
</tr>
}
?>
Figure 7 shows how the logger will show the records to the user in log.php page.
Link
http://www.phishing-link.com/
Visits Class
5
1
http://www.unknown-link.com/
5
2
http://www.safe-link.com/
1
0
Figure 7: A sample of the log’s table at the database
6.6 Database:
Since PhishLurk needs to update and write the logs records, I need to create a database using
MySQL to make it easier to update the records. I called the database “visits”, there is one
table “visits” to store the URLs, the number of visits, and the class.
CREATE TABLE `visits` (
`id` INT( 2 ) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT PRIMARY KEY , // URL-ID
`link` VARCHAR( 300 ) NOT NULL , // the URL
`visits` INT( 2 ) NOT NULL DEFAULT '0') ENGINE = MYISAM ; // number of visits
`class` INT( 2 ) NOT NULL DEFAULT '0') ENGINE = MYISAM ; // class number
7. Performance Evaluation
7.1 Challenges

Correctness: How correct is the result PhishLurk sending and how many varieties of
accesses can a user to benefit from PhishLurk?

Timeliness: How to keep the blacklist up to date?

Overhead: How long it takes to have the classified results back? How big is the difference in
the time executionusing PhishLurk.
20
7.2 Testbed experiment
In the testbed experiments, I used the local server “Apache” on Windows environment. Apache
supports both PHP and MySQL.
7.3 Experiment
I created a testbed to examine the functionality of PhishLurk including the correctness and the
timeliness. In order to know how corrrect and updated PhishLurk performs, I tested PhishLurk
by sending queries which search for websites that was assumed to blacklisted, and using most
common keywords in phishing websites. In my searches 20 Blacklisted phishing URLs and 13
unknown website appears in the search results, PhishLurk was able to detect and classify all of
them. Figure 8 is a chart shows how many links of assumed blacklisted link PhishLurk was able
to detect and classify.
Figure 8: PhishLurk was able to detect and classify all of them.
After I changed the updating process to the live check, there was a slight increase in the time
execution. On average it is 0.1238 seconds for each single link between the PhishLurk blacklist
and PhishLurk live checking. Figure 9 shows the average of the time execution for each link.
Figure 10 shows the difference in execution time along with 20 queries
21
Figure 9: The average of the time exaction for each link
Figure 10: The difference in exaction time for 20 queries
7.3.1. Impact of the page size with different alerting schemes.
In PhishLurk, The total size of the page result is 1.01 KB (1,038 bytes). On the other hand,
Norton and McAfee use image scheme to rate and warn about the results in the search page. In
Norton’s scheme, the size of single image itsself is 3 KB. In McAfee, The size of a single image
itsself is 1 KB. Figure 11 shows the size and location of the image alerting scheme in Norton.
Figure 12 shows the size and location of the image alerting scheme in McAfee.
Figure 11. The size of theimage used in Norton
22
Figure 12. The size of the image used in McAfee
PhishLurk has smallerweb page size because of the coloring scheme and the text-basedwarning.
7.3.2. Impact of the time performance on different browsers
In order to test the impact of the time performance on different browsers, I tested PhishLurk on 5
different browsers: Chrome, IE, Firefox, Opera and Safari, by sending the same 10 queries to 5
different browsers. There were light differences in all the queries. Each query takes
the
execution time between 0.0014 and 0.0015 seconds. Figure 13 shows the time execution for 10
queries using 5 different browsers .
Qeur…
Qeur…
Qeur…
Qeur…
safari
Qeur…
opera
Qeur…
FireFox
Qeur…
IE
Qeur…
Chrom
Qeur…
Qeur…
0.0013
0.0014
0.0015
0.0016
Figure 13 : 10 queries sent by Phishlurks using 5 different browser
23
8. Discussion
8.1 Expanding the categories:
Lately, it’s been noticed that some official website found hosting phishing websites in
their server [29,30,31]. Howeverit is really rare to have official websites of government, hospital,
or university to host a phishing website. When official websites host phishing sites or producing
attacks, it is typically from an insider whohas privileges to access and control the system, or the
site might actually be attacked by cross-site scripting attacks, or SQL injection attack [30].
Another possibility is that it might be someone reported the unlikely site trying to damage the
reputation of the organizations. In my opinion, the links to these kind of websites should have
their own class, it could be called unlikely link. Unlikely link is the same as unknown link, the
difference is when the blacklist gets a report about the link that is unlikely to be a phishing link.
For example, the websites that have Top-Level Domain “TLD” ends with (.edu or .gov) are in
this categories.
The link will maintain the unlikely status until gets verified. It is fair to maintain the unlikely
status until it gets verified and changed to be a Safe link.
Figure 14. Global Phishing Survey: Trends and Domain Name Use - April 2011
As we see in Figure 14, 60% phishing attacks were lunched by servers in these TLDs: .COM,
.NET, .TK, and .CC.
8.2 Search Engine
Using your own search engine is very beneficial and hard at the same time. One
advantage, you narrow down the rang of the search you are looking for. In our case we need a
widely used search engine. I tried to create a PHP search engine, but it needs a huge database
24
and implementation of crawling functions . As result, I used Google.com as search engine.
Google already has their own phishing protection, so the protection would be doubled as we
combine the protection of Google’s and that of PhishLurk.
During the evaluation I had difficulties looking for phishing links. Having Google as
search engine at the first line makes really hard to evaluate your prototype. I started with a PHP
search engine but it doesn’t work efficiently, it has to be entered with a very huge database of
URLs. In fact, creating a complicated search engine is much more difficult than I expected.
8.3 Disadvantages of Ajax
Ajax provides dynamic interaction between the browser and the server and generate
preferred results or provides suggestions to the user. Ajax relies on JavaScript which could cause
some difficulties to run consistently among different browsers because Javasscript cannot be
installed the same way in browsers.
The process on the client side causes more interaction with JavaScript and the browser which
against one of the ultimate goals of PhishLurk that isprovide the protection from the server side
and without requiring the client side cooperation. ]. It also requires loading or referencing of
additional AJAX library which results in the increase of the page size.
8.4 Client-Side Protection
The idea of PhishLurk can be very useful to implement it on client side as a browser’s
plug-in for Smartphone. However to develop aweb application for smartphones, it takes more
effort to design and deploy due to the limitations and the additional considerations. The
smartphones have the small size of screen and limitated computating and memory resources.
Smartphone can’t function as efficient as the desktop PC. Moreover, smartphone web
development demands more skills including
web server
configuration, and IDE supports the markup languages .
9. Future work
configuration, web browser
25
The current version of PhishLurk seems to be working efficiently. Its functions can be
further improved and enhanced ., It can be extended for spams protection PhishLurk can be
enhanced with the following eatures and to be implemented on others devices and systems::

Tune up the code to optimize its performance.

Improve the features to increase the flexibility.

Client side protection: create a plug-in on smartphone’s browser such as Blackberry
web-kit browser.

Fix the conflicting session and make it more reliable.

Follow-up reporting: create a module to send out email asking the users who decided to
visit potential phishing sites and provide their feedbacks.

Conduct a survey on how useful is PhishLurk after making it available on internet.
26
10. Conclusion
I designed and developed PhishLurk, an anti-phishing search website that classifies and
prevents phishing attacks. PhishLurk provides the protection from the server side and uses the
coloring scheme for classification in order to consume as little computation and screen resource
as possible on the client-side. It can be ported to worki ting efficiently with varieties of devices
have different capabilities. PhishLurk uses PhishTank’s as the blacklist provider and checks the
list live to achieve the maximum possible accuracy.
The efficiency of PhishLurk is affected by some factors, including the accuracy of
backlists and search engines.
I believe the idea of PhishLurk can be a good enhancement feature to be included ina major
search engine such as Google and Yahoo. Moreover the mechanism can be optimized to be
applied and work efficiently in smartphones.
11. Acknowledgment:
I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Edward Chow for his support and continual
encouragement during my research.
I thank Dr. Albert Glock and Dr. Chuan Yue for willing to serve as committee members
in my project.
27
12. References
1. Rachna Dhamija, J. D. Tygar, and Marti Hearst. 2006. Why phishing works. In
Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems
(CHI '06), Rebecca Grinter, Thomas Rodden, Paul Aoki, Ed Cutrell, Robin Jeffries,
and Gary Olson (Eds.). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 581-590.
DOI=10.1145/1124772.1124861 http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1124772.1124861.
2. Colin Whittaker, Brian Ryner, Marria Nazif, “Large-Scale Automatic Classification
of Phishing Pages”, NDSS '10, 2010.<
http://research.google.com/pubs/pub35580.html >
3. Gross, Ben. "Smartphone Anti-Phishing Protection Leaves Much to Be Desired |
Messaging News." Messaging News | The Technology of Email and Instant
Messaging. 26 Feb. 2010. Web. <http://www.messagingnews.com/story/smartphoneanti-phishing-protection-leaves-much-be-desired>.
4. ComScore, Inc. "Smartphone Subscribers Now Comprise Majority of Mobile
Browser and Application Users in U.S." ComScore, Inc. - Measuring the Digital
World. ComScore, Inc, 1 Oct. 2010.
<http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2010/10/Smartphone_Subs
cribers_Now_Comprise_Majority_of_Mobile_Browser_and_Application_Users_in_
U.S>.
5. Entner, Roger. "Smartphones to Overtake Feature Phones in U.S. by 2011."
Http://www.nielsen.com. Nielsen Wire, 26 Mar. 2010. Web.
<http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/consumer/smartphones-to-overtake-featurephones-in-u-s-by-2011/>.
6. Kerstein, Paul L. "How Can We Stop Phishing and Pharming Scams?" CSO Online
- Security and Risk. CSO Magazine - Security and Risk, 19 July 2005. Web.
<http://www.csoonline.com/article/220491/how-can-we-stop-phishing-andpharming-scams->.
7. OpenDNS, LLC. PhishTank: an Anti-phishing Site. [Online].
http://www.phishtank.com.
28
8. Joshi, Y.; Saklikar, S.; Das, D.; Saha, S.; , "PhishGuard: A browser plug-in for
protection from phishing," Internet Multimedia Services Architecture and
Applications, 2008. IMSAA 2008. 2nd International Conference on , vol., no., pp.1-6,
10-12 Dec. 2008 doi: 10.1109/IMSAA.2008.4753929, URL:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4753929&isnumber=47
53904
9. PhishTank - Statistics about phishing activity and PhishTank usage ,
http://www.phishtank.com/stats.php
10. PhishTank, Friends of PhishTank, http://www.phishtank.com/friends.php
11. SmartScreen Filter: Frequently Asked Questions." Windows Home - Microsoft
Windows. <http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/SmartScreen-Filterfrequently-asked-questions-IE9>.
12. "SmartScreen Filter - Microsoft Windows." Windows Home - Microsoft Windows.
Web. <http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/internet-explorer/products/ie9/features/smartscreen-filter>.
13. Apple - Safari - Learn about the Features Available in Safari." Apple.
<http://www.apple.com/ca/safari/features.html>.
14. TECH.BLORGE- Top Technology news, Paypal warns buyers to avoid Safari
browser from Apple - < http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2008/02/28/paypalwarns-buyers-to-avoid-safari-browser-from-apple/ >
15. "Firefox 2 Phishing Protection Effectiveness Testing." Home of the Mozilla Project.
<http://www.mozilla.org/security/phishing-test.html>.
16. "AVIRA News - Anti-Virus Users Are Restless, Avira Survey Finds." Antivirus
Software Solutions for Home and for Business. <http://www.avira.com/en/pressdetails/nid/482/>.
17. Chuan Yue and Haining Wang. 2010. BogusBiter: A transparent protection against
phishing attacks. ACM Trans. Internet Technol. 10, 2, Article 6 (June 2010), 31
pages. DOI=10.1145/1754393.1754395 http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1754393.1754395
18. Rachna Dhamija and J. D. Tygar. 2005. The battle against phishing: Dynamic
Security Skins. In Proceedings of the 2005 symposium on Usable privacy and
29
security (SOUPS '05). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 77-88.
DOI=10.1145/1073001.1073009 http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1073001.1073009
19. OpenDNS | DNS-Based Web Security. <http://www.opendns.com/>.
20. DansGuardian - True Web Content Filtering for All. <http://dansguardian.org/>.
21. GFI - Web, Email and Network Security Solutions for SMBs on Premise and
Hosted. http://www.gfi.com/
22. Anti-Phishing Working Group, Phishing Activity Trends Report - 2nd Half 2010."
Anti-Phishing Working Group (APWG).
http://www.antiphishing.org/reports/apwg_report_h2_2010.pdf, Dec. 2010. Web.
23. G. Ollman, The Phishing Guide: Understanding and Preventing Phishing Attacks,
22. September 2004, http://www.technicalinfo.net/papers/Phishing.html
24. Persson, Anders. "Exploring Phishing Attacks and Countermeasures." Blekinge
Institute of Technology, Dec. 2007.
<http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.111.2030>.
25. im Richardson. "Brits Fall Prey to Phishing." The Register-Sci/Tech News for the
World. May 2005. Web. 07 Aug. 2011.
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/03/aol_phishing/>.
26. Red Condor – Revolutionizing Spam Fighting. "Phishing for Disaster: The Cost of
Corporate Ignorance." Red Condor, July 2010. Web.
<http://www.edgewave.com/docs/whitepaper/RedCondor_phishing-whitepaper.pdf>.
27. Zulfikar Ramzan. "A Brief History of Phishing: Part I | Symantec Connect
Community." Symantec - Official Blog. 29 June 2009. Web.
<http://www.symantec.com/connect/blogs/brief-history-phishing-part-i>.
28. Ying-Dar Lin; Chih-Wei Jan; Po-Ching Lin; Yuan-Cheng Lai; , "Designing an
Integrated Architecture for Network Content Security Gateways," Computer ,
vol.39, no.11, pp.66-72, Nov. 2006, doi: 10.1109/MC.2006.379 , URL:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4014769&isnumber=40
14747
29. Jeremy Kirk. "Sony Server Said to Have Been Hacked to Host Credit-card Phishing
Site - Latimes.com. May 2008. Web..
30
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/05/sony-servers-hacked-host-creditcard-phishing-site.html.
30. Kirk, Jeremy. "Hacked Bank Server Hosts Phishing Sites" Computerworld - IT
News, Features, Blogs, Tech Reviews, Career Advice. Mar. 2006. Web. 18 Aug.
2011.
<http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/109500/Hacked_bank_server_hosts_phis
hing_sites>.
31. Dennis Fisher. "Researchers Find Government Site Hosting Phishing Data |
Threatpost." Threatpost | The First Stop for Security News. Apr. 2008. Web. 18
Aug. 2011. <http://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/researchers-find-government-sitehosting-phshing-data-061610>.
32. Zepeda, J.S.; Chapa, S.V.; , "From Desktop Applications Towards Ajax Web
Applications," Electrical and Electronics Engineering, 2007. ICEEE 2007. 4th
International Conference on , vol., no., pp.193-196, 5-7 Sept. 2007 doi:
10.1109/ICEEE.2007.4345005, URL:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4345005&isnumber=43
44971.
33.
Wang Jing; Xu Feng; , "The Research of Ajax Technique Application Based on the
J2EE," Database Technology and Applications (DBTA), 2010 2nd International
Workshop on , vol., no., pp.1-3, 27-28 Nov. 2010, doi: 10.1109/DBTA.2010.5659073,
URL:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5659073&isnumber=56
58597.
31
13. Index
1.Introduction
3
1.1
3
Impact of phishing
2.Background
4
2.1
History of Phishing
4
2.2
Most Targeted Industries
5
2.3
Why Phishing Works
5
2.4
Existing Work Anti-Phishing:
5
3.Related Work
6
3.1
Blacklisting
7
3.2
Current Browser’s Phishing Protection
8
3.3
Classification of Phishing Defense
9
4.The Proposed Project
9
5.
Design of PhishLurk
10
5.1
PhishLurk Components:
10
6.Implementation
12
6.1
The Information flow
12
6.2
Blacklist
14
6.2.1
Updated Blacklist
14
6.2.2
Checking the URLs Live
15
6.3
Classification
16
6.4
Warning
16
6.5
Logger
17
6.5.1 Creating and updating the records
18
6.6
19
Database
7.Performance Evaluation
19
7.1
Challenges
19
7.2
Test bed experiment
20
7.3
Experiment
20
32
8.Discussion
23
8.1
Expanding the categories
23
8.2
Search Engine
23
8.3
Disadvantages of Ajax
24
8.4
Client-Side Protection
24
9. Future work
25
10. Conclusion
26
11. Acknowledgment
26
12. References
27
13. Index
30
33
Appendix A. User Guide
PhishLurk is simple to use. The main page includes the text box where the user
input the keywords.
Figure shows the main page of PhishLurk
After the user enter the keywords, the search result will be shown as links with
their title and description.
34
How to know the classification of the links. There three classes :
1. Phishing Link: Phishing Link is a risky link, PhishLurk displays the
Phishing link in red color and added text next to the title indicates that the
link phishing.
Phishing Link appeared in search results
If the user click to access the phishing link, PhishLurk assure the user that
link is risky by transferring him to the warning page. The warning page alert the
user from the risk and shows how many times the websites has been visited.
Figure shows the warning page of phishing links
2. Unknown Link: Unknown Link is a suspicious Link, PhishLurk displays the
Unknown link in Orange color and added text next to the title indicates that
the link is Unknown.
Unknown Links appeared in search results
35
If the user click to access the Unknown link, PhishLurk assure the user that
link is suspicious by transferring him to the warning page. The warning page alert
the user that the link is potentially risky and shows how many times the websites
has been visited.
Figure shows the warning page of unknown links
3. Safe Links: The Link is safe and not blacklisted. The user can access safely.
Phishing Link appeared in search results
Appendix B. Installation and Configuration of PhishLurk
<detailed steps on how to install PhishLurk. Reference the source code in
http://cs.uccs.edu/~gsc/pub/master/malqahta/src and the urls of any software
packages you used.> You can assume a virtual machine running Windows 7 or
Window 2008 server.