Advertisement

Neural Computing and Applications

, Volume 28, Issue 12, pp 3629–3654 | Cite as

Fighting against phishing attacks: state of the art and future challenges

  • B. B. Gupta
  • Aakanksha Tewari
  • Ankit Kumar Jain
  • Dharma P. Agrawal
Review

Abstract

In the last few years, phishing scams have rapidly grown posing huge threat to global Internet security. Today, phishing attack is one of the most common and serious threats over Internet where cyber attackers try to steal user’s personal or financial credentials by using either malwares or social engineering. Detection of phishing attacks with high accuracy has always been an issue of great interest. Recent developments in phishing detection techniques have led to various new techniques, specially designed for phishing detection where accuracy is extremely important. Phishing problem is widely present as there are several ways to carry out such an attack, which implies that one solution is not adequate to address it. Two main issues are addressed in our paper. First, we discuss in detail phishing attacks, history of phishing attacks and motivation of attacker behind performing this attack. In addition, we also provide taxonomy of various types of phishing attacks. Second, we provide taxonomy of various solutions proposed in the literature to detect and defend from phishing attacks. In addition, we also discuss various issues and challenges faced in dealing with phishing attacks and spear phishing and how phishing is now targeting the emerging domain of IoT. We discuss various tools and datasets that are used by the researchers for the evaluation of their approaches. This provides better understanding of the problem, current solution space and future research scope to efficiently deal with such attacks.

Keywords

Bag-of-word Data mining Key logger Machine learning Malware Phishing Social engineering Soft computing Spam Visual similarity 

References

  1. 1.
    The Phishing Guide Understanding & Preventing Phishing Attacks By: Gunter Ollmann, Director of Security Strategy, IBM Internet Security Systems, 2007Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Phishing: Cutting the Identity Theft Line Published by Wiley Publishing, Inc. 10475 Crosspoint Boulevard Indianapolis, IN 46256 www.wiley.com, 2005, Rachael Lininger and Russell Dean Vines
  3. 3.
    Anti-Phishing Working Group (APWG), “Phishing activity trends report—first quarter 2013. http://antiphishing.org/reports/apwgtrendsreportq12013.pdf, accessed September 2014
  4. 4.
    Aloul F (2010) The need for effective information security awareness. Int J Intell Comput Res 1(3):176–183Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    James L (2005) Phishing exposed. Syngress Publishing, BurlingtonGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Anti-Phishing Working Group (APWG) (2014) Phishing activity trends report—first quarter 2014. http://antiphishing.org/reports/apwgtrendsreportq12014.pdf. Accessed Sept 2014
  7. 7.
    Anti-Phishing Working Group (APWG) (2014) Phishing activity trends report—fourth quarter 2013. http://antiphishing.org/reports/apwgtrendsreportq42013.pdf. Accessed Sept 2014
  8. 8.
    Anti-Phishing Working Group (APWG) (2014) Phishing activity trends report—second quarter 2013. http://antiphishing.org/reports/apwgtrendsreportq22013.pdf. Accessed Sept 2014
  9. 9.
    Anti-Phishing Working Group (APWG) (2014) Global Phishing Survey—second half 2013. http://antiphishing.org/reports/apwgglobalphishingreport2h2013.pdf. Accessed Sept 2014
  10. 10.
    IT Business Edge (2014) Spear phishing, targeted attacks and data breach trends. http://www.itbusinessedge.com/slideshows/spear-phishing-targeted-attacks-and-data-breach-trends-04.html. Accessed on Sept 2014
  11. 11.
    Pierluigi Paganini (2014) Phishing: a very dangerous cyber threat. http://resources.infosecinstitute.com/phishing-dangerous-cyber-threat/2012. Accessed on Sept 2014
  12. 12.
    Krebs B (2014) HBGary federal hacked by anonymous. http://krebsonsecurity.com/2011/02/hbgary-federal-hacked-by-anonymous/2011. Accessed Sept 2014
  13. 13.
    eCrime Trends Report: Fourth Quarter (2013) http://Internetidentity.com/resource-tags/quarterly-ecrime-reports/. Accessed Sept 2014
  14. 14.
    Anti-Phishing Working Group (APWG) (2016) Phishing activity trends report—first-third quarter 2015. http://antiphishing.org/reports/apwgtrendsreportq12013.pdf. Accessed Feb 2016
  15. 15.
    Husna H, Phithakkitnukoon S, Palla S, Dantu R (2008) Behavior analysis of spam botnets. In: Communication systems software and middleware and workshops, 2008. COMSWARE 2008. 3rd International Conference, Bangalore, India, 2008, pp 246–253Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Toolan F, Carthy J (2009) Phishing detection using classifier ensembles. In: eCrime researchers summit, IEEE conference Tacoma, WA, USA, 2009, pp 1–9Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Toolan F, Carthy J (2010) Feature selection for spam and phishing detection. E-Crime Researchers Summit, Dallas, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Anti-Phishing Working Group Phishing Archive (2014) http://anti-phishing.org/phishing_archive.htm. Accessed Sept 2014
  19. 19.
    Dhamija R, Tygar JD (2005) The battle against phishing: dynamic security skins. Proceedings of symposium usable privacy and securityGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Aburrous M, Hossain MA, Dahal K, Thabtah F (2010) Predicting phishing websites using classification mining techniques with experimental case studies. In: Seventh international conference on information technology. IEEE Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, 2010, pp 176–181Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    PhishTank Phishing Archive (2014) http://www.phishtank.com/phisharchive.php. Accessed Sept 2014
  22. 22.
    Apache Software Foundation (2014) Spamassassin public corpus, 2006. http://spamassassin.apache.org/publiccorpus/. Accessed Sept 2014
  23. 23.
    Fette I, Sadeh N, Tomasic A (2007) Learning to detect phishing emails, In: Proceedings of 16th international world wide web conference (WWW 2007). ACM Press, Banff, Alberta, Canada, pp 649–656Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Khonji M, Iraqi Y (2011) Lexical URL analysis for discriminating phishing and legitimate email. 6th IEEE international conference on internet technology and secure transaction, London, UK, pp 422–427Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cohen WW (2014) Enron email dataset. https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~./enron/. Accessed Sept 2014
  26. 26.
    “The Enron Spam Datasets” (2014) AEUB natural language processing group, Athens, Greece. http://www.aueb.gr/users/ion/data/enron-spam/. Accessed Sept 2014
  27. 27.
    Klimt B, Yang Y (2004) The enron corpus: a new dataset for email classification research. In: Proceedings of 15th European conference on machine learning, Nancy, France, 2004, pp 217–226Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Georgala K, Kosmopoulous A, Paliouras G (2014) Spam filtering: an active learning approach using incremental clustering. In: Proceedings of ACM 4th international conference on web intelligence, mining and semantics, article no. 23, Greece, ACMGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cormack GV, Lynam TR (2005) TREC 2005 spam track overview. In: TRECGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    IronPort Anti-Spam (2014) http://www.ironport.com/technology/ironport/antispam.html. Accessed Sept 2014
  31. 31.
    Moore T, Clayton R, Stern H (2009) Temporal correlations between spam and phishing websites. In: Proceedings of 2nd USENIX LEET, BostonGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    SpamCopWiki: SpamTrap (2014) 21 July 2006. http://forum.spamcop.net/scwik/SpamTrap/. Accessed Sept 2014
  33. 33.
  34. 34.
    Jakobsson M, Myers S (2007) Phishing & countermeasures: understanding the increasing problem of electronic identity theft. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sheng S, Magnien B, Kumaraguru P, Acquisti A, Cranor LF, Hong J, Nunge E (2007) Anti-phishing phil: the design and evaluation of a game that teaches people not to fall for phish. In: Proceedings of the SOUPS, Pittsburg, pp 88–99Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Markus Jakobsson SM (2007) Phishing and countermeasures, Microsoft’s anti-phishing technologies and tactics. 18 MAY 2007, pp 551562Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Project H, Alliance R (2005) Know your enemy: tracking botnets. http://www.honeynet.org/papers/bots/. Accessed Sept 2014
  38. 38.
    Moore T, Clayton R (2007) Examining the impact of website take-down on phishing. In: eCrime’07: proceedings of the anti-phishing working groups 2nd annual eCrime researchers summit. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 1–13Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Chhabra M, Gupta BB (2013) A novel solution to handle DDOS attack in MANET. J Inf Secur 4(3):165–179Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gupta BB, Joshi RC, Misra M (2009) Defending against distributed denial of service attacks: issues and challenges. Inf Secur J A Global Perspect 18(5):224–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    NPM (2014) Fpipe. https://www.npmjs.org/package/fpipe. Accessed Sept 2014
  42. 42.
    Jagatic T, Johnson N, Jakobsson M, Menczer F (2007) Social phishing. Commun ACM 50(10):94–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Granger S (2001) Social engineering fundamentals, part I: hacker tactics. vol 2006: SecurityFocusGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Tom NAJ, Jagatic N (2007) Markus Jakobsson, FilippoMenczer, “Social phishing”. Commun ACM 50:94–100Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Spear Phishing Attacks—Why They are Successful and How to Stop Them. Combating the Attack of Choice for Cyber criminals, Fire Eye Inc (Whitepaper)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
  47. 47.
    Spear Phishing Email: Most favored APT attack bait (2012) Trend micro incorporated research paper 2012Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Adhikary N, Shrivastava R, Kumar A, Verma SK, Bag M, Singh V (2012) Battering keyloggers and screen recording software by fabricating passwords. I. J. Computer Network and Information Security, June 2012Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    CPNI (2013) Spear phishing: understanding the threat. Sept 2013Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sullivan D (2005) The definitive guide to controlling malware, spyware, phishing and spam. Realtime PublishersGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Emigh A (2006) The crimeware landscape: malware, phishing, identity theft and beyond. J Digit Forensic Pract 1(3):245–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Sagiroglu S, Canbek G (2009) Keyloggers. IEEE technology and society magazine, pp 10–17Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kapoor S (2014) Session hijacking exploiting TCP, UDP and HTTP sessions. http://www.bindview.com/Services/Razor/Papers/2001/tcpseq.cfm. Accessed Sept 2014
  54. 54.
    Gill R, Smith J, Clark A (2006) Experiences in passively detecting session hijacking attacks in IEEE 802.11 networks. In: ACSW frontiers ‘06: proceedings of the 2006 Australian workshops on grid computing. Darlinghurst, Australia, 2006. Australian Computer Society, Inc, pp 221–230Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Christin N, Weigend AS, Chuang J (2005) Content availability, pollution and poisoning in file sharing peer-to-peer networks. In: EC ‘05: proceedings of the 6th ACM conference on electronic commerce. ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, pp 68–77Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Perdisci R, Antonakakis M, Luo X, Lee W (2009) “WSEC DNS: protecting recursive DNS resolvers from poisoning attacks”, in DSN. IEEE, Lisbon, pp 3–12Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Azad HS, Zomaya AY (2014) Large scale network centric distributed systems. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Yang LT, Rana OF, Martino BD, Dongarra J (2006) High performance computing and computing. First international conference, HPCC, Springer, Munich, Germany, Sept 2006Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Moore T, Clayton R (2008) Evil Searching: compromise and re-compromise of internet hosts for phishingGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Dhamija R, Tygar JD, Hearst MA (2006) Why phishing works,” in proceedings of the 2006 conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI). ACM, Montréal, Québec, Canada, pp 581–590Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    ALmomani A, Gupta BB, Wan T, Altaher A, Manickam S (2013) Phishing dynamic evolving neural fuzzy framework for online detection zero-day phishing email. Indian J Sci Technol 6(1):3960–3964Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Chou N, Ledesma R, Teraguchi Y, Mitchell JC (2004) Client-side defense against web-based identity theft. In: NDSS. The Internet SocietyGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Downs JS, Holbrook M, Cranor LF (2007) Behavioral response to phishing risk. Presented at the proceedings of anti-phishing working groups 2nd annual eCrime researchers summit. ACM Conf, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp 37–44Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Huang H, Tan J, Liu L (2009) Countermeasure techniques for deceptive phishing attack. In: International conference on new trends in information and service science, 2009. NISS’09, Korea, pp 636–641Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Sheng S, Holbrook M, Kumaraguru P, Cranor LF, Downs J (2010) Who falls for phish? A demographic analysis of phishing susceptibility and effectiveness of interventions. In the proceedings of 28th ACM international conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI’10), New York, NY, USA, pp 373–382Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Dong X, Clark J, Jacob J (2008) Modelling user-phishing interaction. In: Human system interactions, 2008 conference, Austria, May 2008, pp 627–632Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Wu M, Miller RC, Garfinkel SL (2006) Do security toolbars actually prevent phishing attacks? In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, ser. CHI’06, New York, NY, USA, pp 601–610Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Egelman S, Cranor LF, Hong J (2008) You’ve been warned: an empirical study of the effectiveness of web browser phishing warnings. In: Proceeding of the twenty-sixth annual SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, ser. CHI’08. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 1065–1074Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Kumaraguru P, Rhee Y, Acquisti A, Cranor LF, Hong J, Nunge E (2007) Protecting people from phishing: the design and evaluation of an embedded training email system. In: Proceedings of CHI, ACM Conf, California, USA, pp 905–914Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Arachchilage NAG, Love S (2013) A game design framework for avoiding phishing attacks. Comput Hum Behav 29(3):706–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Arachchilage NAG, Cole M (2011) Designing a mobile game for home computer users to protect against “phishing attacks”. Int J e-Learn Secur 1(1/2)Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Arachchilage NAG, Love S (2014) Security awareness of computer users: a phishing threat avoidance perspective. Comput Hum Behav 38:304–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Levine J (2008) DNS blacklists and whitelists, IRTF anti-spam research group, Nov 2008, Internet Draft draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl-08.txtGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Microsoft, Sender ID, 2008. http://www.microsoft.com/. Accessed on Sept 2014
  75. 75.
    Sheng S, Wardman B, Warner G, Cranor LF, Hong J, Zhang C (2009) An empirical analysis of phishing blacklists. In: Proceedings of the 6th conference in email and anti-spam, ser. CEAS’09, Mountain view, USA, CA, July 2009Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Google (2014) Google safe browsing API. http://code.google.com/apis/safebrowsing/. Accessed Oct 2014
  77. 77.
    Google (2014) Google safe browsing lookup API. https://developers.google.com/safe-browsing/lookup_guide/. Accessed Oct 2014
  78. 78.
    RFC 3596—Internet Engineering Task Force. https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3596.txt. Accessed Oct 2014
  79. 79.
    Prakash P, Kumar M, Kompella RR, Gupta M (2010) Phishnet: predictive blacklisting to detect phishing attacks. In: Proceedings of the 29th conference on information communications INFOCOM’10. IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, USA, pp 346–350Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Cao Y, Han W, Le Y (2008) Anti-phishing based on automated individual white-list. In DIM’08: proceedings of the 4th ACM workshop on digital identity management. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 51–60Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Likarish P, Dunbar D, Hansen TE (2008) Phishguard: a browser plug-in for protection from phishing. In: 2nd International conference on internet multimedia services architecture and applications, IMSAA, Bangalore, India, pp 1– 6Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Cook DL, Gurbani VK, Daniluk M (2008) Phishwish: a stateless phishing filter using minimal rules. In: Tsudik G (ed) Financial cryptography and data security. Springer, Berlin, pp 182–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Zhang Y, Hong JI, Cranor LF (2007) Cantina: a content-based approach to detecting phishing web sites. In: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on World Wide Web, ser. WWW’07. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 639–648Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Chou N, Ledesma R, Teraguchi Y, Mitchell JC (2004) Client-side defense against web-based identity theft. In NDSS. The Internet SocietyGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Netcraft (2014) Netcraft toolbar, 2006. http://toolbar.netcraft.com/. Accessed Sept 2014
  86. 86.
  87. 87.
    Filter IP (2014) http://support.microsoft.com/kb/930168. Accessed Sept 2014
  88. 88.
  89. 89.
    Chandrasekaran M, Narayanan K, Upadhyaya S (2006) Phishing email detection based on structural properties. In: New York state cyber security conference (NYS), Albany, NYGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Dazeley R, Yearwood JL, Kang BH, Kelarev AV (2010) Consensus clustering and supervised classification for pro ling phishing emails in internet commerce security. In: Knowledge management and acquisition for smart systems and services. Springer Conf, Berlin, Heidelberg, vol 6232, pp 235–246Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Gansterer WN, Polz D (2009) E-Mail classification for phishing defense. Presented at the proceedings of 31st European conference on IR research on advances in information retrieval, Springer conference, Toulouse, France, pp 449–460Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Robichaux P, Ganger DL (2006) Gone phishing: evaluating anti-phishing tools for windows. Technical report Sept 2006Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Liu G, Qiu B, Wenyin L (2010) Automatic detection of phishing target from phishing webpage. In: Pattern recognition (ICPR), 2010 20th international conference, Istanbul, Turkey, Aug 2010, pp 4153–4156Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Bazarganigilani M (2011) Phishing E-Mail detection using ontology concept and naive Bayes algorithm. Int J Res Rev Comput Sci 2(2):1–4Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Chen J, Guo C (2007) Online detection and prevention of phishing attacks. Communications and networking in China IEEE, 2007, pp 1–7Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Kim H, Huh J (2011) Detecting DNS-poisoning-based phishing attacks from their network performance characteristics. Electron Lett 47(11):656–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Chandrasekaran M, Chinchani R, Upadhaya S (2006) Phoney: mimicking user response to detect phishing attacks. In: Symposium on world of wireless, mobile and multimedia networks, IEEE computer society, pp 668–672Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Zhang H, Liu G, Chow T, Liu W (2011) Textual and visual content based anti-phishing: A Bayesian approach. IEEE Trans Neural Netw 22(10):1532–1546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Ma L, Ofoghi B, Watters P, Brown S (2009) Detecting phishing emails using hybrid features. IEEE conference on UIC-ATC ‘09, Brisbane, pp 493–497Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Ma L, Yearwood J, Watters P (2009) Establishing phishing provenance using orthographic features. IEEE conference on eCrime’09, Tocoma pp 1–10Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Benuskova L, Kasabov N (2007) Evolving connectionist systems (ECOS). In: Computational neurogenetic modeling.: Springer, US, pp 107–126Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Alnajim A (2015) A country based model towards phishing detection enhancement. Int J Innov Technol Explor Eng 5(1):52–57Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Moghimi M, Varjani AY (2016) New rule-based phishing detection method. Exp Syst Appl 53:231–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Angelov PP, Filev DP, Kasabov N (2010) Evolving intelligent systems: methodology and applications, vol 12. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    ALmomani A, Wan T, Al-Saedi K, Altaher A, Ramadass S, Manasrah A (2011) An online model on evolving phishing E-mail detection and classification method. J Appl Sci 11(18):3301–3307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Almomani A, Wan T, Altaher A, Manasrah A, ALmomani E, Anbar M, ALomari E, Ramadass S (2012) Evolving fuzzy neural network for phishing emails detection. J Comput Sci 8(7):1099–1107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Almomani BB, Gupta TWan et al (2013) Phishing dynamic evolving neural fuzzy framework for online detection “Zero-day” phishing email. Indian J Sci Technology 6(1):3960–3964Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    del Castillo M, Iglesias A, Serrano JI (2007) An integrated approach to filtering phishing emails computer aided systems theory. EUROCAST 2007, vol 4739. Springer, Berlin, pp 321–328Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Islam MR, Abawajy J, Warren M (2009) Multi-tier phishing email classification with an impact of classifier rescheduling. In: The international symposium on pervasive systems, algorithms, and networks, IEEE conference, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, pp 789–793Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Yearwood J, Mamadov M, Banerjee A (2010) Profiling phishing emails based on hyperlink information. In: 2010 International conference on advances in social networks analysis and mining, IEEE conference, Odense, Denmark, pp 120–127Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Liu W, Huang G, Liu X, Zhang M, Deng X (2005) Detection of phishing web pages based on visual similarity. In: The proceedings of 14th international world wide web conference Chiba, pp 1060–1061Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Fu AY, Wenyin L, Deng X (2006) Detecting phishing web pages with visual similarity assessment based on earth mover’s distance (emd). IEEE Trans Dependable Secur Comput 3(4):301–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Liu W, Deng X, Huang G, Fu AY (2006) An anti-phishing strategy based on visual similarity assessment. IEEE Internet Comput 10(2):58–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Medved E, Kirda E, Kruegel C (2008) Visual-similarity-based phishing detection. In: The proceedings of the 4th international conference on security and privacy in communication networks, NY, USA, pp 234–245Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Hara M, Yamada A, Miyake Y (2009) Visual similarity-based phishing detection without victim site information. In: IEEE symposium on computational intelligence in cyber security, CICS 2009 Nashville, pp 30–36Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Atzori L, Iera A, Morabito G (2010) The internet of things: a survey. Comput Netw 54:2787–2805CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Gubbi J, Buyya R, Marusic S, Palaniswami M (2013) Internet of things (IoT): a vision, architectural elements, and future directions. Future Gener Comput Syst 29(7):1645–1660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Roman R, Najera P, Lopez J (2011) Securing the internet of things. Computer 44(9):51–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Koroneous GL (2015) Enterprise tech spotlight: IoT tipping point, phishing scams, retail breaches. http://news.verizonenterprise.com/2015/08/iot-retail-breaches-phishing-security/
  120. 120.
  121. 121.
    Gorman M. The internet of things isn’t safe: thousands of smart gadgets hacked to send spam and phishing emails. http://www.engadget.com/2014/01/17/internet-of-things-hacked-malicious-email-phishing/
  122. 122.
    Almomani A, Gupta BB, Atawneh S, Meulenberg A, Almomani E (2013) A survey of phishing email filtering techniques. IEEE Commun Surveys Tutor 15(4):2070–2090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Proofpint. Proofpoint uncovers internet of things (IoT) cyberattack. http://investors.proofpoint.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=819799
  124. 124.
    Mathworks (2014) MATLAB: the language of technical computing. http://www.mathworks.in/products/matlab/. Accessed Oct 2014
  125. 125.
    WEKA—University of Waikato, New Zealand, EN (2006) Weka-data mining with open source machine learning software in java. http://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/ml/weka, (2006/01/31). Accessed Sept 2014
  126. 126.
    Rapidminer (2007) Rapidminer: predictive analysis and data mining. https://rapidminer.com/. Accessed Mar 2016
  127. 127.
    Rattle: A Data Mining toolkit in R (2013) https://code.google.com/p/rattle/. Accessed Mar 2016
  128. 128.
    Open NN: An Open Source Neural Networks C Library (2006) http://opennn.cimne.com/. Accessed Sept 2014
  129. 129.
    Karypis Lab (2006) CLUTO: data clustering software. http://glaros.dtc.umn.edu/gkhome/cluto/cluto/overview. Accessed Mar 2016
  130. 130.
    Müllner D (2013) fastcluster: Fast hierarchical, agglomerative clustering routines for R and Python. J Stat Softw 53(9):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Munchen (2008) ELKI: environment for developing KDD-application supported by index structures. http://elki.dbs.ifi.lmu.de/. Accessed Mar 2016

Copyright information

© The Natural Computing Applications Forum 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. B. Gupta
    • 1
  • Aakanksha Tewari
    • 1
  • Ankit Kumar Jain
    • 1
  • Dharma P. Agrawal
    • 2
  1. 1.National Institute of Technology KurukshetraKurukshetraIndia
  2. 2.Center for Distributed and Mobile ComputingEECS University of CincinnatiCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations