Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 164 references

PiMRef: Detecting and Explaining Ever-evolving Spear Phishing Emails with Knowledge Base Invariants

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read PiMRef treats phishing email as identity fact-checking: flag an email when its claimed sender identity contradicts the sender's domain in a knowledge base and a call-to-action is present, a rule that beats pattern-learning detectors.

desk verdict A promising reference-based phishing detector whose headline field-study numbers are overstated—worth peer review with major reporting fixes. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.15393 v1 pith:OUHQ6YXF submitted 2025-07-21 cs.CR cs.AI

Ruofan Liu , Yun Lin , Silas Yeo Shuen Yu , Xiwen Teoh , Zhenkai Liang , Jin Song Dong This is my paper
classification cs.CRcs.AI
keywords phishingemaildetectionspearknowledgebaseinvariantsidentityfact-checkingnamedentityrecognitionCharacterBERTLLM-generatedMailbenchmark
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

PiMRef argues that the way to stay ahead of ever-evolving phishing email is to stop learning what phishing looks like and instead check what the sender claims to be. The paper's thesis is that a persuasive phishing email must assert an identity and must push the recipient toward an action, and both are checkable against a knowledge base of identity-to-domain facts: an email is phishing when its claimed sender identity contradicts the actual sender domain and the email contains a call-to-action. On that deductive rule, PiMRef reports 91.18% recall on the Nazario set and 86.02% on PhishPot with a 1.19% false-positive rate on benign mail, catches 99.02% of the paper's own 14,672-email LLM-generated phishing benchmark, and in a field study of 10,183 real emails across five university accounts reaches 92.1% precision and 87.9% recall at a median runtime of 0.05 seconds. The claim matters because LLM-personalized attacks defeat nearly all current detectors, and a fact-checking detector does not need to have seen an attack pattern before recognizing it.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is an identity-domain invariant stored in a knowledge base: a mapping from organizational identities (for example, 'IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy') to their legitimate official email domains such as ieee-security.org and ieee.org. Three components operationalize it. A named-entity recognition model built on a BERT-large encoder tags identity-claiming phrases and call-to-action phrases in a single pass, trained with focal loss and augmented with GPT-paraphrased call-to-action samples. A CharacterBERT embedding model, trained with a retrieval loss plus a typo-robustness KL-divergence term, matches a recognized identity phrase to entries in the knowledge base despite typos and paraphrases. A consistency rule then fires the phishing alert when the sender's actual domain is absent from the expected domain set and the email contains instructions, with a special internal-identity check comparing sender and recipient domains for impersonations within an organization. The knowledge base is seeded from existing organization collections such as KnowPhish's Wikidata-sourced identities and from email-finder platforms, then manually validated and periodically updated.

What would settle it

Build a test set whose emails impersonate organizations sampled from outside the knowledge base — small firms, local institutions, newly renamed companies — using fresh non-official sender domains and explicit call-to-action prompts, and compare detection recall against the reported 87.9% to 92.1% range; a large drop would show the accuracy is inherited from knowledge-base coverage. A second check is the false-positive rate on legitimate mail sent from private addresses that name an organization, a case the paper itself identifies as a source of false alarms.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that phishing emails contain disprovable identity claims, and that exposing those contradictions is enough to detect phishing no pattern-based system has seen before. Concretely, PiMRef extracts the claimed sender identity from the subject, sender name, and body; looks up the official email domains for that identity in a semi-automatically curated knowledge base; extracts call-to-action phrases; and raises an alert exactly when the sender's actual domain is not among the expected domains while an instruction is present. The contradiction between claimed identity and actual domain serves as both the alarm and the explanation shown to the user, so the verdict states why the email is untrustworthy rather than returning an opaque score. The paper further reports that this reference-based approach outperforms the feature-engineering detectors D-Fence and HelpHed and the LLM-based ChatSpamDetector on the Nazario and PhishPot benchmarks, and that it far exceeds their recall on LLM-generated spear-phishing while staying fast enough for real-time inbox scanning.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the knowledge base being complete and correct: if an impersonated identity is missing from the base, or a legitimate sender writes from a non-official domain, the identity-domain mismatch produces a false negative or a false positive, and the paper does not quantify how much of the identity space the base covers.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A detector that checks world facts instead of learned patterns should not lose accuracy as phishing templates evolve, because the invariant being verified — who may legitimately send from a given domain — stays true no matter how the attack text changes.
  • LLM-personalized spear-phishing cannot evade simply by sounding convincing, since the more an email names a real organization, the more it commits to an identity the knowledge base can check.
  • Every alert carries its own explanation, so the system doubles as phishing-awareness training: users see the claimed identity, the mismatched domain, and the instruction that triggered the alarm.
  • At a median runtime of 0.05 seconds per email, the check is fast enough to run at the mail server on every inbound message rather than on sampled mail.
  • The identity invariant composes with authentication protocols: the paper finds its remaining false negatives come largely from spoofed sender addresses, which SPF-style checks are designed to catch.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because recall on any impersonated organization is gated by whether that organization is in the knowledge base, the real-world accuracy of the method should track the base's coverage of the attackers' target distribution; an audit of coverage by sector (finance, universities, small business) would predict where the system fails first.
  • The two-condition rule implies that an attacker can evade by dropping either the explicit identity claim or the explicit instruction, but both deletions should measurably reduce attack success; quantifying that tradeoff would show whether the rule is near-optimal or needs a third invariant.
  • The identity-domain invariant should transfer to other channels that pair a claimed identity with an address — SMS, social-media direct messages, and phone calls — because the check itself uses no email-specific feature.
  • Knowledge-base freshness becomes an adversarial parameter: an attacker who learns which organizations have recently changed or unpublished official domains could target those gaps, so the proposed quarterly maintenance schedule may itself need defending.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. PiMRef frames phishing email detection as an identity fact-checking problem: the system extracts the sender's claimed identity, maps that identity to legitimate domains via a semi-automatically curated knowledge base, and flags an email as phishing when the sender's actual domain is inconsistent with the mapped domains and the email contains call-to-action instructions. The paper also constructs SpearMail, a benchmark of 14,672 LLM-generated spear-phishing emails over 681 public profiles, and evaluates PiMRef against academic and commercial baselines in closed-world and real-world settings. The authors report that PiMRef improves precision by 8.8% at no recall cost on Nazario and PhishPot, and that a three-year field study over 10,183 emails achieves 92.1% precision and 87.9% recall.

Significance. The reference-based, deductive approach is a genuinely different angle from feature-based and pure-classification detectors, and the focus on identity-domain inconsistency plus call-to-action is a simple but plausible invariant that could resist distribution shift better than inductive methods. The paper's strengths include a concrete, human-understandable explanation mechanism, a publicly available tool and code, and a real-world evaluation attempt that goes beyond standard benchmarks. The SpearMail benchmark, if released (though the paper says it will not be disseminated), would be a useful resource for studying LLM-generated phishing. However, the evaluation as currently presented does not fully support the headline performance claims: the abstract's precision/recall pair comes from different subpopulations, the number of organic wild phishing emails is very small, and a key threshold is tuned on the test benchmarks. If these issues are fixed, the work could make a solid contribution.

major comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 6.4 (Tables 6-7)] The abstract's claim that "PiMRef achieved 92.1% precision, 87.9% recall" in a real-world evaluation is not supported by any single evaluation in Section 6.4. Table 7 shows 92.05% precision on the Volunteer Email Dataset, but that dataset's recall is reported separately as 100% for both simulated and wild phishing; the 87.89% recall appears only for University 2's Spam Feeds, where no precision is reported. The honeypot set also reports only recall. The paper should present per-dataset precision-recall confusion matrices and either revise the abstract to report the two numbers as separate components of the field study or compute a single joint metric on one coherent population.
  2. [Table 2 and Abstract] The abstract's closed-world claim that PiMRef "boosts precision by 8.8% with no loss in recall on standard benchmarks like Nazario and PhishPot" is not verifiable from Table 2, which reports false positive rate and recall but no precision. Moreover, PiMRef's recall on Nazario (91.18%) and PhishPot (86.02%) is lower than ChatSpamDetector's (98.99% and 99.75%), so "no loss in recall" is not accurate against that baseline. The authors should report full precision/recall/F1 for all closed-world datasets and state precisely which baseline and dataset the 8.8% precision gain refers to.
  3. [Appendix, Hyperparameter Setup (Table 8)] The identity-matching threshold is tuned on the evaluation benchmarks: the appendix states that the threshold is set to 0.83 "which achieves the best precision and recall trade-off on the conventional benchmark datasets." This is test-set tuning and makes the closed-world results optimistic. The paper should separate threshold selection onto a validation fold, or report sensitivity over a range of thresholds for the final test sets, and discuss how the chosen threshold transfers to the open-world setting.
  4. [Section 6.4.1 (Table 6) and Section 7] The most relevant real-world phishing examples are very few: only 19 wild phishing emails appear in the Volunteer Email Dataset, while 145 are simulated by the authors' own LLM pipeline. The reported precision and recall on that dataset are therefore dominated by synthetic data. The paper should report results for wild and simulated phishing separately, and should provide confidence intervals or at least raw counts of true positives and false positives on the volunteer set. This is especially important because the false positive class (legitimate emails from non-official domains with call-to-action text) directly determines precision, and the paper's own failure examples (Figures 11a, 11b) show that this class exists in the field data.
  5. [Section 5.2 and Section 7 (Discussion)] The knowledge base is the load-bearing component of the approach, yet the paper gives no quantitative measure of its coverage. Section 7 acknowledges that missing or obscure identities cause false negatives, but without a coverage metric (e.g., what fraction of identities in a representative corpus map to a correct domain) the reported recalls, especially the 87.9% field recall, are hard to interpret. The authors should provide KB size, coverage statistics on the evaluation datasets, and an analysis of how detection rate varies with KB completeness.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2] The paper states that the SpearMail benchmark "will not be disseminated" for misuse mitigation, yet the contributions claim the benchmark as a deliverable. Please clarify the status of the benchmark (e.g., available upon request, or not released) in the introduction and contributions so the claim is not misleading.
  2. [Section 6.1.2] The training set for the NER model is only 2,086 labeled emails. While the authors use augmentation, the paper does not report inter-annotator agreement or label quality for the manual annotation, which would help assess the reliability of the identity and call-to-action spans.
  3. [Section 4.3 (Figure 2)] The persuasion evaluation uses GPT-4o to score Cialdini cues rather than human raters. A short validation of the automated scores against a small human-annotated sample would strengthen the claim that SpearMail emails are psychologically persuasive.
  4. [Table 3] The ablation table's rows are not labeled clearly; the first two rows lack a checkmark description that unambiguously indicates which module is removed. Adding explicit row labels (e.g., "w/o Call-to-Action", "w/o Internal ID") would improve readability.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Partial circularity in the LLM-generated benchmark and simulated phishing emails, while the core rule itself is not circular.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.1 (Algorithm 1), Section 6.1.2, Section 6.4.1, Table 7]
    "Step 3 (Email Generation, Line 7 in Algorithm 1): Given the user p, a potential interest i, and a relevant activity a, we generate an email to invite p with a pseudo-link in the name of a ... We then generate plausible headers and subject lines with a random email address."

    PiMRef's alarm rule (Section 5) is: raise an alert iff the actual email domain is not in the expected domain set of the claimed identity AND the email contains call-to-action instructions. SpearMail emails are constructed with exactly those ingredients: an email written 'in the name of' a real organization (claimed identity), a pseudo-link invitation (call-to-action), and a random sender address (non-official domain). Thus every SpearMail sample satisfies PiMRef's alarm conditions by construction, modulo NER and KB-retrieval accuracy. The reported 99.02% recall on SpearMail and 100% recall on the 145 simulated volunteer phishing emails therefore measure component extraction on self-matching stimuli rather than independently validating the identity-fact-checking hypothesis.

full rationale

The central detection logic is a rule, not a learned predictor: PiMRef alerts iff the claimed identity's legitimate domain set excludes the actual sender domain and a call-to-action is present. That rule is evaluated against independently labeled corpora, so the approach itself is not circular. The authors' prior reference-based URL-detection papers are cited as background and are not load-bearing for the email-specific derivation; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported through self-citation. The 0.83 identity-matching threshold is selected on the conventional benchmark datasets and PiMRef's closed-world numbers are reported on those same datasets, which is a mild in-sample selection issue rather than a fitted-input-called-prediction circularity. The abstract's joint 92.1% precision / 87.9% recall is not supported by a single confusion matrix: precision comes from the volunteer dataset and the 87.9% recall comes from University 2's spam feeds, a reporting inconsistency rather than circularity. The genuine circular step is in the constructed phishing test sets: SpearMail and the 145 simulated volunteer emails are generated to contain the exact identity-mismatch and call-to-action cues that PiMRef treats as its alarm condition, so recall on those sets is largely self-fulfilling. The 19 wild phishing emails and the conventional Nazario/PhishPot corpora provide independent support, making the circularity partial rather than total.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical or conceptual entities are postulated. The method relies on an externally curated knowledge base and learned models.

free parameters (5)
  • identity matching threshold = 0.83
    Chosen in Appendix Table 8 to maximize F1 (beta=0.5) on conventional benchmark test sets; tuning on the test data can inflate reported performance.
  • number of interests m = 6
    SpearMail generation parameter (Section 4.2), not part of detection but affects benchmark composition.
  • number of activities per interest n = 5
    SpearMail generation parameter (Section 4.2).
  • focal loss gamma = not reported
    Focal loss hyperparameter in Eq. 1 not specified; minor.
  • paraphrase probability = 0.5
    Probability of paraphrasing call-to-action phrases during NER training augmentation (Section 5.3).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Phishing emails of interest always claim an identity and contain call-to-action instructions.
    Threat model in Section 3 defines non-trivial phishing as requiring both; emails with ambiguous identity or no CTA are excluded from the problem definition, which limits detection scope (Section 6.4.5 acknowledges this).
  • domain assumption The identity-domain knowledge base is comprehensive and correct for the evaluated domains.
    Section 5.2 constructs KB semi-automatically from KnowPhish, RocketReach, Clearbit, LinkedIn with 3 interns validating; no coverage statistics are reported, and unseen identities cause false negatives.
  • domain assumption Legitimate senders use official domains listed in the KB.
    Domain Inference flags any mismatch as suspicious; Section 6.4.5 shows false positives when legitimate emails are sent from private addresses.
  • domain assumption CharacterBERT embedding similarity with threshold 0.83 reliably reflects identity equivalence.
    Section 5.2 and Appendix Table 8; threshold is dataset-dependent.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PiMRef: Detecting and Explaining Ever-evolving Spear Phishing Emails with Knowledge Base Invariants." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OUHQ6YXF

@misc{pith2026250715393,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PiMRef: Detecting and Explaining Ever-evolving Spear Phishing Emails with Knowledge Base Invariants},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OUHQ6YXF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.15393}
}
read the original abstract

Phishing emails are a critical component of the cybercrime kill chain due to their wide reach and low cost. Their ever-evolving nature renders traditional rule-based and feature-engineered detectors ineffective in the ongoing arms race between attackers and defenders. The rise of large language models (LLMs) further exacerbates the threat, enabling attackers to craft highly convincing phishing emails at minimal cost. This work demonstrates that LLMs can generate psychologically persuasive phishing emails tailored to victim profiles, successfully bypassing nearly all commercial and academic detectors. To defend against such threats, we propose PiMRef, the first reference-based phishing email detector that leverages knowledge-based invariants. Our core insight is that persuasive phishing emails often contain disprovable identity claims, which contradict real-world facts. PiMRef reframes phishing detection as an identity fact-checking task. Given an email, PiMRef (i) extracts the sender's claimed identity, (ii) verifies the legitimacy of the sender's domain against a predefined knowledge base, and (iii) detects call-to-action prompts that push user engagement. Contradictory claims are flagged as phishing indicators and serve as human-understandable explanations. Compared to existing methods such as D-Fence, HelpHed, and ChatSpamDetector, PiMRef boosts precision by 8.8% with no loss in recall on standard benchmarks like Nazario and PhishPot. In a real-world evaluation of 10,183 emails across five university accounts over three years, PiMRef achieved 92.1% precision, 87.9% recall, and a median runtime of 0.05s, outperforming the state-of-the-art in both effectiveness and efficiency.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.15393 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Given the victim’s profile, a phishing attacker can construct a CoT (Chain of Thought) prompt to infer the victim’s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Persuasive score comparison IEEE S&P ieee-security.org ieee.org IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy Alias Email Domain ❶ Claimed to be “IEEE S&P” but uses a suspicious email domain ❷ Asks the recipient to “Completing the following form” Phishing Explanations Sender Identity Recognition (Section 4.1) Domain Inference (Section 4.2) Subject: Congratulations on Winning the Test￾of-Time Award at IEEE S&P 2026! From: I… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of PiMRef. The Sender Identity Recognition module first extracts the phrases claiming the identity. The Domain Inference module then converts the identity-claiming phrases into their expected email domains (e.g., ieee-security.org and ieee.org), based on a predefined Identity-Domain Knowledge Base. Finally, the Instruction Recognition module extracts the phrases of call-to-action instruction in the email. P… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The application of NER model to infer the token [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example of NER training samples. takes a sequence of tokens as input, and assigns each token with one of the following classes, i.e., BE (i.e., the beginning of entity), IE (i.e., the inside of entity), and O (i.e., the outside), following the practice of training any …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visualization of feature importance for D-Fence and HelpHed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Failure examples of PiMRef TABLE 4: Adversarial attacks on the NER model. Method Attack Class Recognition Rate (Clean) Recognition Rate (After Attack) BAE [152] Identity 0.89 0.87 (↓0.02) DeepWordBug [153] – Delete Identity 0.91 0.92 (↑0.01) – Replace Identity 0.94 0.9…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Wild phishing email examples detected by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: VLM-based strategy for phishing email generation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Failure examples in the open-world experiment. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

164 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ransomware, extortion and the cyber crime ecosystem,

    NCSC and the National Crime Agency (NCA) in UK, “Ransomware, extortion and the cyber crime ecosystem,” urlhttps://www.ncsc.gov.uk/whitepaper/ransomware-extortion- and-the-cyber-crime-ecosystem

  2. [2]

    Phishing activity trends report

    APWG. Phishing activity trends report. https://docs.apwg.org/reports/ apwg trends report q4 2023.pdf

    2023

  3. [3]

    2023 data breach investigations report dbir

    Verizon. 2023 data breach investigations report dbir. https://www.verizon.com/about/news/media-resources/attachment? fid=65e1e3213d633293cd82b8cb

    2023

  4. [4]

    Proofpoint’s 2023 state of the phish report

    Proofpoint. Proofpoint’s 2023 state of the phish report. https://www. proofpoint.com/

    2023

  5. [5]

    Top phishing statistics for 2024: Latest figures and trends

    StationX. Top phishing statistics for 2024: Latest figures and trends. https://www.stationx.net/phishing-statistics/#: ∼: text=An%20estimated%203.4%20billion%20emails%20a%20day% 20are,Around%2036%25%20of%20all%20data%20breaches% 20involve%20phishing

    2024

  6. [6]

    G. A.-S. Alliance. The global state of scams report, 2023. https:// pages.egress.com/whitepaper-email-risk-report-01-24.html

    2023

  7. [7]

    M. Wong, P. M. A. Feghali et al. (2014) Sender policy framework (spf) for authorizing use of domains in e-mail, version 1. RFC 7208. [Online]. Available: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7208

    2014

  8. [8]

    M. S. Johns, E. McGinnis et al. (2011) Domainkeys identified mail (dkim) signatures. RFC 6376. [Online]. Available: https: //tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6376

    2011

Show all 164 references
  1. [9]

    Kucherawy, E

    M. Kucherawy, E. Zwicky et al. (2015) Domain-based message authentication, reporting & conformance (dmarc). RFC 7489. [Online]. Available: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7489

    2015

  2. [10]

    R. Team. (2024) Rspamd: Rapid spam filtering system. https://rspamd. com

    2024

  3. [11]

    [Online]

    The Apache Software Foundation, SpamAssassin, Apache Software Foundation, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://spamassassin.apache. org/

    2024

  4. [12]

    (2024) Trend micro cybersecurity solutions

    Trend Micro. (2024) Trend micro cybersecurity solutions. [Online]. Available: https://www.trendmicro.com

    2024

  5. [13]

    Detecting and characterizing lateral phishing at scale,

    G. Ho, A. Cidon, L. Gavish, M. Schweighauser, V. Paxson, S. Savage, G. M. Voelker, and D. Wagner, “Detecting and characterizing lateral phishing at scale,” in 28th USENIX security symposium (USENIX security 19), 2019, pp. 1273–1290

    2019

  6. [14]

    High precision detection of business email compromise,

    A. Cidon, L. Gavish, I. Bleier, N. Korshun, M. Schweighauser, and A. Tsitkin, “High precision detection of business email compromise,” in 28th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 19), 2019, pp. 1291–1307

    2019

  7. [15]

    Detecting credential spearphishing in enterprise settings,

    G. Ho, A. Sharma, M. Javed, V. Paxson, and D. Wagner, “Detecting credential spearphishing in enterprise settings,” in 26th USENIX security symposium (USENIX security 17), 2017, pp. 469–485

    2017

  8. [16]

    Catching classical and hijack-based phishing attacks,

    T. Thakur and R. Verma, “Catching classical and hijack-based phishing attacks,” inInternational Conferenceon Information SystemsSecurity. Springer, 2014, pp. 318–337

    2014

  9. [17]

    That ain’t you: detecting spearphish- ing emails before they are sent,

    G. Stringhini and O. Thonnard, “That ain’t you: detecting spearphish- ing emails before they are sent,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1410.6629, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Emailprofiler: Spearphishing filtering with header and stylometric features of emails,

    S. Duman, K. Kalkan-Cakmakci, M. Egele, W. Robertson, and E. Kirda, “Emailprofiler: Spearphishing filtering with header and stylometric features of emails,” in2016 IEEE 40th Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC), vol. 1. IEEE, 2016, pp. 408–416

    2016

  11. [19]

    Reading between the lines: content-agnostic detection of spear-phishing emails,

    H. Gascon, S. Ullrich, B. Stritter, and K. Rieck, “Reading between the lines: content-agnostic detection of spear-phishing emails,” in Research in Attacks, Intrusions, and Defenses: 21st International Symposium, RAID 2018, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, September 10-12, 2018, Proce...

    2018

  12. [20]

    Mitigation of spear phishing attacks: A content-based authorship identification framework,

    M. Khonji, Y. Iraqi, and A. Jones, “Mitigation of spear phishing attacks: A content-based authorship identification framework,” in 2011 International Conference for Internet Technology and Secured Transactions. IEEE, 2011, pp. 416–421

    2011

  13. [21]

    Detecting phishing emails using hybrid features,

    L. Ma, B. Ofoghi, P. Watters, and S. Brown, “Detecting phishing emails using hybrid features,” in 2009 Symposia and Workshops on Ubiquitous, Autonomic and Trusted Computing. IEEE, 2009, pp. 493–497

    2009

  14. [22]

    Hybrid feature selection for phish- ing email detection,

    I. R. A. Hamid and J. Abawajy, “Hybrid feature selection for phish- ing email detection,” in Algorithms and Architectures for Parallel Processing: 11th International Conference, ICA300 2011, Melbourne, Australia, October 24-26, 2011, Proceedings, Part II 11. Springer, 2011, pp...

    2011

  15. [23]

    Enhancing phishing e-mail classifiers: A lexical url analysis approach,

    M. Khonji, Y. Iraqi, and A. Jones, “Enhancing phishing e-mail classifiers: A lexical url analysis approach,” International Journal for Information Security Research (IJISR), vol. 2, no. 1/2, p. 40, 2012

    2012

  16. [24]

    Comparison of machine learning techniques for spam detection,

    A. Ghosh and A. Senthilrajan, “Comparison of machine learning techniques for spam detection,” Multimedia Tools and Applications, vol. 82, no. 19, pp. 29 227–29 254, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    D-fence: A flexible, efficient, and comprehensive phishing email detection system,

    J. Lee, F. Tang, P. Ye, F. Abbasi, P. Hay, and D. M. Divakaran, “D-fence: A flexible, efficient, and comprehensive phishing email detection system,” in 2021 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS&P). IEEE, 2021, pp. 578–597

    2021

  18. [26]

    Helphed: Hybrid ensemble learn- ing phishing email detection,

    P. Bountakas and C. Xenakis, “Helphed: Hybrid ensemble learn- ing phishing email detection,” Journal of network and computer applications, vol. 210, p. 103545, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    A machine learning approach towards phishing email detection,

    N. Harikrishnan, R. Vinayakumar, and K. Soman, “A machine learning approach towards phishing email detection,” in Proceedings of the anti-phishing pilot at ACM international workshop on security and privacy analytics (IWSPAAP), vol. 2013, 2018, pp. 455–468

    2013

  20. [28]

    A multi-classifier based prediction model for phishing emails detection using topic modelling, named entity recognition and image processing,

    C. E. Shyni, S. Sarju, and S. Swamynathan, “A multi-classifier based prediction model for phishing emails detection using topic modelling, named entity recognition and image processing,” Circuits and Systems, vol. 7, no. 9, pp. 2507–2520, 2016

    2016

  21. [29]

    Catbert: Context-aware tiny bert for detecting targeted social engineering emails,

    Y. Lee, J. Saxe, R. Harang, and S. AI, “Catbert: Context-aware tiny bert for detecting targeted social engineering emails,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.03484, 2021

    2010 arXiv

  22. [30]

    A modular and adaptive system for business email compromise detection,

    J. Brabec, F. ˇSrajer, R. Starosta, T. Sixta, M. Dupont, M. Lenoch, J. Menˇs´ık, F. Becker, J. Boros, T. Popet al., “A modular and adaptive system for business email compromise detection,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.10776, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Catching the phish: Detecting phishing attacks using recurrent neural networks (rnns),

    L. Halga ˇs, I. Agrafiotis, and J. R. Nurse, “Catching the phish: Detecting phishing attacks using recurrent neural networks (rnns),” in Information Security Applications: 20th International Conference, WISA 2019, Jeju Island, South Korea, August 21–24, 2019, Revised Selected ...

    2019

  24. [32]

    Chatspamdetec- tor: Leveraging large language models for effective phishing email detection,

    T. Koide, N. Fukushi, H. Nakano, and D. Chiba, “Chatspamdetec- tor: Leveraging large language models for effective phishing email detection,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.18093, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    (2024) Coremail professional mail system

    Coremail. (2024) Coremail professional mail system. [Online]. Available: https://mail.icoremail.net/

    2024

  26. [34]

    Anonymous website for pimref: Homepage,

    Anonymous, “Anonymous website for pimref: Homepage,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://sites.google.com/view/pimref/home

    2024

  27. [35]

    Detecting and characterizing sms spearphishing attacks,

    M. Liu, Y. Zhang, B. Liu, Z. Li, H. Duan, and D. Sun, “Detecting and characterizing sms spearphishing attacks,” in Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, 2021, pp. 930–943

    2021

  28. [36]

    Characterizing the security of the sms ecosystem with public gateways,

    B. Reaves, L. Vargas, N. Scaife, D. Tian, L. Blue, P. Traynor, and K. R. Butler, “Characterizing the security of the sms ecosystem with public gateways,”ACMTransactionson Privacy and Security (TOPS), vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 1–31, 2018

    2018

  29. [37]

    An empirical analysis of sms scam detection systems,

    M. Salman, M. Ikram, and M. A. Kaafar, “An empirical analysis of sms scam detection systems,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.10451, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    On sms phishing tactics and infrastructure,

    A. Nahapetyan, S. Prasad, K. Childs, A. Oest, Y. Ladwig, A. Kaprav- elos, and B. Reaves, “On sms phishing tactics and infrastructure,” in 2024 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–16

    2024

  31. [39]

    Phishing attacks on modern android,

    S. Aonzo, A. Merlo, G. Tavella, and Y. Fratantonio, “Phishing attacks on modern android,” in Proceedings of the 2018 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 2018, pp. 1788–1801

    2018

  32. [40]

    See no evil: phishing for permissions with false transparency,

    G. S. Tuncay, J. Qian, and C. A. Gunter, “See no evil: phishing for permissions with false transparency,” in 29th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 20), 2020, pp. 415–432

    2020

  33. [41]

    Sok: Everyone hates robocalls: A survey of techniques against telephone spam,

    H. Tu, A. Doup ´e, Z. Zhao, and G.-J. Ahn, “Sok: Everyone hates robocalls: A survey of techniques against telephone spam,” in 2016 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). IEEE, 2016, pp. 320–338

    2016

  34. [42]

    Phoneypot: Data-driven understanding of telephony threats

    P. Gupta, B. Srinivasan, V. Balasubramaniyan, and M. Ahamad, “Phoneypot: Data-driven understanding of telephony threats.” in NDSS, vol. 107, 2015, p. 108

    2015

  35. [43]

    Applying deep learning to combat mass robocalls,

    S. Pandit, J. Liu, R. Perdisci, and M. Ahamad, “Applying deep learning to combat mass robocalls,” in 2021 IEEE Security and Privacy Workshops (SPW). IEEE, 2021, pp. 63–70

    2021

  36. [44]

    Characterizing robocalls with multiple vantage points,

    S. Prasad, A. Nahapetyan, and B. Reaves, “Characterizing robocalls with multiple vantage points,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.17361, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    J ¨ager: Automated telephone call traceback,

    D. Adei, V. Madathil, S. Prasad, B. Reaves, and A. Scafuro, “J ¨ager: Automated telephone call traceback,” in Proceedings of the 2024 on ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 2024, pp. 2042–2056

    2024

  38. [46]

    Needle in a haystack: Tracking down elite phishing domains in the wild,

    K. Tian, S. T. Jan, H. Hu, D. Yao, and G. Wang, “Needle in a haystack: Tracking down elite phishing domains in the wild,” inProceedings of the Internet Measurement Conference 2018, 2018, pp. 429–442

    2018

  39. [47]

    Visualphishnet: Zero-day phishing website detection by visual similarity,

    S. Abdelnabi, K. Krombholz, and M. Fritz, “Visualphishnet: Zero-day phishing website detection by visual similarity,” inProceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGSAC conference on computer and communications security, 2020, pp. 1681–1698

    2020

  40. [48]

    Phishpedia: A hybrid deep learning based approach to visually identify phishing webpages,

    Y. Lin, R. Liu, D. M. Divakaran, J. Y. Ng, Q. Z. Chan, Y. Lu, Y. Si, F. Zhang, and J. S. Dong, “Phishpedia: A hybrid deep learning based approach to visually identify phishing webpages,” in 30th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 21), 2021, pp. 3793–3810

    2021

  41. [49]

    Inferring phishing intention via webpage appearance and dynamics: A deep vision based approach,

    R. Liu, Y. Lin, X. Yang, S. H. Ng, D. M. Divakaran, and J. S. Dong, “Inferring phishing intention via webpage appearance and dynamics: A deep vision based approach,” in31st USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 22), 2022, pp. 1633–1650

    2022

  42. [50]

    Knowledge expan- sion and counterfactual interaction for {Reference-Based} phishing detection,

    R. Liu, Y. Lin, Y. Zhang, P. H. Lee, and J. S. Dong, “Knowledge expan- sion and counterfactual interaction for {Reference-Based} phishing detection,” in32nd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 23), 2023, pp. 4139–4156

    2023

  43. [51]

    Less defined knowledge and more true alarms: Reference-based phishing detection without a pre-defined reference list,

    R. Liu, Y. Lin, X. Teoh, G. Liu, Z. Huang, and J. S. Dong, “Less defined knowledge and more true alarms: Reference-based phishing detection without a pre-defined reference list,” in 33rd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 24), 2024, pp. 523–540

    2024

  44. [52]

    Phishinpatterns: measuring elicited user interactions at scale on phishing websites,

    K. Subramani, W. Melicher, O. Starov, P. Vadrevu, and R. Perdisci, “Phishinpatterns: measuring elicited user interactions at scale on phishing websites,” in Proceedings of the 22nd ACM Internet Measurement Conference, 2022, pp. 589–604

    2022

  45. [53]

    {PhishTime}: Continuous longitudinal measurement of the effectiveness of anti-phishing blacklists,

    A. Oest, Y. Safaei, P. Zhang, B. Wardman, K. Tyers, Y. Shoshitaishvili, and A. Doup´e, “{PhishTime}: Continuous longitudinal measurement of the effectiveness of anti-phishing blacklists,” in 29th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 20), 2020, pp. 379–396

    2020

  46. [54]

    {PhishPrint}: evading phishing detection crawlers by prior profiling,

    B. Acharya and P. Vadrevu, “{PhishPrint}: evading phishing detection crawlers by prior profiling,” in 30th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 21), 2021, pp. 3775–3792

    2021

  47. [55]

    Phishfarm: A scalable framework for measuring the effectiveness of evasion techniques against browser phishing blacklists,

    A. Oest, Y. Safaei, A. Doup ´e, G.-J. Ahn, B. Wardman, and K. Tyers, “Phishfarm: A scalable framework for measuring the effectiveness of evasion techniques against browser phishing blacklists,” in 2019 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). IEEE, 2019, pp. 1344–1361. 15

    2019

  48. [56]

    I’m spartacus, no, i’m spartacus: Proactively protecting users from phishing by intentionally triggering cloaking behavior,

    P. Zhang, Z. Sun, S. Kyung, H. W. Behrens, Z. L. Basque, H. Cho, A. Oest, R. Wang, T. Bao, Y. Shoshitaishvili et al., “I’m spartacus, no, i’m spartacus: Proactively protecting users from phishing by intentionally triggering cloaking behavior,” in Proceedings of the 2022 ACM SI...

    2022

  49. [57]

    Crawlphish: Large-scale analysis of client-side cloaking techniques in phishing,

    P. Zhang, A. Oest, H. Cho, Z. Sun, R. Johnson, B. Wardman, S. Sarker, A. Kapravelos, T. Bao, R. Wang et al., “Crawlphish: Large-scale analysis of client-side cloaking techniques in phishing,” in2021 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). IEEE, 2021, pp. 1109– 1124

    2021

  50. [58]

    Cloak of visibility: Detecting when machines browse a different web,

    L. Invernizzi, K. Thomas, A. Kapravelos, O. Comanescu, J.-M. Picod, and E. Bursztein, “Cloak of visibility: Detecting when machines browse a different web,” in 2016 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). IEEE, 2016, pp. 743–758

    2016

  51. [59]

    Phish in sheep’s clothing: Exploring the authentication pitfalls of browser fingerprinting,

    X. Lin, P. Ilia, S. Solanki, and J. Polakis, “Phish in sheep’s clothing: Exploring the authentication pitfalls of browser fingerprinting,” in 31st USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 22), 2022, pp. 1651–1668

    2022

  52. [60]

    Rods with laser beams: understanding browser finger- printing on phishing pages,

    I. Sanchez-Rola, L. Bilge, D. Balzarotti, A. Buescher, and P. Efs- tathopoulos, “Rods with laser beams: understanding browser finger- printing on phishing pages,” in 32nd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 23), 2023, pp. 4157–4173

    2023

  53. [61]

    Phisheye: Live monitoring of sandboxed phishing kits,

    X. Han, N. Kheir, and D. Balzarotti, “Phisheye: Live monitoring of sandboxed phishing kits,” in Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 2016, pp. 1402–1413

    2016

  54. [62]

    There is no free phish: An analysis of

    M. Cova, C. Kruegel, and G. Vigna, “There is no free phish: An analysis of ”free” and live phishing kits.” WOOT, vol. 8, pp. 1–8, 2008

    2008

  55. [63]

    Catching phishers by their bait: Investigating the dutch phishing landscape through phishing kit detection,

    H. Bijmans, T. Booij, A. Schwedersky, A. Nedgabat, and R. van Wegberg, “Catching phishers by their bait: Investigating the dutch phishing landscape through phishing kit detection,” in 30th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 21), 2021, pp. 3757–3774

    2021

  56. [65]

    Spacephish: The evasion- space of adversarial attacks against phishing website detectors using machine learning,

    G. Apruzzese, M. Conti, and Y. Yuan, “Spacephish: The evasion- space of adversarial attacks against phishing website detectors using machine learning,” in Proceedings of the 38th annual computer security applications conference, 2022, pp. 171–185

    2022

  57. [66]

    Know your phish: Novel techniques for detecting phishing sites and their targets,

    S. Marchal, K. Saari, N. Singh, and N. Asokan, “Know your phish: Novel techniques for detecting phishing sites and their targets,” in 2016 IEEE 36th international conference on distributed computing systems (ICDCS). IEEE, 2016, pp. 323–333

    2016

  58. [67]

    Inside a phisher’s mind: Understanding the anti-phishing ecosys- tem through phishing kit analysis,

    A. Oest, Y. Safei, A. Doup ´e, G.-J. Ahn, B. Wardman, and G. Warner, “Inside a phisher’s mind: Understanding the anti-phishing ecosys- tem through phishing kit analysis,” in 2018 APWG Symposium on Electronic Crime Research (eCrime). IEEE, 2018, pp. 1–12

    2018

  59. [68]

    The phishing funnel model: a design artifact to predict user susceptibility to phishing websites,

    A. Abbasi, D. Dobolyi, A. Vance, and F. M. Zahedi, “The phishing funnel model: a design artifact to predict user susceptibility to phishing websites,”Information Systems Research, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 410–436, 2021

    2021

  60. [69]

    What happens after you leak your password: Understanding credential sharing on phishing sites,

    P. Peng, C. Xu, L. Quinn, H. Hu, B. Viswanath, and G. Wang, “What happens after you leak your password: Understanding credential sharing on phishing sites,” in Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Asia conference on computer and communications security, 2019, pp. 181– 192

    2019

  61. [70]

    Beyond phish: Toward detecting fraudulent e-commerce websites at scale,

    M. Bitaab, H. Cho, A. Oest, Z. Lyu, W. Wang, J. Abraham, R. Wang, T. Bao, Y. Shoshitaishvili, and A. Doup ´e, “Beyond phish: Toward detecting fraudulent e-commerce websites at scale,” in 2023 ieee symposium on security and privacy (sp). IEEE, 2023, pp. 2566– 2583

    2023

  62. [71]

    Scamnet: Toward ex- plainable large language model-based fraudulent shopping website detection,

    M. Bitaab, A. Karimi, Z. Lyu, A. Mosallanezhad, A. Oest, R. Wang, T. Bao, Y. Shoshitaishvili, and A. Doup ´e, “Scamnet: Toward ex- plainable large language model-based fraudulent shopping website detection,” 2025

    2025

  63. [72]

    Conning the crypto conman: End- to-end analysis of cryptocurrency-based technical support scams,

    B. Acharya, M. Saad, A. E. Cin `a, L. Sch ¨onherr, H. Dai Nguyen, A. Oest, P. Vadrevu, and T. Holz, “Conning the crypto conman: End- to-end analysis of cryptocurrency-based technical support scams,” in 2024 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). IEEE, 2024, pp. 17–35

    2024

  64. [73]

    Understanding, measuring, and detecting modern technical support scams,

    J. Liu, P. Pun, P. Vadrevu, and R. Perdisci, “Understanding, measuring, and detecting modern technical support scams,” in 2023 IEEE 8th European Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS&P). IEEE, 2023, pp. 18–38

    2023

  65. [74]

    Detecting organized ecommerce fraud using scalable categorical clustering,

    S. Marchal and S. Szyller, “Detecting organized ecommerce fraud using scalable categorical clustering,” in Proceedings of the 35th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, 2019, pp. 215– 228

    2019

  66. [75]

    Automatically dismantling online dating fraud,

    G. Suarez-Tangil, M. Edwards, C. Peersman, G. Stringhini, A. Rashid, and M. Whitty, “Automatically dismantling online dating fraud,”IEEE Transactionson Information Forensics and Security, vol. 15, pp. 1128– 1137, 2019

    2019

  67. [76]

    A multiview clustering frame- work for detecting deceptive reviews,

    Y. Zhang, H. Wang, and A. Stavrou, “A multiview clustering frame- work for detecting deceptive reviews,”Journal of Computer Security, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 31–52, 2024

    2024

  68. [77]

    Detecting deceptive reviews using generative adversarial networks,

    H. Aghakhani, A. Machiry, S. Nilizadeh, C. Kruegel, and G. Vigna, “Detecting deceptive reviews using generative adversarial networks,” in 2018 IEEE security and privacy workshops (SPW). IEEE, 2018, pp. 89–95

    2018

  69. [78]

    The dark alleys of madison avenue: Understanding ma- licious advertisements,

    A. Zarras, A. Kapravelos, G. Stringhini, T. Holz, C. Kruegel, and G. Vigna, “The dark alleys of madison avenue: Understanding ma- licious advertisements,” in Proceedings of the 2014 conference on internet measurement conference, 2014, pp. 373–380

    2014

  70. [79]

    Scamchatbot: An end- to-end analysis of fake account recovery on social media via chatbots,

    B. Acharya, D. Sautter, M. Saad, and T. Holz, “Scamchatbot: An end- to-end analysis of fake account recovery on social media via chatbots,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15072, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  71. [80]

    An explorative study of pig butchering scams,

    B. Acharya and T. Holz, “An explorative study of pig butchering scams,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15423, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  72. [81]

    Pirates of charity: Exploring donation-based abuses in social media platforms,

    B. Acharya, D. Lazzaro, A. E. Cin `a, and T. Holz, “Pirates of charity: Exploring donation-based abuses in social media platforms,” in Proceedings of the ACM on WebConference 2025, 2025, pp. 3968– 3981

    2025

  73. [82]

    Social turing tests: Crowdsourcing sybil detection,

    G. Wang, M. Mohanlal, C. Wilson, X. Wang, M. Metzger, H. Zheng, and B. Y. Zhao, “Social turing tests: Crowdsourcing sybil detection,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1205.3856, 2012

    2012 arXiv

  74. [83]

    User awareness and defenses against sockpuppet friend invitations in facebook,

    S. Talukder, N. Hernandez, M. Azimpourkivi, and B. Carbunar, “User awareness and defenses against sockpuppet friend invitations in facebook,” in Proceedings of the 37th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing, 2022, pp. 1740–1747

    2022

  75. [84]

    Turning the tide: Curbing deceptive yelp behaviors,

    M. Rahman, B. Carbunar, J. Ballesteros, G. Burri, and D. H. Chau, “Turning the tide: Curbing deceptive yelp behaviors,” inProceedings of the 2014 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining. SIAM, 2014, pp. 244–252

    2014

  76. [85]

    “i have no idea what a social bot is

    D. Kats and M. Sharif, ““i have no idea what a social bot is”: On users’ perceptions of social bots and ability to detect them,” in Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction, 2022, pp. 32–40

    2022

  77. [86]

    Detecting fake accounts in online social networks at the time of registrations,

    D. Yuan, Y. Miao, N. Z. Gong, Z. Yang, Q. Li, D. Song, Q. Wang, and X. Liang, “Detecting fake accounts in online social networks at the time of registrations,” in Proceedings of the 2019 ACM SIGSAC conference on computer and communications security, 2019, pp. 1423–1438

    2019

  78. [87]

    Senet: Visual detection of online social engineering attack campaigns,

    I. Ozen, K. Subramani, P. Vadrevu, and R. Perdisci, “Senet: Visual detection of online social engineering attack campaigns,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.05569, 2024. 16

    2024 arXiv

  79. [88]

    Fairplay: Fraud and malware detection in google play,

    M. Rahman, M. Rahman, B. Carbunar, and D. H. Chau, “Fairplay: Fraud and malware detection in google play,” in Proceedings of the 2016 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining. SIAM, 2016, pp. 99–107

    2016

  80. [89]

    Personalized security indicators to detect application phishing attacks in mobile platforms,

    C. Marforio, R. J. Masti, C. Soriente, K. Kostiainen, and S. Capkun, “Personalized security indicators to detect application phishing attacks in mobile platforms,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1502.06824, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  81. [90]

    Android, notify me when it is time to go phishing,

    A. Ruggia, A. Possemato, A. Merlo, D. Nisi, and S. Aonzo, “Android, notify me when it is time to go phishing,” in EUROS&P 2023, 8th IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2023

    2023

  82. [91]

    Pulling off the mask: Forensic analysis of the deceptive creator wallets behind smart contract fraud,

    M. Yao, R. Zhang, H. Xu, S.-H. Chou, V. C. Paturi, A. K. Sikder, and B. Saltaformaggio, “Pulling off the mask: Forensic analysis of the deceptive creator wallets behind smart contract fraud,” in 2024 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). IEEE, 2024, pp. 2236–2254

    2024

  83. [92]

    Towards usable protec- tion against honeypots,

    C. F. Torres, M. Baden, and R. State, “Towards usable protec- tion against honeypots,” in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency (ICBC). IEEE, 2020, pp. 1–2

    2020

  84. [93]

    Ægis: Smart shielding of smart contracts,

    C. Ferreira Torres, M. Baden, R. Norvill, and H. Jonker, “Ægis: Smart shielding of smart contracts,” inProceedings of the 2019 ACM SIGSACconference on computer and communications security, 2019, pp. 2589–2591

    2019

  85. [94]

    Siege: Self-supervised incremental deep graph learning for ethereum phishing scam detec- tion,

    S. Li, R. Wang, H. Wu, S. Zhong, and F. Xu, “Siege: Self-supervised incremental deep graph learning for ethereum phishing scam detec- tion,” in Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 2023, pp. 8881–8890

    2023

  86. [95]

    An end to end analysis of crypto scams on ethereum,

    J. Kimber, E. Branca, A. Natadze, and N. Stakhanova, “An end to end analysis of crypto scams on ethereum,”ACM Transactions on Internet Technology, 2025

    2025

  87. [96]

    Url inspection tasks: Helping users detect phishing links in emails,

    D. Lain, Y. Nakatsuka, K. Kostiainen, G. Tsudik, and S. Capkun, “Url inspection tasks: Helping users detect phishing links in emails,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.20234, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  88. [97]

    Content, nudges and incentives: A study on the effectiveness and perception of embedded phishing training,

    D. Lain, T. Jost, S. Matetic, K. Kostiainen, and S. Capkun, “Content, nudges and incentives: A study on the effectiveness and perception of embedded phishing training,” in Proceedings of the 2024 on ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 2024, pp. 4182–4196

    2024

  89. [98]

    Al- pha phi-shing fraternity: Phishing assessment in a higher educa- tion institution,

    M. Casagrande, M. Conti, M. Fedeli, E. Losiouk et al., “Al- pha phi-shing fraternity: Phishing assessment in a higher educa- tion institution,” JOURNAL OF CYBERSECURITY EDUCATION, RESEARCH & PRACTICE, 2023

    2023

  90. [99]

    Phishing in organizations: Findings from a large-scale and long-term study,

    D. Lain, K. Kostiainen, and S. ˇCapkun, “Phishing in organizations: Findings from a large-scale and long-term study,” in 2022 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). IEEE, 2022, pp. 842–859

    2022

  91. [100]

    You’ve got report: Measurement and security implications of{DMARC} reporting,

    M. I. Ashiq, W. Li, T. Fiebig, and T. Chung, “You’ve got report: Measurement and security implications of{DMARC} reporting,” in 32nd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 23), 2023, pp. 4123–4137

    2023

  92. [101]

    Weak links in authentication chains: A large- scale analysis of email sender spoofing attacks,

    K. Shen, C. Wang, M. Guo, X. Zheng, C. Lu, B. Liu, Y. Zhao, S. Hao, H. Duan, Q. Pan et al., “Weak links in authentication chains: A large- scale analysis of email sender spoofing attacks,” in 30th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 21), 2021, pp. 3201–3217

    2021

  93. [102]

    The evolution of dns-based email au- thentication: Measuring adoption and finding flaws,

    D. Tatang, F. Zettl, and T. Holz, “The evolution of dns-based email au- thentication: Measuring adoption and finding flaws,” inProceedings of the 24th International Symposium on Research in Attacks, Intrusions and Defenses, 2021, pp. 354–369

    2021

  94. [103]

    Study on the effectiveness of anomaly detection for spam filtering,

    C. Laorden, X. Ugarte-Pedrero, I. Santos, B. Sanz, J. Nieves, and P. G. Bringas, “Study on the effectiveness of anomaly detection for spam filtering,” Information Sciences, vol. 277, pp. 421–444, 2014

    2014

  95. [104]

    Identifying authorship by byte-level n-grams: The source code author profile (scap) method,

    G. Frantzeskou, E. Stamatatos, S. Gritzalis, C. E. Chaski, and B. S. Howald, “Identifying authorship by byte-level n-grams: The source code author profile (scap) method,” International Journal of Digital Evidence, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–18, 2007

    2007

  96. [105]

    Design of multi-view based email classification for iot systems via semi-supervised learning,

    W. Li, W. Meng, Z. Tan, and Y. Xiang, “Design of multi-view based email classification for iot systems via semi-supervised learning,” Journal of Network and Computer Applications, vol. 128, pp. 56– 63, 2019

    2019

  97. [106]

    Improving malicious email detection through novel designated deep-learning architectures utilizing entire email,

    T. Muralidharan and N. Nissim, “Improving malicious email detection through novel designated deep-learning architectures utilizing entire email,” Neural Networks, vol. 157, pp. 257–279, 2023

    2023

  98. [107]

    Efficient spam and phish- ing emails filtering based on deep learning,

    S. Magdy, Y. Abouelseoud, and M. Mikhail, “Efficient spam and phish- ing emails filtering based on deep learning,”Computer Networks, vol. 206, p. 108826, 2022

    2022

  99. [108]

    Double-layer detection of internal threat in enterprise systems based on deep learning,

    D. He, X. Lv, X. Xu, S. Chan, and K.-K. R. Choo, “Double-layer detection of internal threat in enterprise systems based on deep learning,” IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 2024

    2024

  100. [109]

    Phishing email detection using persuasion cues,

    R. Valecha, P. Mandaokar, and H. R. Rao, “Phishing email detection using persuasion cues,” IEEE transactions on Dependable and secure computing, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 747–756, 2021

    2021

  101. [110]

    “we need a big revolution in email advertising

    A. Sergeeva, B. Rohles, V. Distler, and V. Koenig, ““we need a big revolution in email advertising”: Users’ perception of persuasion in permission-based advertising emails,” in Proceedings of the 2023 chi conference on human factors in computing systems, 2023, pp. 1–21

    2023

  102. [111]

    Cognitive triaging of phishing attacks,

    A. Van Der Heijden and L. Allodi, “Cognitive triaging of phishing attacks,” in 28th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 19), 2019, pp. 1309–1326

    2019

  103. [112]

    Evaluating the efficacy of large language models in identifying phishing attempts,

    H. Patel, U. Rehman, and F. Iqbal, “Evaluating the efficacy of large language models in identifying phishing attempts,” in 2024 16th International Conference on Human System Interaction (HSI). IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–7

    2024

  104. [113]

    Prompted contextual vectors for spear-phishing detection,

    D. Nahmias, G. Engelberg, D. Klein, and A. Shabtai, “Prompted contextual vectors for spear-phishing detection,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.08309, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  105. [114]

    From chatbots to phishbots?: Phishing scam generation in commercial large language models,

    S. S. Roy, P. Thota, K. V. Naragam, and S. Nilizadeh, “From chatbots to phishbots?: Phishing scam generation in commercial large language models,” in 2024 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). IEEE Computer Society, 2024, pp. 221–221

    2024

  106. [115]

    When llms go online: The emerging threat of web-enabled llms,

    H. Kim, M. Song, S. H. Na, S. Shin, and K. Lee, “When llms go online: The emerging threat of web-enabled llms,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.14569, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  107. [116]

    Large language model lateral spear phishing: A comparative study in large-scale organizational settings,

    M. Bethany, A. Galiopoulos, E. Bethany, M. B. Karkevandi, N. Vish- wamitra, and P. Najafirad, “Large language model lateral spear phishing: A comparative study in large-scale organizational settings,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.09727, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  108. [117]

    Spearbot: Leveraging large language models in a generative-critique framework for spear- phishing email generation,

    Q. Qi, Y. Luo, Y. Xu, W. Guo, and Y. Fang, “Spearbot: Leveraging large language models in a generative-critique framework for spear- phishing email generation,” Information Fusion, vol. 122, p. 103176, 2025

    2025

  109. [118]

    Teach llms to phish: Stealing private information from language models,

    A. Panda, C. A. Choquette-Choo, Z. Zhang, Y. Yang, and P. Mittal, “Teach llms to phish: Stealing private information from language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.00871, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  110. [119]

    Evaluating llm-based personal information extraction and countermeasures

    Y. Liu, Y. Jia, J. Jia, and N. Z. Gong, “Evaluating llm-based personal information extraction and countermeasures.”

  111. [120]

    Phishzoo: Detecting phishing websites by looking at them,

    S. Afroz and R. Greenstadt, “Phishzoo: Detecting phishing websites by looking at them,” in 2011 IEEE fifth international conference on semantic computing. IEEE, 2011, pp. 368–375

    2011

  112. [121]

    Knowphish: Large language models meet multimodal knowledge graphs for enhancing reference-based phishing detection,

    Y. Li, C. Huang, S. Deng, M. L. Lock, T. Cao, N. Oo, B. Hooi, and H. W. Lim, “Knowphish: Large language models meet multimodal knowledge graphs for enhancing reference-based phishing detection,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.02253, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  113. [122]

    Whitenet: Phishing web- site detection by visual whitelists,

    S. Abdelnabi, K. Krombholz, and M. Fritz, “Whitenet: Phishing web- site detection by visual whitelists,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.00300, 2019

    1909 arXiv

  114. [123]

    Anonymous website for pimref: Supplementary examples,

    Anonymous, “Anonymous website for pimref: Supplementary examples,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://sites.google.com/view/ pimref/supplementary-examples 17

    2024

  115. [124]

    United parcel service,

    Wikipedia, “United parcel service,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ United Parcel Service

  116. [125]

    (2023) Chatgpt (gpt-4)

    OpenAI. (2023) Chatgpt (gpt-4). https://openai.com/chatgpt

    2023

  117. [126]

    ORCID: Connecting Research and Researchers

    ORCID, “ORCID: Connecting Research and Researchers.” [Online]. Available: https://orcid.org/

  118. [127]

    Elbow method (clustering),

    “Elbow method (clustering),” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbow method (clustering)

  119. [128]

    R. B. Cialdini and R. B. Cialdini, Influence: The psychology of persuasion. Collins New York, 2007, vol. 55

    2007

  120. [129]

    (2024) Hello gpt-4o

    OpenAI. (2024) Hello gpt-4o. https://openai.com/index/ hello-gpt-4o/

    2024

  121. [130]

    J. Nazario. (2005) The online phishing corpus. http://monkey.org/ ∼jose/wiki/doku.php

    2005

  122. [131]

    Phishing pot github repository,

    “Phishing pot github repository,” https://github.com/rf-peixoto/ phishing pot

  123. [132]

    A survey of named entity recognition and classification,

    D. Nadeau and S. Sekine, “A survey of named entity recognition and classification,” Lingvisticae Investigationes, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 3–26, 2007

    2007

  124. [133]

    Beautifulsoup4,

    “Beautifulsoup4,” https://pypi.org/project/beautifulsoup4/

  125. [134]

    From attachments to seo: Click here to learn more about clickbait pdfs!

    G. Stivala, S. Abdelnabi, A. Mengascini, M. Graziano, M. Fritz, and G. Pellegrino, “From attachments to seo: Click here to learn more about clickbait pdfs!” in Proceedings of the 39th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, 2023, pp. 14–28

    2023

  126. [135]

    Paddlepaddle paddleocr,

    “Paddlepaddle paddleocr,” https://github.com/PaddlePaddle/ PaddleOCR/tree/main

  127. [136]

    Label studio,

    “Label studio,” https://labelstud.io/guide/

  128. [137]

    Focal loss for dense object detection,

    T.-Y. Ross and G. Doll ´ar, “Focal loss for dense object detection,” in proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2017, pp. 2980–2988

    2017

  129. [138]

    Characterbert: Reconciling elmo and bert for word-level open-vocabulary representations from characters,

    H. E. Boukkouri, O. Ferret, T. Lavergne, H. Noji, P. Zweigenbaum, and J. Tsujii, “Characterbert: Reconciling elmo and bert for word-level open-vocabulary representations from characters,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.10392, 2020

    2010 arXiv

  130. [139]

    Characterbert and self-teaching for improving the robustness of dense retrievers on queries with typos,

    S. Zhuang and G. Zuccon, “Characterbert and self-teaching for improving the robustness of dense retrievers on queries with typos,” in Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 2022, pp. 1444– 1454

    2022

  131. [140]

    https://rocketreach.co

    (2024) Rocketreach: Find professional email addresses and contact information. https://rocketreach.co

    2024

  132. [141]

    https://clearbit

    (2024) Clearbit: Business intelligence api and tools. https://clearbit. com

    2024

  133. [142]

    Linkedin: Professional networking platform,

    “Linkedin: Professional networking platform,” https://www.linkedin. com, 2024

    2024

  134. [143]

    Enron email dataset,

    E. Corp and W. W. Cohen, “Enron email dataset,” Software, E-Resource, Philadelphia, PA, 2015. [Online]. Available: https: //www.loc.gov/item/2018487913/

    2015

  135. [144]

    Csdmc2010 spam corpus,

    C. on Soft Computing and D. Mining, “Csdmc2010 spam corpus,” Dataset, Location of Conference, e.g., City, Country, 2010. [Online]. Available: https://example.com/csdmc2010spam

    2010

  136. [145]

    Anonymous website for pimref: Fp in closed- world,

    Anonymous, “Anonymous website for pimref: Fp in closed- world,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://sites.google.com/view/ pimref/our-failure-cases-in-closed-world-benchmark-datasets#h. khhv22r7ao6u

    2024

  137. [146]

    Anonymous website for pimref: Fn in closed- world,

    ——, “Anonymous website for pimref: Fn in closed- world,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://sites.google.com/view/ pimref/our-failure-cases-in-closed-world-benchmark-datasets#h. 4cwhh39oebk

    2024

  138. [147]

    Causal language modelling

    Hugging Face, “Causal language modelling.” [Online]. Avail- able: https://huggingface.co/docs/transformers/en/tasks/language modeling

  139. [148]

    Instruction tuning for large language models: A survey,

    S. Zhang, L. Dong, X. Li, S. Zhang, X. Sun, S. Wang, J. Li, R. Hu, T. Zhang, F. Wuet al., “Instruction tuning for large language models: A survey,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.10792, 2023

    2023

  140. [149]

    Llama 2: Open-source language model,

    M. AI, “Llama 2: Open-source language model,” 2023

    2023

  141. [150]

    Mistral 7b,

    A. Q. Jiang, A. Sablayrolles, A. Mensch, C. Bamford, D. S. Chaplot, D. de Las Casas, F. Bressand, G. Lengyel, G. Lample, L. Saulnier, L. R. Lavaud, M. Lachaux, P. Stock, T. L. Scao, T. Lavril, T. Wang, T. Lacroix, and W. E. Sayed, “Mistral 7b,” CoRR, vol. abs/2310.06825, 2023....

    doi arXiv

  142. [151]

    Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models,

    E. J. Hu, Y. Shen, P. Wallis, Z. Allen-Zhu, Y. Li, S. Wang, L. Wang, and W. Chen, “Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09685, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  143. [152]

    Bae: Bert-based adversarial examples for text classification,

    S. Garg and G. Ramakrishnan, “Bae: Bert-based adversarial examples for text classification,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.01970, 2020

    2004 arXiv

  144. [153]

    Black-box generation of adversarial text sequences to evade deep learning classifiers,

    J. Gao, J. Lanchantin, M. L. Soffa, and Y. Qi, “Black-box generation of adversarial text sequences to evade deep learning classifiers,” in 2018 IEEE Security and Privacy Workshops (SPW). IEEE, 2018, pp. 50–56

    2018

  145. [154]

    Textflint: Unified multilingual robustness evaluation toolkit for natural language processing,

    T. Gui, X. Wang, Q. Zhang, Q. Liu, Y. Zou, X. Zhou, R. Zheng, C. Zhang, Q. Wu, J. Ye et al., “Textflint: Unified multilingual robustness evaluation toolkit for natural language processing,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.11441, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  146. [155]

    Is bert really robust? a strong baseline for natural language attack on text classification and entailment,

    D. Jin, Z. Jin, J. T. Zhou, and P. Szolovits, “Is bert really robust? a strong baseline for natural language attack on text classification and entailment,” in Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, vol. 34, no. 05, 2020, pp. 8018–8025

    2020

  147. [156]

    Cutting through the confusion: A measurement study of homograph attacks

    T. Holgers, D. E. Watson, and S. D. Gribble, “Cutting through the confusion: A measurement study of homograph attacks.” inUSENIX Annual Technical Conference, General Track, 2006, pp. 261–266

    2006

  148. [157]

    Openphish: Phishing threat intelligence,

    OpenPhish, “Openphish: Phishing threat intelligence,” https:// openphish.com/, 2024

    2024

  149. [158]

    Lunar bank,

    “Lunar bank,” https://www.lunar.app/

  150. [159]

    Anonymous website for pimref: Wild study,

    Anonymous, “Anonymous website for pimref: Wild study,”

  151. [160]

    BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,

    J. Devlin, M. Chang, K. Lee, and K. Toutanova, “BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,” CoRR, vol. abs/1810.04805, 2018. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1810.04805

    2018 arXiv

  152. [161]

    Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach,

    Y. Liu, “Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692, vol. 364, 2019. Appendix

    1907 arXiv

  153. [163]

    The model is fine-tuned for 7 epochs with a learning rate of 2e-5 and a batch size of

    Hyperparameter Setup We train the NER model using the bert-large-uncased backbone released by Google [160]. The model is fine-tuned for 7 epochs with a learning rate of 2e-5 and a batch size of

  154. [164]

    The CharacterBERT model has been pre-trained on English Wikipedia and OpenWebText

    For the identity matching model, we directly use the same pre-training pipeline in [139]. The CharacterBERT model has been pre-trained on English Wikipedia and OpenWebText

  155. [165]

    I do something for you, you do something for me

    and has been specifically designed to be resistant to typo-squatting attacks. We set the identity-matching threshold to 0.83 (Table 8), which achieves the best precision and recall trade-off on the conventional benchmark datasets. All experiments were conducted on an Ubuntu 20...

  156. [2024]

    Available: https://sites.google.com/view/pimref/ our-failure-cases-in-the-wild

    [Online]. Available: https://sites.google.com/view/pimref/ our-failure-cases-in-the-wild

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.