skip to main content
10.1145/3545948.3545958acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesraidConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Content-Agnostic Detection of Phishing Domains using Certificate Transparency and Passive DNS

Published:26 October 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

Existing phishing detection techniques mainly rely on blacklists or content-based analysis, which are not only evadable, but also exhibit considerable detection delays as they are reactive in nature. We observe through our deep dive analysis that artifacts of phishing are manifested in various sources of intelligence related to a domain even before its contents are online. In particular, we study various novel patterns and characteristics computed from viable sources of data including Certificate Transparency Logs, and passive DNS records. To compare benign and phishing domains, we construct thoroughly-verified realistic benign and phishing datasets. Our analysis shows clear differences between benign and phishing domains that can pave the way for content-agnostic approaches to predict phishing domains even before the contents of these webpages are up and running.

To demonstrate the usefulness of our analysis, we train a classifier with distinctive features, and we show that we can (1) perform content-agnostic predictions with a very low FPR of 0.3%, and high precision (98%) and recall (90%), and (2) predict phishing domains days before they are discovered by state-of-the-art content-based tools such as VirusTotal.

References

  1. 2019. Anti-Phishing Working Group. https://apwg.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. 2019. CDN Planet CDN List. https://www.cdnplanet.com/cdns/. [Online; accessed 24-05-2021].Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. 2019. Certificate Transparency. https://developers.facebook.com/docs/certificate-transparency/. Accessed April 2022.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. 2019. Chrome and Firefox Changes Spark the End of EV Certificates. https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/software/chrome-and-firefox-changes-spark-the-end-of-ev-certificates/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. 2019. Comodo Free SSL Certificate. https://www.comodo.com/e-commerce/ssl-certificates/free-ssl-certificate.php.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. 2019. Getting Started. https://letsencrypt.org/getting-started/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. 2019. Public Suffix List. https://publicsuffix.org/. [Online; accessed 24-05-2021].Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. 2019. Wombat Security The State of the Phish Report 2019. https://www.wombatsecurity.com/state-of-the-phish/. Accessed April 2022.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. 2019. WPO Foundation CDN List. https://github.com/WPO-Foundation/webpagetest/blob/master/agent/wpthook/cdn.h. [Online; accessed 24-05-2021].Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. [10] 2021. https://gdpr.eu.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. 2021. CIRCL Passive DNS. https://www.circl.lu.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. 2021. COMODO SSL Analyzer. https://sslanalyzer.comodoca.com. Accessed April 2022.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. 2021. crt.sh Certificate Search. https://crt.sh. Accessed April 2022.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. 2021. CT Enforcement in Google Chrome. https://tinyurl.com/y2nyyjtm. Accessed February 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. 2021. Phishing catcher. https://github.com/x0rz/phishing_catcher.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. 2021. Phishtank. Out of the Net, into the Tank. https://www.phishtank.com. Accessed April 2022.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. 2021. The Domain Block List (DBL). https://www.spamhaus.org/dbl/. Accessed April 2022.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. 2021. What Services Does Let’s Encrypt Offer?https://letsencrypt.org/docs/faq/. Accessed May 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. 2022. Certificate Transparency. https://www.certificate-transparency.org/. Accessed April 2022.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. 2022. Facebook Certificate Transparency Tool. https://developers.facebook.com/docs/certificate-transparency/. Accessed April 2022.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. 2022. Google Safe Browsing: Making the world’s information safely accessible. https://safebrowsing.google.com. Accessed April 2022.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. 2022. Mcafee Labs Threat Report December 2018. https://www.mcafee.com/enterprise/en-us/assets/reports/rp-quarterly-threats-dec-2018.pdf. Accessed April 2022.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. 2022. SSL Mate Certspotter. https://sslmate.com/certspotter/. Accessed April 2022.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Josh Aas, Richard Barnes, Benton Case, Zakir Durumeric, Peter Eckersley, Alan Flores-López, J. Alex Halderman, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews, James Kasten, Eric Rescorla, Seth Schoen, and Brad Warren. 2019. Let’s Encrypt: An Automated Certificate Authority to Encrypt the Entire Web. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (London, United Kingdom) (CCS ’19). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2473–2487. https://doi.org/10.1145/3319535.3363192Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Bhupendra Acharya and Phani Vadrevu. 2021. PhishPrint: Evading Phishing Detection Crawlers by Prior Profiling. In 30th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 21). USENIX Association, 3775–3792. https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity21/presentation/acharyaGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Maarten Aertsen, Maciej Korczyński, Giovane C. M. Moura, Samaneh Tajalizadehkhoob, and Jan van den Berg. 2017. No Domain Left Behind: Is Let’s Encrypt Democratizing Encryption?. In Proceedings of the Applied Networking Research Workshop (Prague, Czech Republic) (ANRW ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 48–54. https://doi.org/10.1145/3106328.3106338Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. A. C. Bahnsen, E. C. Bohorquez, S. Villegas, J. Vargas, and F. A. González. 2017. Classifying phishing URLs using recurrent neural networks. In 2017 APWG Symposium on Electronic Crime Research (eCrime). 1–8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. A. C. Bahnsen, U. Torroledo, D. Camacho, and S. Villegas. 2018. DeepPhish: Simulating Malicious AI. In 2018 APWG Symposium on Electronic Crime Research (eCrime). 1–8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. BEN DOWNING. 2021. Using Entropy in Threat Hunting: a Mathematical Search for the Unknown. https://redcanary.com/blog/threat-hunting-entropy/. Accessed February 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Leyla Bilge, Sevil Sen, Davide Balzarotti, Engin Kirda, and Christopher Kruegel. 2014. Exposure: A Passive DNS Analysis Service to Detect and Report Malicious Domains. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security 16, 4 (apr 2014), 14:1–14:28.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Leo Breiman. 2001. Random Forests. Machine Learning 45, 1 (01 Oct 2001), 5–32.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. CA Browser Forum. 2021. Baseline Requirements. https://cabforum.org/wp-content/uploads/CA-Browser-Forum-BR-1.6.6.pdf. Accessed Jan 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. CA / Browser Forum. 2022. Object Registry of the CA / Browser Forum. https://cabforum.org/object-registry/. Accessed April 2022.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. CaliDog. 2022. CertStream Python. https://github.com/CaliDog/certstream-python. Accessed April 2022.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Censys. 2022. See Your Entire Attack Surface in Real Time. https://censys.io. Accessed April 2022.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Chromium. 2021. EV OID list. https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/net/+/master/cert/ev_root_ca_metadata.cc/. Accessed February 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Zheng Dong, Apu Kapadia, Jim Blythe, and L Camp. 2015. Beyond the lock icon: Real-time detection of phishing websites using public key certificates. eCrime Researchers Summit, eCrime 2015 (06 2015). https://doi.org/10.1109/ECRIME.2015.7120795Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Arthur Drichel, Vincent Drury, Justus von Brandt, and Ulrike Meyer. 2021. Finding Phish in a Haystack: A Pipeline for Phishing Classification on Certificate Transparency Logs. In The 16th International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security (Vienna, Austria) (ARES 2021). Article 59, 12 pages.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Farsight Security, Inc.2022. DNS Database. https://www.dnsdb.info/. Accessed April 2022.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Sujata Garera, Niels Provos, Monica Chew, and Aviel D. Rubin. 2007. A Framework for Detection and Measurement of Phishing Attacks. In Proceedings of the 2007 ACM Workshop on Recurring Malcode. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. J. Gargano and K. Weiss. 1995. Whois and Network Information Lookup Service, Whois++. RFC 1834. RFC Editor. http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1834.txt.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Josef Gustafsson, Gustaf Overier, Martin F. Arlitt, and Niklas Carlsson. 2017. A First Look at the CT Landscape: Certificate Transparency Logs in Practice. In PAM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Ryan Hurst. 2012. How to Tell DV and OV Certificates Apart. http://unmitigatedrisk.com/?p=203.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Issa M. Khalil, Bei Guan, Mohamed Nabeel, and Ting Yu. 2018. A Domain is Only As Good As Its Buddies: Detecting Stealthy Malicious Domains via Graph Inference. In Proceedings of the Eighth ACM Conference on Data and Application Security and Privacy (Tempe, AZ, USA) (CODASPY ’18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 330–341. https://doi.org/10.1145/3176258.3176329Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Panagiotis Kintis, Najmeh Miramirkhani, Charles Lever, Yizheng Chen, Rosa Romero-Gómez, Nikolaos Pitropakis, Nick Nikiforakis, and Manos Antonakakis. 2017. Hiding in Plain Sight: A Longitudinal Study of Combosquatting Abuse. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 569–586.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Brian Kondracki, Babak Amin Azad, Oleksii Starov, and Nick Nikiforakis. 2021. Catching Transparent Phish: Analyzing and Detecting MITM Phishing Toolkits. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (Virtual Event, Republic of Korea) (CCS ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 36–50.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Neeraj Kumar, Sukhada Ghewari, Harshal Tupsamudre, Manish Shukla, and Sachin Lodha. 2021. When Diversity Meets Hostility: A Study of Domain Squatting Abuse in Online Banking. In 2021 APWG Symposium on Electronic Crime Research (eCrime). 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1109/eCrime54498.2021.9738769Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Anh Le, Athina Markopoulou, and Michalis Faloutsos. 2011. PhishDef: URL names say it all. 2011 Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM(2011), 191–195.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. S. Le Page, G. Jourdan, G. V. Bochmann, J. Flood, and I. Onut. 2018. Using URL shorteners to compare phishing and malware attacks. In 2018 APWG Symposium on Electronic Crime Research (eCrime). 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1109/ECRIME.2018.8376215Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. C. Lever, R. Walls, Y. Nadji, D. Dagon, P. McDaniel, and M. Antonakakis. 2016. Domain-Z: 28 Registrations Later Measuring the Exploitation of Residual Trust in Domains. In 2016 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). 691–706. https://doi.org/10.1109/SP.2016.47Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Yun Lin, Ruofan Liu, Dinil Mon Divakaran, Jun Yang Ng, Qing Zhou Chan, Yiwen Lu, Yuxuan Si, Fan Zhang, and Jin Song Dong. 2021. Phishpedia: A Hybrid Deep Learning Based Approach to Visually Identify Phishing Webpages. In 30th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 21). USENIX Association, 3793–3810. https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity21/presentation/linGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Chaoyi Lu, Baojun Liu, Yiming Zhang, Zhou Li, Fenglu Zhang, Haixin Duan, Y. Liu, J. Chen, Jinjin Liang, Z. Zhang, S. Hao, and Min Yang. 2021. From WHOIS to WHOWAS: A Large-Scale Measurement Study of Domain Registration Privacy under the GDPR. In NDSS.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Justin Ma, Lawrence K. Saul, Stefan Savage, and Geoffrey M. Voelker. 2009. Beyond Blacklists: Learning to Detect Malicious Web Sites from Suspicious URLs. In Proceedingsof theSIGKDD Conference. Paris,France.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Pratyusa K. Manadhata, Sandeep Yadav, Prasad Rao, and William Horne. 2014. Detecting Malicious Domains via Graph Inference. In Proceedings of the 19th European Symposium on Research in Computer Security,, Mirosław Kutyłowski and Jaideep Vaidya (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 1–18.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. MaxMind. 2022. GeoLite2 Databases. http://www.maxmind.com. Accessed April 2022.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. D. Kevin McGrath and Minaxi Gupta. 2008. Behind Phishing: An Examination of Phisher Modi Operandi. In Proceedings of the 1st Usenix Workshop on Large-Scale Exploits and Emergent Threats (San Francisco, California) (LEET’08). USENIX Association, Berkeley, CA, USA, Article 4, 8 pages. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1387709.1387713Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Ulrike Meyer and Vincent Drury. 2019. Certified Phishing: Taking a Look at Public Key Certificates of Phishing Websites. In Fifteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2019). USENIX Association, Santa Clara, CA. https://www.usenix.org/conference/soups2019/presentation/druryGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Najmeh Miramirkhani, Timothy Barron, Michael Ferdman, and Nick Nikiforakis. 2018. Panning for gold.com: Understanding the Dynamics of Domain Dropcatching. 257–266.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Mishari Al Mishari, Emiliano De Cristofaro, Karim M. El Defrawy, and Gene Tsudik. 2012. Harvesting SSL Certificate Data to Identify Web-Fraud. I. J. Network Security 14, 6 (2012), 324–338.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Mohamed Nabeel, Issa M. Khalil, Bei Guan, and Ting Yu. 2020. Following Passive DNS Traces to Detect Stealthy Malicious Domains Via Graph Inference. ACM Trans. Priv. Secur. 23, 4, Article 17 (July 2020), 36 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3401897Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. Network Solutions, LLC. 2022. Network Solutions Certification Practice Statement. https://assets.web.com/legal/English/CertificationPracticeStatement.pdf. Accessed April 2022.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Amirreza Niakanlahiji, Bei-Tseng Chu, and Ehab Al-Shaer. 2018. PhishMon: A Machine Learning Framework for Detecting Phishing Webpages. 220–225. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISI.2018.8587410Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  63. A. Oest, Y. Safaei, A. Doupé, G. Ahn, B. Wardman, and K. Tyers. 2019. PhishFarm: A Scalable Framework for Measuring the Effectiveness of Evasion Techniques against Browser Phishing Blacklists. In 2019 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). 1344–1361. https://doi.org/10.1109/SP.2019.00049Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  64. Adam Oest, Yeganeh Safaei, Penghui Zhang, Brad Wardman, Kevin Tyers, Yan Shoshitaishvili, and Adam Doupé. 2020. PhishTime: Continuous Longitudinal Measurement of the Effectiveness of Anti-phishing Blacklists. In 29th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 20). USENIX Association, 379–396. https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity20/presentation/oest-phishtimeGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Adam Oest, Penghui Zhang, Brad Wardman, Eric Nunes, Jakub Burgis, Ali Zand, Kurt Thomas, Adam Doupé, and Gail-Joon Ahn. 2020. Sunrise to Sunset: Analyzing the End-to-end Life Cycle and Effectiveness of Phishing Attacks at Scale. In 29th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 20). USENIX Association, 361–377. https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity20/presentation/oest-sunriseGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. A. Oprea, Z. Li, T. F. Yen, S. H. Chin, and S. Alrwais. 2015. Detection of Early-Stage Enterprise Infection by Mining Large-Scale Log Data. In Proceedings of the 45th Annual IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks. 45–56.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. Peng Peng, Limin Yang, Linhai Song, and Gang Wang. 2019. Opening the Blackbox of VirusTotal: Analyzing Online Phishing Scan Engines. In Proceedings of the Internet Measurement Conference (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (IMC ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 478–485. https://doi.org/10.1145/3355369.3355585Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  68. J. R. Quinlan. 1986. Induction of decision trees. Machine Learning 1, 1 (01 Mar 1986), 81–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00116251Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  69. Richard Roberts, Yaelle Goldschlag, Rachel Walter, Taejoong Chung, Alan Mislove, and Dave Levin. 2019. You Are Who You Appear to Be: A Longitudinal Study of Domain Impersonation in TLS Certificates. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (London, United Kingdom) (CCS ’19). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2489–2504. https://doi.org/10.1145/3319535.3363188Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  70. A. P. E. Rosiello, E. Kirda, 2. Kruegel, and F. Ferrandi. 2007. A Layout-Similarity-Based Approach for Detecting Phishing Pages. In SecureComm. 454–463.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. Yuji Sakurai, Takuya Watanabe, Tetsuya Okuda, Mitsuaki Akiyama, and Tatsuya Mori. 2020. Discovering HTTPSified Phishing Websites Using the TLS Certificates Footprints. In 2020 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy Workshops (EuroS PW). 522–531. https://doi.org/10.1109/EuroSPW51379.2020.00077Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  72. Quirin Scheitle, Oliver Gasser, Theodor Nolte, Johanna Amann, Lexi Brent, Georg Carle, Ralph Holz, Thomas C. Schmidt, and Matthias Wählisch. 2018. The Rise of Certificate Transparency and Its Implications on the Internet Ecosystem. In Proceedings of the Internet Measurement Conference 2018 (Boston, MA, USA) (IMC ’18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 343–349. https://doi.org/10.1145/3278532.3278562Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  73. Quirin Scheitle, Oliver Gasser, Theodor Nolte, Johanna Amann, Lexi Brent, Georg Carle, Ralph Holz, Thomas C. Schmidt, and Matthias Wählisch. 2018. The Rise of Certificate Transparency and Its Implications on the Internet Ecosystem. CoRR abs/1809.08325(2018). arxiv:1809.08325http://arxiv.org/abs/1809.08325Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  74. Scott Helme. march 06, 2017. Let’s Encrypt are enabling the bad guys, and why they should. https://scotthelme.co.uk/lets-encrypt-are-enabling-the-bad-guys-and-why-they-should/. Accessed April 2022.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  75. Hossein Shirazi, Bruhadeshwar Bezawada, and Indrakshi Ray. 2018. ”Kn0W Thy Doma1N Name”: Unbiased Phishing Detection Using Domain Name Based Features. In Proceedings of the 23Nd ACM on Symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies(Indianapolis, Indiana, USA) (SACMAT ’18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 69–75. https://doi.org/10.1145/3205977.3205992Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  76. Statcounter GlobalStats. 2022. Browser Market Share Worldwide. https://certs.securetrust.com/CA/twcps2_9.pdf. Accessed April 2022.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  77. J.A.K. Suykens and J. Vandewalle. 1999. Least Squares Support Vector Machine Classifiers. Neural Processing Letters 9, 3 (01 Jun 1999), 293–300. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018628609742Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  78. Ke Tian, Steve T. K. Jan, Hang Hu, Danfeng Yao, and Gang Wang. 2018. Needle in a Haystack: Tracking Down Elite Phishing Domains in the Wild. In Proceedings of the Internet Measurement Conference 2018, IMC 2018, Boston, MA, USA, October 31 - November 02, 2018. 429–442.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  79. Ke Tian, Steve T. K. Jan, Hang Hu, Danfeng Yao, and Gang Wang. 2018. Needle in a Haystack: Tracking Down Elite Phishing Domains in the Wild. In Proceedings of the Internet Measurement Conference 2018 (Boston, MA, USA) (IMC ’18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 429–442. https://doi.org/10.1145/3278532.3278569Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  80. Ivan Torroledo, Luis David Camacho, and Alejandro Correa Bahnsen. 2018. Hunting Malicious TLS Certificates with Deep Neural Networks. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Security (Toronto, Canada) (AISec ’18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1145/3270101.3270105Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  81. Rakesh Verma and Keith Dyer. 2015. On the Character of Phishing URLs: Accurate and Robust Statistical Learning Classifiers. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM Conference on Data and Application Security and Privacy (San Antonio, Texas, USA) (CODASPY ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 111–122. https://doi.org/10.1145/2699026.2699115Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  82. VirusTotal, Subsidiary of Google. 2022. VirusTotal – Free Online Virus, Malware and URL Scanner. https://www.virustotal.com/. Accessed April 2022.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  83. Florian Weimer. 2005. Passive DNS Replication. In FIRST Conference on Computer Security Incident. 98.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  84. Daniel Lowe Wheeler. 2016. zxcvbn: Low-Budget Password Strength Estimation. In 25th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 16). USENIX Association, Austin, TX, 157–173. https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity16/technical-sessions/presentation/wheelerGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  85. Colin Whittaker, Brian Ryner, and Marria Nazif. 2010. Large-Scale Automatic Classification of Phishing Pages. In NDSS ’10. http://www.isoc.org/isoc/conferences/ndss/10/pdf/08.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  86. Sandeep Yadav, Ashwath Kumar Krishna Reddy, A.L. Narasimha Reddy, and Supranamaya Ranjan. 2010. Detecting Algorithmically Generated Malicious Domain Names. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Internet Measurement (Melbourne, Australia) (IMC ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 48–61. https://doi.org/10.1145/1879141.1879148Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  87. Yue Zhang, Jason I. Hong, and Lorrie F. Cranor. 2007. Cantina: A Content-based Approach to Detecting Phishing Web Sites. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on World Wide Web. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 639–648.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Content-Agnostic Detection of Phishing Domains using Certificate Transparency and Passive DNS

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      RAID '22: Proceedings of the 25th International Symposium on Research in Attacks, Intrusions and Defenses
      October 2022
      536 pages
      ISBN:9781450397049
      DOI:10.1145/3545948

      Copyright © 2022 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 26 October 2022

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)147
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)22

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format