7 Days Later: Analyzing Phishing-Site Lifespan After Detected
Kiho Lee, Kyungchan Lim, Hyoungshick Kim, Yonghwi Kwon, Doowon Kim
摘要
Phishing attacks continue to be a major threat to internet users, causing data breaches, financial losses, and identity theft. This study provides an in-depth analysis of the lifespan and evolution of phishing websites, focusing on their survival strategies and evasion techniques. We analyze 286,237 unique phishing URLs over five months using a custom web crawler based on Puppeteer and Chromium. Our crawler runs on a 30-minute cycle, systematically checking the operational status of phishing websites by collecting their HTTP status codes, screenshots, HTML, and HTTP data. Temporal and survival analyses, along with statistical tests, are used to examine phishing website lifecycles, evolution, and evasion tactics. Our findings show that the average lifespan of phishing websites is 54 hours (2.25 days) with a median of 5.46 hours, indicating rapid takedown of many sites while a subset remains active longer. Interestingly, logistic-themed phishing websites (e.g., USPS) operate within a compressed timeframe (1.76 hours) compared to other brands (e.g., Facebook). We further analyze detection effectiveness using Google Safe Browsing (GSB). We find that GSB detects only 18.4% of phishing websites, taking an average of 4.5 days. Notably, 83.93% of phishing sites are already taken down before GSB detection, meaning GSB requires more prompt detection. Moreover, 16.07% of phishing sites persist beyond this point, surviving for an additional 7.2 days on average, resulting in an average total lifespan of approximately 12 days. We reveal that DNS resolution error is the main cause (67%) of phishing website takedowns. Finally, we uncover that phishing sites with extensive visual changes (more than 100 times) exhibit a median lifespan of 17 days, compared to 1.93 hours for those with minimal modifications. These results highlight the dynamic nature of phishing attacks, the challenges in detection and prevention, and the need for more rapid and comprehensive countermeasures against evolving phishing tactics.
问问这篇 Paper
智能体会读完全文。
Lune 把这篇 Paper 索引到了每一个公式,引用它的顶会 Paper 也一样。你提问,回答直接引用原文。
引用它的顶会 Paper1
问问它们各自怎么用它它引用的顶会 Paper9
- Data Breaches, Phishing, or Malware?: Understanding the Risks of Stolen CredentialsKurt Thomas, Frank Li, Ali Zand, Jacob Barrett 等CCS 2017 · 被引用 248 次
- Phishpedia: A Hybrid Deep Learning Based Approach to Visually Identify Phishing WebpagesYun Lin, Ruofan Liu, Dinil Mon Divakaran, Jun Yang Ng 等USENIX Security 2021 · 被引用 164 次
- PhishFarm: A Scalable Framework for Measuring the Effectiveness of Evasion Techniques against Browser Phishing BlacklistsAdam Oest, Yeganeh Safaei, Adam Doupé, Gail-Joon Ahn 等S&P 2019 · 被引用 129 次
- PhishEye: Live Monitoring of Sandboxed Phishing KitsXiao Han, Nizar Kheir, Davide BalzarottiCCS 2016 · 被引用 118 次
- Cognitive Triaging of Phishing AttacksAmber van der Heijden, Luca AllodiUSENIX Security 2019 · 被引用 100 次
相关 Paper
- Evaluating the Effectiveness and Robustness of Visual Similarity-based Phishing Detection ModelsFujiao Ji, Kiho Lee, Hyungjoon Koo, Wenhao You 等USENIX Security 2025
- What's in Phishers: A Longitudinal Study of Security Configurations in Phishing Websites and KitsKyungchan Lim, Kiho Lee, Fujiao Ji, Yonghwi Kwon 等WWW 2025 · 被引用 3 次
- Phishing Vs. Legit: Comparative Analysis of Client-Side Resources of Phishing and Target Brand WebsitesKyungchan Lim, Jaehwan Park, Doowon KimWWW 2024 · 被引用 11 次
- PhishTime: Continuous Longitudinal Measurement of the Effectiveness of Anti-phishing BlacklistsAdam Oest, Yeganeh Safaei, Penghui Zhang, Brad Wardman 等USENIX Security 2020
- A Good Fishman Knows All the Angles: A Critical Evaluation of Google's Phishing Page ClassifierChangqing Miao, Jianan Feng, Wei You, Wenchang Shi 等CCS 2023 · 被引用 2 次
