The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Using URL shorteners to compare phishing and malware attacks
Abstract
In this work we use URL shortener click analytics to compare the life cycle of phishing and malware attacks. We have collected over 7,000 malicious short URLs categorized as phishing or malware for the 2 year period covering 2016 and 2017, along with their reported date. We analyze the short URLs and find that phishing attacks are most active 4 hours before the reported date, while malware attacks are most active 4 days before the reported date. We find that phishing attacks have higher click through rate with shorter timespan. Conversely malware attacks have lower click through rate with longer timespan. We also show the comparisons of referrers and countries from which short URLs are accessed, showing in particular an increased use of social media to spread both kinds of attacks. We also find phishing clicks mainly come from USA and Brazil, while malware clicks mainly come from USA and Russia. Overall based on the observation that 50% of malware attacks are active for several years, while less than 50% of phishing attacks are active past 3 months, we conclude that the efforts against phishing attacks are stronger than the efforts against malware attacks.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“In addition, obfuscation techniques such as URL shorteners, redirections, and encoded payloads further complicate the detection [5].”
From Detecting Quishing Attacks with Machine Learning Techniques Through QR Code Analysis (2027) · cites this paper as [5]
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 34
- 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2015.05.005 · DOI
- 10.1145/1124772.1124861 · DOI · Paper page
- 0, VERIFROM - Keep Your Brand Safe
- 0, IBM X-Force Threat Intelligence Index Report
- 0, List: The two-letter country code / country abbreviation, Laendercode
- sheng, 2009, An Empirical Analysis of Phishing Blacklists
- 10.1109/ECRIME.2014.6963163 · DOI
- 10.1145/2976749.2978330 · DOI
- 10.1145/3038912.3052654 · DOI
- provos, 2007, The ghost in the browser: Analysis of web-based malware, HOTBOTS, 7, 4
- 10.1145/2660267.2660330 · DOI
- 10.1145/1772690.1772837 · DOI
- 10.1145/1963405.1963505 · DOI
- 10.1145/1866307.1866311 · DOI
- 10.1145/2030376.2030387 · DOI
- 0, APWG phishing Attack Trends Reports
- 0, URL Shortening: Hashes In Practice, Coding horror
- 0, How do I set up a Branded Short Domain (BSD), Bitly Blog
- 2001, We want ‘em shorter, MetaFilter
- 10.1145/2566486.2567983 · DOI
- 0, McAfee Labs Threats Report
- 0, How to Create And Customize Your Bitlinks, Bitly Blog
- moore, 2007, An empirical analysis of the current state of phishing attack and defence, WEIS
- 10.1007/978-3-540-73614-1_2 · DOI
- 10.4108/icst.collaboratecom.2013.254084 · DOI
- mcgrath, 2008, Behind phishing: An examination of phisher modi operandi, LEET, 8, 4
- neumann, 2010, Security and privacy implications of url shortening services, Proceedings of Web 2 0 Security and Privacy
- 10.1145/2309996.2310010 · DOI
- 10.1109/ECRIME.2014.6963161 · DOI
- 10.1145/2488388.2488463 · DOI
- 10.7840/kics.2013.38B.6.473 · DOI
- 10.1109/HICSS.2016.332 · DOI
- dugan, 2011, Bit ly Pro Is Now Free!
- 0, Workshop agenda 2017
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Detecting Quishing Attacks with Machine Learning Techniques Through QR Code Analysis
Trad, F., & Chehab, A. (2027) · IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-30805-4_14 · Cited by 8
“In addition, obfuscation techniques such as URL shorteners, redi-rections, and encoded payloads further complicate the detection [5].”
Metadata
- Authors
- Le Page, S., Jourdan, G.-V., Bochmann, G. V., Flood, J., & Onut, I.-V.
- Affiliations
- University of Ottawa (CA)
- IBM (United States) (US)
- ORCID
- Jourdan, Guy-Vincent
- Venue
- 2018 APWG Symposium on Electronic Crime Research (eCrime)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2018-05
- Pages
- 1-13
- OpenAlex
- W2808359841
- Cited by
- 18
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2
- FWCI
- 1.96
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- APWG Symposium on Electronic Crime Research (eCrime) (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
- Center for Advanced Study, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
- Social Sciences › Law › Cybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Advanced Malware Detection Techniques
- Keywords
- phishing, malware attacks, click-through rate, social media
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review