Cited by 20Spam and Phishing DetectionWeb Application Security VulnerabilitiesUser Authentication and Security Systems

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

TabShots: client-side detection of tabnabbing attacks

Open access
De Ryck, Philippe, Nikiforakis, Nick, Desmet, Lieven, Joosen, Wouter·2013·Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGSAC symposium on Information, computer and communications security

Abstract

As the web grows larger and larger and as the browser becomes the vehicle-of-choice for delivering many applications of daily use, the security and privacy of web users is under constant attack. Phishing is as prevalent as ever, with anti-phishing communities reporting thousands of new phishing campaigns each month. In 2010, tabnabbing, a variation of phishing, was introduced. In a tabnabbing attack, an innocuous-looking page, opened in a browser tab, disguises itself as the login page of a popular web application, when the user's focus is on a different tab. The attack exploits the trust of users for already opened pages and the user habit of long-lived browser tabs.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2484313.2484371

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 12 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. D. R. Sandler and D. S. Wallach . " input type="password" must die!" In Proceedings of W2SP 2008: Web 2.0 Security & Privacy 2008, Oakland , CA , May 2008 . D. R. Sandler and D. S. Wallach. "input type="password" must die!" In Proceedings of W2SP 2008: Web 2.0 Security & Privacy 2008, Oakland, CA, May 2008.

Cited by

  • Social Engineering Attacks: A Survey

    Salahdine, F., & Kaabouch, N. (2019) · Future Internet · doi:10.3390/fi11040089 · Cited by 509

    “An example of these threats is the tabnabbing attack which consists of a fake web page that looks like the login page of a popular website usually visited by the victim, such as online banking, Facebook, or Twitter for example [33].”
    Background

Metadata

Authors
De Ryck, P., Nikiforakis, N., Desmet, L., & Joosen, W.
Affiliations
  • KU Leuven, Heverlee, Belgium
  • KU Leuven (BE)
Venue
Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGSAC symposium on Information, computer and communications security
Publisher
ACM
Published
2013-05-08
Pages
447-456
OpenAlex
W2065255030
Cited by
20
References
12
Citations by year
2023: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1
FWCI
2.68
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACM Asia Conference on Computer and Communications Security (ASIA CCS) (publishedVersion)
  • Lirias (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • European Commission
  • KU Leuven
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web Application Security Vulnerabilities
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › User Authentication and Security Systems
Keywords
phishing, web application security, user trust

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