Optimized DNETCNN: An effective deep learning technique based feature selection and classification of phishing websites


Abstract

Nowadays, phishing attacks pose a severe risk to human daily life and online social networks. Attackers can make users use phishing URLs by masking unlawful URLs as good ones to collect sensitive data and other advantages. Effective ways of identifying phishing websites are immediately necessary to reduce the risks presented by phishing attempts. However, many powerless and minor influence attributes will the neural network system into the overfitting issue in the training stage. This issue typically makes the issue in phishing website detection effective. To address all the prediction challenges, we introduced an innovative Deep Learning (DL) method for predicting phishing websites. We have five steps to follow in this research. First, it takes input data from the dataset and turns the insignificant and original data into numbers using the OneHot method. Then, in a pre-processing step, it normalizes the data using the min-max normalization method. Then, use the Capsule Network (CapsNet) method to get the attributes from the normalized data. Then, we used the Altruistic Whale Optimization Algorithm (AWOA) to choose the best features for predicting phishing sites. We use the darknet Convolutional Neural Network (DNetCNN) method to tell if a website is real or a phishing site after we choose the features. We employed the Lion Swarm Optimization Algorithm (LSOA) to enhance classification accuracy. We gather data from the four phishing-related datasets for the experiment. The simulation outcomes demonstrate that the identification method proposed in this work is very suitable for identifying phishing URLs. It achieved 99.28\% accuracy, and the training time is comparable to other models.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].