DOCSLIB.ORG

The Current State of Battle Against Spam

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Current State of Battle Against Spam Rochak Gupta et al, / (IJCSIT) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technologies, Vol. 2 (4) , 2011, 1529-1536 The Current State of Battle against Spam Rochak Gupta, K Vinay Kumar Department of Computer Science and Engineering, National Institute of Technology Karnataka Surathkal, India Abstract— the growth of Spam over the years suggests that Table 1: Spam is no longer simply a threat but a large scale network CATEGORIES OF SPAM problem today. The battle between spammers and anti- spamming techniques has been going on for many years. Many anti-spam techniques are currently employed to filter spam e- mails, however spam is still able to attack many email users. This paper provides an overview of available spam filtering approaches and their drawbacks. We also describe the common spammers’ tricks that spammers use to bypass the currently available spam filters. The paper primarily focuses to throw some light on root causes of the spam growth. Keywords— Spam, Tricks, Spam filter, Email, Email server, Network bandwidth I. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Categories of Spam E-mail has become an easy means to distribute a huge amount of unsolicited mails to a large of users with very low cost. These unwanted bulk mails or unsolicited mails are called Spam mails. As shown in Table 1, the majority of Spam messages that has been reported recently are unsolicited commercials including pharmaceutical, newsletters, gambling, watches, jobs, sexual/dating, softwares etc [12]. They also include annoying content such pornographic images and can be used as well for spreading rumours and other fraudulent advertisements. Spam software can also be used to distribute harmful content such as viruses, Trojan horses, malwares, worms and other malicious codes. It can be a means for phishing attacks as well. 1.2. Why Spam is a problem? Spam has been growing rapidly over the years. As shown in Figure 1, in 2010, the average global Spam rate for the year was 89.1%, an increase of 1.4% compared with 2009 [12]. The growth of Spam over the years suggests that Spam Figure 1: Rate of Spam is no longer simply a threat but a large scale network problem today. II. THE SOURCE OF SPAM The key reason for the growth of spam is the fact that it There are three primary sources of Spam in service costs nothing to send an email; since all of the costs are paid provider networks: by the carriers and the email servers. Furthermore there is a level of annoyance at receiving a lot of Spam. Email Spam 2.1. Botnets affects the recipient; their time and resources are wasted A botnet is a network of infected computers that have dealing with Spam emails. It also affects the performance of been taken over by Spammers and are used to send bulk email servers which process huge amount of emails sent by Spam E-mails. The number of bots in botnets depends on the Spammers. profit desired by the spammer. Botnets might have a few 1529 Rochak Gupta et al, / (IJCSIT) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technologies, Vol. 2 (4) , 2011, 1529-1536 thousand computers, but others might have lacks of infected 2.1.5. Mega-D computers. In most of the cases even owner of computers does not know that their computers are infected. Mega-Ds Spam is mainly responsible for advertising an The proportion of Spam sent by botnets was much higher online pharmacy. At its peak was responsible for almost 18% for 2010, approximately 88.2% of all Spam. However, the of global Spam. In November 2010 the Federal Bureau of average number of Spam emails sent from each bot fell at the Investigation arrested mastermind of Mega-D botnet. end of 2010 [12]. This led to a decrease in the total amount of global Spam in circulation toward the end of 2010. But many 2.1.6. Bagle/Beagle/Mitglieder/Lodeight of the experts predict that e-mail will remain the primary, preferred medium for sending Spam. As the year progresses, Spam volume has declined in March 2011 after the researchers expect Spam volumes to match or exceed takedown of the Rustock botnet, but Bagle botnet is taking its previous levels. place. Bagle is famous for spreading pharmacy spam and at Following botnets were the active Spam botnets of 2010: its peak was responsible for 17.2% of the total global spam volume. It is more powerful than Rustock because it 2.1.1. Rustock maintains high profit with less number of infected computers. Rustock was the one of the most dominant botnet in last 2.2. Compromised accounts few years. Rustock has been an important member of the botnets since January 2006. It was responsible for massive The accounts that are accessed by someone who is amount of Spam production worldwide. It was capable of unauthorized are called compromised accounts. Spammers sending up to 25,000 Spam messages per hour from an use these accounts to send Spam. infected computer. It was a botnet of around 2 million bots capable of sending out 30 billion Spam emails per day. 2.3. Malicious use of email accounts Microsoft’s Digital Crimes Unit, working with federal law enforcement agents, has brought down the world’s largest Another way that spammer can use to send the spam is by Spam network, Rustock in March 2011. Global Spam drops creating email accounts and uses them for the purpose of by huge amount as Rustock Botnet is Dismantled [1]. sending unwanted content. As reported that one in eight users’ accounts is openly sending out Spam and/or malware. 2.1.2. Grum III. COMMON SPAMMER TRICKS Grum is the future for Spam botnets. It’s a kernel-mode As Spam filters are becoming better and better, they rootkit and hence it is difficult to detect and remove it. Grum pressurise Spammers to evolve new tactics to bypass the is mainly involved in sending pharmaceutical Spam e-mails. filters. We present some of the most common tricks applied It consists of around 560,000 - 840,000 Grum root-kit by Spammers to circumvent available Spam filtering infected computers. It was one of the most active Spam- solutions. sending botnets at the end of 2010 and was responsible for approximately 9% of botnet Spam. [12]. 3.1. How to Get More Victims: Email Address Harvesting 2.1.3. Cutwail 3.1.1. Dictionary attacks The Cutwail botnet has been active since 2007. It is The dictionary attack is one of the most popular mainly involved in DDoS attacks and sending Spam e-mails. techniques among Spammers who wish to evolve or keep It was responsible for approximately 6% of global Spam in accounts of recipient addresses. To collect accounts of year 2010. The number of active bots has increased by working email addresses, a spammer send vestigial mails to approximately 16%, compared with the number of bots under email accounts. A normal user who receives such mails with its control at the end of 2009 [12]. The Pushdo/Cutwail no body and subject line may be weird, but for a spammer it botnet spreads Spam including online casinos is a way to collect the working email accounts. pharmaceuticals, phishing, and links to Web sites which contain malwares. 3.1.2. From posts to UseNet 2.1.4. Maazben Spammers use readymade softwares to continuously scan UseNet for email address. Some software might be designed Maazben botnet is mainly responsible for spreading to just look at posts headers which contain email address, Casino Spam. To keeps the Spam source hidden, Spammers while other softwares might be designed to check the posts prefer proxy-based bots. But proxy-based bots do not work if bodies. These softwares looks at signatures, through the infected computer is behind a NAT device [9]. Maazben programs that collect everything that contain a ‘@’ character is one of the fastest-growing botnet and was responsible for and attempt to demunge munged email addresses. over 5.2% of global Spam in year 2010. The number of active It is also observed that if people stop posting on the bots under Maazbens control has increased by more than UseNet then frequency of Spam mails decreased sharply in 1,000% since March 2010, to between 510,000 and 770,000 their email accounts. The obvious reason is that Spammers bots worldwide [12]. 1530 Rochak Gupta et al, / (IJCSIT) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technologies, Vol. 2 (4) , 2011, 1529-1536 always look for active addresses; this technique seems to be code. But this is not a popular tactic among Spammers the primary source of email addresses for Spammers. nowadays. For example, 3.1.3. From mailing lists HTML: Ma<!- - 63 - ->ke mon <! - - adf - ->ey f<!- - sdf - - >a<! - Spammers repeatedly try to obtain the lists of subscribers - e - ->st to mailing lists. When mail servers are designed to deny such Would be rendered as “Make money fast” in an email requests, Spammers might send an email to the mailing list client. with the headers Return-Receipt-To: or X- Confirm-Reading- To:. A different technique used by Spammers is to request a 3.3.3. Attachments mailing lists server to give him the list of all mailing lists it carries, and then send the Spam to the mailing lists address, One can send the spam message as an attachment of mail leaving the server to do the hard work of forwarding a copy to avoid contents analysis performed by Spam filters. On the to each subscribed email address [13]. other hand, the curious recipient may open the attachment, which usually contains neither body text nor subject line in 3.1.4.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Show Me the Money: Characterizing Spam-Advertised Revenue
    Show Me the Money: Characterizing Spam-advertised Revenue Chris Kanich∗ Nicholas Weavery Damon McCoy∗ Tristan Halvorson∗ Christian Kreibichy Kirill Levchenko∗ Vern Paxsonyz Geoffrey M. Voelker∗ Stefan Savage∗ ∗ y Department of Computer Science and Engineering International Computer Science Institute University of California, San Diego Berkeley, CA z Computer Science Division University of California, Berkeley Abstract money at all [6]. This situation has the potential to distort Modern spam is ultimately driven by product sales: policy and investment decisions that are otherwise driven goods purchased by customers online. However, while by intuition rather than evidence. this model is easy to state in the abstract, our under- In this paper we make two contributions to improving standing of the concrete business environment—how this state of affairs using measurement-based methods to many orders, of what kind, from which customers, for estimate: how much—is poor at best. This situation is unsurpris- ing since such sellers typically operate under question- • Order volume. We describe a general technique— able legal footing, with “ground truth” data rarely avail- purchase pair—for estimating the number of orders able to the public. However, absent quantifiable empiri- received (and hence revenue) via on-line store order cal data, “guesstimates” operate unchecked and can dis- numbering. We use this approach to establish rough, tort both policy making and our choice of appropri- but well-founded, monthly order volume estimates ate interventions. In this paper, we describe two infer- for many of the leading “affiliate programs” selling ence techniques for peering inside the business opera- counterfeit pharmaceuticals and software. tions of spam-advertised enterprises: purchase pair and • Purchasing behavior.
    [Show full text]
  • In-Depth Evaluation of Redirect Tracking and Link Usage
    Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies ; 2020 (4):394–413 Martin Koop*, Erik Tews, and Stefan Katzenbeisser In-Depth Evaluation of Redirect Tracking and Link Usage Abstract: In today’s web, information gathering on 1 Introduction users’ online behavior takes a major role. Advertisers use different tracking techniques that invade users’ privacy It is common practice to use different tracking tech- by collecting data on their browsing activities and inter- niques on websites. This covers the web advertisement ests. To preventing this threat, various privacy tools are infrastructure like banners, so-called web beacons1 or available that try to block third-party elements. How- social media buttons to gather data on the users’ on- ever, there exist various tracking techniques that are line behavior as well as privacy sensible information not covered by those tools, such as redirect link track- [52, 69, 73]. Among others, those include information on ing. Here, tracking is hidden in ordinary website links the user’s real name, address, gender, shopping-behavior pointing to further content. By clicking those links, or or location [4, 19]. Connecting this data with informa- by automatic URL redirects, the user is being redirected tion gathered from search queries, mobile devices [17] through a chain of potential tracking servers not visible or content published in online social networks [5, 79] al- to the user. In this scenario, the tracker collects valuable lows revealing further privacy sensitive information [62]. data about the content, topic, or user interests of the This includes personal interests, problems or desires of website. Additionally, the tracker sets not only third- users, political or religious views, as well as the finan- party but also first-party tracking cookies which are far cial status.
    [Show full text]
  • Spamming Botnets: Signatures and Characteristics
    Spamming Botnets: Signatures and Characteristics Yinglian Xie, Fang Yu, Kannan Achan, Rina Panigrahy, Geoff Hulten+,IvanOsipkov+ Microsoft Research, Silicon Valley +Microsoft Corporation {yxie,fangyu,kachan,rina,ghulten,ivano}@microsoft.com ABSTRACT botnet infection and their associated control process [4, 17, 6], little In this paper, we focus on characterizing spamming botnets by effort has been devoted to understanding the aggregate behaviors of leveraging both spam payload and spam server traffic properties. botnets from the perspective of large email servers that are popular Towards this goal, we developed a spam signature generation frame- targets of botnet spam attacks. work called AutoRE to detect botnet-based spam emails and botnet An important goal of this paper is to perform a large scale analy- membership. AutoRE does not require pre-classified training data sis of spamming botnet characteristics and identify trends that can or white lists. Moreover, it outputs high quality regular expression benefit future botnet detection and defense mechanisms. In our signatures that can detect botnet spam with a low false positive rate. analysis, we make use of an email dataset collected from a large Using a three-month sample of emails from Hotmail, AutoRE suc- email service provider, namely, MSN Hotmail. Our study not only cessfully identified 7,721 botnet-based spam campaigns together detects botnet membership across the Internet, but also tracks the with 340,050 unique botnet host IP addresses. sending behavior and the associated email content patterns that are Our in-depth analysis of the identified botnets revealed several directly observable from an email service provider. Information interesting findings regarding the degree of email obfuscation, prop- pertaining to botnet membership can be used to prevent future ne- erties of botnet IP addresses, sending patterns, and their correlation farious activities such as phishing and DDoS attacks.
    [Show full text]
  • Zambia and Spam
    ZAMNET COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS LTD (ZAMBIA) Spam – The Zambian Experience Submission to ITU WSIS Thematic meeting on countering Spam By: Annabel S Kangombe – Maseko June 2004 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction 1 1.1 What is spam? 1 1.2 The nature of Spam 1 1.3 Statistics 2 2.0 Technical view 4 2.1 Main Sources of Spam 4 2.1.1 Harvesting 4 2.1.2 Dictionary Attacks 4 2.1.3 Open Relays 4 2.1.4 Email databases 4 2.1.5 Inadequacies in the SMTP protocol 4 2.2 Effects of Spam 5 2.3 The fight against spam 5 2.3.1 Blacklists 6 2.3.2 White lists 6 2.3.3 Dial‐up Lists (DUL) 6 2.3.4 Spam filtering programs 6 2.4 Challenges of fighting spam 7 3.0 Legal Framework 9 3.1 Laws against spam in Zambia 9 3.2 International Regulations or Laws 9 3.2.1 US State Laws 9 3.2.2 The USA’s CAN‐SPAM Act 10 4.0 The Way forward 11 4.1 A global effort 11 4.2 Collaboration between ISPs 11 4.3 Strengthening Anti‐spam regulation 11 4.4 User education 11 4.5 Source authentication 12 4.6 Rewriting the Internet Mail Exchange protocol 12 1.0 Introduction I get to the office in the morning, walk to my desk and switch on the computer. One of the first things I do after checking the status of the network devices is to check my email.
    [Show full text]
  • Email Phishing for IT Providers How Phishing Emails Have Changed and How to Protect Your IT Clients
    Email Phishing for IT Providers How phishing emails have changed and how to protect your IT clients 1 © 2016 Calyptix Security Corporation. All rights reserved. I [email protected] I (800) 650 – 8930 (800) 650-8930 I [email protected] Contents Introduction ............................................................................................ 2 Phishing overview .................................................................................. 3 Trends in phishing emails ...................................................................... 6 Email phishing tactics .......................................................................... 11 Steps for MSP & VARS .......................................................................... 24 Advice for your clients .......................................................................... 29 Sources .................................................................................................. 35 1 © 2016 Calyptix Security Corporation. All rights reserved. I [email protected] I (800) 650 – 8930 Introduction There are only so many ways to break into a bank. You can march through the door. You can climb through a window. You can tunnel through the floor. There is the service entrance, the employee entrance, and access on the roof. Criminals who want to rob a bank will probably use an open route – such as a side door. It’s easier than breaking down a wall. Criminals who want to break into your network face a similar challenge. They need to enter. They can look for a weakness in your
    [Show full text]
  • CUB Guide to Fighting Robocalls
    CitizensUtilityBoard.org 1-800-669-5556 Guide to Fighting Robocalls February 2021 The latest news on the robocall fi ght Robocalls are prerecorded messages from computer-generat- ed dialers, and Illinois is one of the nation’s hardest hit states. In early 2021, for example, the state received more than 153 million robocalls (about 57 per second) in the span of just one month. That ranked Illinois eighth in the country for these calls, according to the robocall-blocking fi rm YouMail. While there are helpful robocalls (alerting you to school closings or when a prescription is ready), YouMail estimates about 42 percent of the calls in Illinois were scams and another 22 percent were simply marketing pitches. Unwanted robocalls are annoying, and costly. The Federal Com- munications Commission (FCC) put the price tag at $3 billion a year just from lost time, not even counting any fraud. TechRe- One in 10 Americans public put the total annual loss for consumers at $9.5 billion. are scammed each year, While policymakers are fi nally starting to act against illegal robo- calls, don’t wait for federal law to catch up. Use the simple tips in resulting in an annual loss of this guide to protect yourself from unwanted calls. The law The Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and $9.5 billion Deterrence (TRACED) Act became federal law in 2019. The act increases penalties and requires phone companies to validate Source: TechRepublic, calls before they reach you. This is to combat “spoofi ng,” October 2019 when a robocaller uses your area code and/or prefi x to ap- pear as if someone locally—maybe a friend or neighbor—is Note: In December 2020, the FCC ordered that organiza- trying to reach you.
    [Show full text]
  • Locating Spambots on the Internet
    BOTMAGNIFIER: Locating Spambots on the Internet Gianluca Stringhinix, Thorsten Holzz, Brett Stone-Grossx, Christopher Kruegelx, and Giovanni Vignax xUniversity of California, Santa Barbara z Ruhr-University Bochum fgianluca,bstone,chris,[email protected] [email protected] Abstract the world-wide email traffic [20], and a lucrative busi- Unsolicited bulk email (spam) is used by cyber- ness has emerged around them [12]. The content of spam criminals to lure users into scams and to spread mal- emails lures users into scams, promises to sell cheap ware infections. Most of these unwanted messages are goods and pharmaceutical products, and spreads mali- sent by spam botnets, which are networks of compro- cious software by distributing links to websites that per- mised machines under the control of a single (malicious) form drive-by download attacks [24]. entity. Often, these botnets are rented out to particular Recent studies indicate that, nowadays, about 85% of groups to carry out spam campaigns, in which similar the overall spam traffic on the Internet is sent with the mail messages are sent to a large group of Internet users help of spamming botnets [20,36]. Botnets are networks in a short amount of time. Tracking the bot-infected hosts of compromised machines under the direction of a sin- that participate in spam campaigns, and attributing these gle entity, the so-called botmaster. While different bot- hosts to spam botnets that are active on the Internet, are nets serve different, nefarious goals, one important pur- challenging but important tasks. In particular, this infor- pose of botnets is the distribution of spam emails.
    [Show full text]
  • Redirect URL
    July 2012 Redirect URL User Guide Welcome to AT&T Website Solutions SM We are focused on providing you the very best web hosting service including all the tools necessary to establish and maintain a successful website. This document contains information that will help you to redirect pages from your site to other locations. You can use it to create a new Domain Redirection as well. © 2012 AT&T Intellectual Property. All rights reserved. AT&T products and services are provided or offered by subsidiaries and affiliates of AT&T Inc. under the AT&T brand and not by AT&T Inc. AT&T, AT&T logo and all other AT&T marks contained herein are trademarks of AT&T Intellectual Property and/or AT&T affiliated companies. All other trademarks are the property of their owners. This document is not an offer, commitment, representation or warranty by AT&T and is subject to change. Your Web Hosting service is subject to the Terms and Conditions (T&Cs), which may be found at http://webhosting.att.com/Terms-Conditions.aspx . Service terms and Fees are subject to change without notice. Please read the T&Cs for additional information. © 2010 AT&T Intellectual Property. All rights re served. AT&T and the AT&T logo are trademarks of AT&T Intellectual Property. Table of ContenContentstststs Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 3 Create a New Redirect ...................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The History of Spam Timeline of Events and Notable Occurrences in the Advance of Spam
    The History of Spam Timeline of events and notable occurrences in the advance of spam July 2014 The History of Spam The growth of unsolicited e-mail imposes increasing costs on networks and causes considerable aggravation on the part of e-mail recipients. The history of spam is one that is closely tied to the history and evolution of the Internet itself. 1971 RFC 733: Mail Specifications 1978 First email spam was sent out to users of ARPANET – it was an ad for a presentation by Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) 1984 Domain Name System (DNS) introduced 1986 Eric Thomas develops first commercial mailing list program called LISTSERV 1988 First know email Chain letter sent 1988 “Spamming” starts as prank by participants in multi-user dungeon games by MUDers (Multi User Dungeon) to fill rivals accounts with unwanted electronic junk mail. 1990 ARPANET terminates 1993 First use of the term spam was for a post from USENET by Richard Depew to news.admin.policy, which was the result of a bug in a software program that caused 200 messages to go out to the news group. The term “spam” itself was thought to have come from the spam skit by Monty Python's Flying Circus. In the sketch, a restaurant serves all its food with lots of spam, and the waitress repeats the word several times in describing how much spam is in the items. When she does this, a group of Vikings in the corner start a song: "Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, lovely spam! Wonderful spam!" Until told to shut up.
    [Show full text]
  • Detection of Malicious Urls by Correlating the Chains of Redirection in an Online Social Network (Twitter)
    International Journal of Research Studies in Computer Science and Engineering (IJRSCSE) Volume 1, Issue 3, July 2014, PP 33-38 ISSN 2349-4840 (Print) & ISSN 2349-4859 (Online) www.arcjournals.org Detection of Malicious URLs by Correlating the Chains of Redirection in an Online Social Network (Twitter) 1MD.Sabeeha, SK.Karimullah, 2P.Babu 1PG Schalor,CSE, Quba college of engineering and technology 2, Associate professor, QCET, NELLORE ABSTRACT: Twitter is prone to malicious tweets containing URLs for spam, phishing, and malware distribution. Conventional Twitter spam detection schemes utilize account features such as the ratio of tweets containing URLs and the account creation date, or relation features in the Twitter graph. These detection schemes are ineffective against feature fabrications or consume much time and resources. Conventional suspicious URL detection schemes utilize several features including lexical features of URLs, URL redirection, HTML content, and dynamic behavior. However, evading techniques such as time-based evasion and crawler evasion exist. In this paper, we propose WARNINGBIRD, a suspicious URL detection system for Twitter. Our system investigates correlations of URL redirect chains extracted from several tweets. Because attackers have limited resources and usually reuse them, their URL redirect chains frequently share the same URLs. We develop methods to discover correlated URL redirect chains using the frequently shared URLs and to determine their suspiciousness. We collect numerous tweets from the Twitter public timeline and build a statistical classifier using them. Evaluation results show that our classifier accurately and efficiently detects suspicious URLs. We also present WARNINGBIRD as a near real-time system for classifying suspicious URLs in the Twitter stream.
    [Show full text]
  • OWASP Asia 2008 Rsnake.Pdf
    1 Robert Hansen - CEO SecTheory LLC Bespoke Boutique Internet Security Web Application/Browser Security Network/OS Security http://www.sectheory.com/ Advisory capacity to VCs/start-ups Founded the web application security lab http://ha.ckers.org/ - the lab http://sla.ckers.org/ - the forum 2 iHumble I want to explain the history… Only a few know the whole story. Sit back and relax, it’s story time. 3 We’ve all heard these sentiments: “If you find a vulnerability, we ask that you share it with us. If you share it with us, we will respond to you with a time we will fix that hole.” Scott Petry – Director @ Google (We’ll be coming back to this!) 4 It all started four years ago… We found that redirection vulnerabilities were being used by phishers in a number of sites, Visa, Doubleclick, eBay and of course, Google to confuse consumers. Timeframes for fixes: Visa closed their hole down within hours Double Click within days (partially) eBay within weeks Google still hasn’t closed them (~4 years later) Every company agrees it’s a hole. Everyone 5 Word gets out – fast! http://blogs.geekdojo.net/brian/archive/2004/10/14/googlephishing.aspx http://lists.virus.org/dshield-0602/msg00156.html http://blog.eweek.com/blogs/larry_seltzer/archive/2006/03/05/8240.aspx http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/2006/03/google-used-as-url-cloaking-device- in.html http://www.docuverse.com/blog/donpark/EntryViewPage.aspx?guid=e08af74b- 8b86-418c-94e0-7d29a7cb91e2 http://email.about.com/od/outlooktips/qt/et043005.htm http://listserv.educause.edu/cgi- bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0511&L=security&T=0&F=&S=&P=15599 http://www.zataz.com/news/13296/google-corrige-une-faille.html http://google.blognewschannel.com/archives/2007/02/22/google-changes-redirects- adds-nofollow-to-blogger/ http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2007/02/google-redirect-notice.html And others… 6 Everyone has vulns.
    [Show full text]
  • Real-Time Detection System for Suspicious Urls Krishna Prasad Chouty Governors State University
    Governors State University OPUS Open Portal to University Scholarship All Capstone Projects Student Capstone Projects Fall 2015 Real-Time Detection System for Suspicious URLs Krishna Prasad Chouty Governors State University Anup Chandra Thogiti Governors State University Kranthi Sudha Vudatha Governors State University Follow this and additional works at: http://opus.govst.edu/capstones Part of the Digital Communications and Networking Commons, and the Information Security Commons Recommended Citation Chouty, Krishna Prasad; Thogiti, Anup Chandra; and Vudatha, Kranthi Sudha, "Real-Time Detection System for Suspicious URLs" (2015). All Capstone Projects. 164. http://opus.govst.edu/capstones/164 For more information about the academic degree, extended learning, and certificate programs of Governors State University, go to http://www.govst.edu/Academics/Degree_Programs_and_Certifications/ Visit the Governors State Computer Science Department This Project Summary is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Capstone Projects at OPUS Open Portal to University Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Capstone Projects by an authorized administrator of OPUS Open Portal to University Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. REAL-TIMEDETECTION SYSTEM FOR SUSPICIOUS URL’S By Krishna Prasad, Chouty B.Tech, JAWAHARLAL NEHURU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, 2012 AnupChandra, Thogiti B.Tech, JAWAHARLAL NEHURU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, 2011 Kranthi Sudha, Vudatha B.Tech, JAWAHARLAL NEHURU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY,
    [Show full text]