Multi-SpacePhish: Extending the Evasion-space of Adversarial Attacks against Phishing Website Detectors using Machine Learning
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Existing literature on adversarial Machine Learning (ML) focuses either on showing attacks that break every ML model, or defenses that withstand most attacks. Unfortunately, little consideration is given to the actual feasibility of the attack or the defense. Moreover, adversarial samples are often crafted in the "feature-space", making the corresponding evaluations of questionable value. Simply put, the current situation does not allow to estimate the actual threat posed by adversarial attacks, leading to a lack of secure ML systems. We aim to clarify such confusion in this paper. By considering the application of ML for Phishing Website Detection (PWD), we formalize the "evasion-space" in which an adversarial perturbation can be introduced to fool a ML-PWD -- demonstrating that even perturbations in the "feature-space" are useful. Then, we propose a realistic threat model describing evasion attacks against ML-PWD that are cheap to stage, and hence intrinsically more attractive for real phishers. After that, we perform the first statistically validated assessment of state-of-the-art ML-PWD against 12 evasion attacks. Our evaluation shows (i) the true efficacy of evasion attempts that are more likely to occur; and (ii) the impact of perturbations crafted in different evasion-spaces. Our realistic evasion attempts induce a statistically significant degradation (3-10% at p<0.05), and their cheap cost makes them a subtle threat. Notably, however, some ML-PWD are immune to our most realistic attacks (p=0.22). Finally, as an additional contribution of this journal publication, we are the first to consider the intriguing case wherein an attacker introduces perturbations in multiple evasion-spaces at the same time. These new results show that simultaneously applying perturbations in the problem- and feature-space can cause a drop in the detection rate from 0.95 to 0.
Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 26 of its 102 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Oct 2022.
Builds on
26 of 102 references.
References · 26
- 2016Practical Black-Box Attacks against Machine Learningcited by 893
- 2017Ensemble Adversarial Training: Attacks and Defensescited by 833
- 2015Distillation as a Defense to Adversarial Perturbations against Deep Neural Networkscited by 675
- 2017One pixel attack for fooling deep neural networkscited by 579
- 2017Wild Patterns: Ten Years After the Rise of Adversarial Machine Learningcited by 411
- 2020Blind Backdoors in Deep Learning Modelscited by 174
- 2020Adversarial Machine Learning -- Industry Perspectivescited by 121
- 2016Defensive Distillation is Not Robust to Adversarial Examplescited by 60
- 2017Yes, Machine Learning Can Be More Secure! A Case Study on Android Malware Detectioncited by 51
- 2021Poisoning the Unlabeled Dataset of Semi-Supervised Learningcited by 44
- 2021Modeling Realistic Adversarial Attacks against Network Intrusion Detection Systemscited by 39
- 2020Practical No-box Adversarial Attacks against DNNscited by 32
14 more
- 2021A Hard Label Black-box Adversarial Attack Against Graph Neural Networkscited by 26
- 2021Black-box Adversarial Attacks on Commercial Speech Platforms with Minimal Informationcited by 25
- 2022The Role of Machine Learning in Cybersecuritycited by 21
- 2019Detecting and Characterizing Lateral Phishing at Scalecited by 20
- 2017Improving Robustness of ML Classifiers against Realizable Evasion Attacks Using Conserved Featurescited by 18
- 2020Advanced Evasion Attacks and Mitigations on Practical ML-Based Phishing Website Classifierscited by 16
- 2020Towards Benchmark Datasets for Machine Learning Based Website Phishing Detection: An experimental studycited by 16
- 2020Almost Tight L0-norm Certified Robustness of Top-k Predictions against Adversarial Perturbationscited by 16
- 2022SoK: The Impact of Unlabelled Data in Cyberthreat Detectioncited by 15
- 2018AdVersarial: Perceptual Ad Blocking meets Adversarial Machine Learningcited by 14
- 2017DeltaPhish: Detecting Phishing Webpages in Compromised Websitescited by 13
- 2020AdvMind: Inferring Adversary Intent of Black-Box Attackscited by 12
- 2021Feature Importance Guided Attack: A Model Agnostic Adversarial Attackcited by 10
- 2019Malware Detection using Machine Learning and Deep Learningcited by 9
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 3; 2024: 2; 2025: 2.
7 papers.
- 2023SoK: Pragmatic Assessment of Machine Learning for Network Intrusion Detectioncited by 13
- 2023Impacts and Risk of Generative AI Technology on Cyber Defensecited by 8
- 2024Multimodal Large Language Models for Phishing Webpage Detection and Identificationcited by 6
- 2024SoK: On the Offensive Potential of AIcited by 5
- 2023Raze to the Ground: Query-Efficient Adversarial HTML Attacks on Machine-Learning Phishing Webpage Detectorscited by 3
- 2025From Past to Present: A Survey of Malicious URL Detection Techniques, Datasets and Code Repositoriescited by 1
- 2025PiMRef: Deducing Ever-evolving Spear-phishing Emails with Knowledge Base Invariantscited by 1
- 2025PiMRef: Deducing Ever-evolving Spear-phishing Emails with Knowledge Base Invariants21 Jul 2025
- 2025From Past to Present: A Survey of Malicious URL Detection Techniques, Datasets and Code Repositories23 Apr 2025
- 2024SoK: On the Offensive Potential of AI24 Dec 2024
- 2024Multimodal Large Language Models for Phishing Webpage Detection and Identification12 Aug 2024
- 2023Raze to the Ground: Query-Efficient Adversarial HTML Attacks on Machine-Learning Phishing Webpage Detectors4 Oct 2023
- 2023Impacts and Risk of Generative AI Technology on Cyber Defense22 Jun 2023
- 2023SoK: Pragmatic Assessment of Machine Learning for Network Intrusion Detection30 Apr 2023