SecureNet: A Comparative Study of DeBERTa and Large Language Models for Phishing Detection
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Phishing, whether through email, SMS, or malicious websites, poses a major threat to organizations by using social engineering to trick users into revealing sensitive information. It not only compromises company's data security but also incurs significant financial losses. In this paper, we investigate whether the remarkable performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) can be leveraged for particular task like text classification, particularly detecting malicious content and compare its results with state-of-the-art Deberta V3 (DeBERTa using ELECTRA-Style Pre-Training with Gradient-Disentangled Embedding Sharing) model. We systematically assess the potential and limitations of both approaches using comprehensive public datasets comprising diverse data sources such as email, HTML, URL, SMS, and synthetic data generation. Additionally, we demonstrate how LLMs can generate convincing phishing emails, making it harder to spot scams and evaluate the performance of both models in this context. Our study delves further into the challenges encountered by DeBERTa V3 during its training phases, fine-tuning methodology and transfer learning processes. Similarly, we examine the challenges associated with LLMs and assess their respective performance. Among our experimental approaches, the transformer-based DeBERTa method emerged as the most effective, achieving a test dataset (HuggingFace phishing dataset) recall (sensitivity) of 95.17% closely followed by GPT-4 providing a recall of 91.04%. We performed additional experiments with other datasets on the trained DeBERTa V3 model and LLMs like GPT 4 and Gemini 1.5. Based on our findings, we provide valuable insights into the effectiveness and robustness of these advanced language models, offering a detailed comparative analysis that can inform future research efforts in strengthening cybersecurity measures for detecting and mitigating phishing threats.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 41 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Jun 2024.
Builds on
17 of 41 references.
References · 17
- 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,396
- 2023Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injectioncited by 1,443
- 2021DeBERTaV3: Improving DeBERTa using ELECTRA-Style Pre-Training with Gradient-Disentangled Embedding Sharingcited by 1,254
- 2023Large Language Modelscited by 780
- 2021Transformer in Transformercited by 633
- 2023Multi-step Jailbreaking Privacy Attacks on ChatGPTcited by 333
- 2021Pre-Trained Models: Past, Present and Futurecited by 319
- 2019Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs): A gentle Introduction and Overviewcited by 68
- 2024ChatSpamDetector: Leveraging Large Language Models for Effective Phishing Email Detectioncited by 25
- 2023From Chatbots to PhishBots? -- Preventing Phishing scams created using ChatGPT, Google Bard and Claudecited by 13
- 2024Detecting Scams Using Large Language Modelscited by 10
- 2024An Explainable Transformer-based Model for Phishing Email Detection: A Large Language Model Approachcited by 9
5 more
- 2024Prompted Contextual Vectors for Spear-Phishing Detectioncited by 5
- 2018A Deep Learning Model with Hierarchical LSTMs and Supervised Attention for Anti-Phishingcited by 4
- 2019Deep Reinforcement Learning for Detecting Malicious Websitescited by 1
- 2023A framework for securing email entrances and mitigating phishing impersonation attackscited by 1
- 2024Classifying spam emails using agglomerative hierarchical clustering and a topic-based approachcited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 2.
2 papers.