Loading article...
Loading article...
Stream/Area:
-
Subject:
-
Paper ID:
IJSREM63269
Volume:
10 |
5 |
May 2026
Pages:
1-3
Publication Frequency:
Monthly (12 issues per year)
License:International Journal of Scientific Research in Engineering and Management follows the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) License, allowing free use and distribution with proper attribution.

Department Of Computer Science
Malnad College Of Engineering,Hassan

Department Of Computer Science
Malnad College Of Engineering,Hassan

Department Of Computer Science
Malnad College Of Engineering,Hassan

Department Of Computer Science
Malnad College Of Engineering,Hassan

Department Of Computer Science
Malnad College Of Engineering,Hassan
The explosive growth in online services and the increasing number of transactions have led to an alarming increase in Phishing URL attacks, where cyber criminals use fake websites that replicate legitimate sites to steal personal and financial information from users. According to APWG, more than 300,000 unique phishing URLs are generated daily. The traditional static detection strategies, such as blacklisting, regular expressions, and heuristic filters, often fail to detect zero-day phishing attacks. This is because sophisticated phishing websites employ dynamic generation techniques such as domain shadowing and fast flux, which make static signatures obsolete in a few hours. Therefore, there is a transition to the use of machine learning and deep learning approaches. It makes it possible to detect phishing sites with very high accuracy rates, which exceed 97 The rise of the exponential number of services provided on the internet, and the corresponding increase in transactions, has led to an alarming increase in Phishing URL attacks, where attackers use websites that closely emulate legitimate ones in order to steal confidential information, financial information, identity-related details, and sensitive business information from users. As per statistics gathered by the Anti-Phishing Working Group (APWG), more than 300,000 distinct phishing sites have been identified every day. Static blacklisting, regular expressions, and heuristic filtering approaches have failed when faced with phishing attacks that are classified as ’zero-day attacks’. Consequently, cyber security studies have moved to adopt adaptive ML and DL frameworks which consistently attain detection accuracy surpassing 97 But still, there are five major issues that continue to remain unsolved: (1) data imbalance favoring benign samples; (2) evasion using URL shortening services and obfuscation techniques; (3) the ”black-box” nature of DNNs affecting stakeholder trust; (4) high computational costs not aligned with the limited computing resources available in IoT/edge computing systems; and (5) susceptibility to concept drift due to ever-evolving phishing methods. To overcome these limitations, we present the EEF-Phish (Explainable Ensemble Framework for Phishing detection): a novel framework leveraging the strengths of LightGBM (the primary model) and Random Forest (diversity augmentation component) along with two different explanation modules (SHAP and LIME).
KEYWORDS
The above-mentioned survey has provided a detailed anal- ysis of the latest development of Phishing URL Detection, highlighting the shift from conventional blacklisting tech- niques to machine learning and deep learning approaches. From the analysis of recent literature, it can be concluded that approaches like XF-PhishBERT and stacking of machine learning architectures have revolutionized the performance of detection techniques. The use of XAI (Explainable AI) tools has resolved the problem of the ”black box” issue in neural network models. Nevertheless, certain problems still persist in terms of compu- tational costs and the susceptibility of the model to zero-day attacks. In future studies, the development of light-weighted temporal models must be considered. The current study presents an in-depth exploration of the current scenario of Phishing URL detection, tracing back to the revolutionary change from the static blacklisting approach and the heuristic filter technique to machine learning and deep learning models. The study of ten advanced technolo- gies in 2024-2025 demonstrates significant advancements; for instance, XF-PhishBERT achieves an accuracy rate of 99.9 The implementation of Explainable AI paradigms such as SHAP for global interpretability, LIME for local fidelity, attention heat maps, and linguistic explanations derived from LLMs has effectively addressed the ”black-box” problem in deep neural models. Benchmarking performance (see Table I) indicates that accuracy is regularly above 97 To address the remaining challenges, EEF-Phish has been developed to leverage the ensemble between LightGBM and Random Forest with XAI models in an online learning frame- work. Our current evaluation results in 97.8 Key areas that should be investigated in future research include: (1) federated zero-day learning in siloed companies; (2) adversarial hardening techniques against obfuscations; (3) Neural Architecture Search for edge devices with less than 1 MB of memory space; (4) monitoring of concept drifts with sliding-window approaches; and (5) human-centered interfaces for providing natural language threat intelligence to users. By implementing the aforementioned needs, we would be able to create unbeatable lightweight
[1] M. S. Uddin, M. A. Kabir, and S. Islam, ”XGBoost-SHAP Based Phishing URL Detection with Explainable AI,” 2025 International Conference on Cybersecurity and Computer Science (ICCCS), IEEE, 2025. [2] J. Chen, L. Wang, and T. Zhang, ”XF-PhishBERT: Few-Shot Learning Framework for Phishing Detection using ModernBERT,” IEEE Transac- tions on Information Forensics and Security, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 112-125, 2025. [3] A. Sharma, R. Gupta, and V. Singh, ”Multi-Layer Stacked Ensemble Model for Robust Phishing URL Classification,” 2025 7th International Conference on Computing, Communication and Automation (ICCCA), IEEE, 2025. [4] P. Rao, S. K. Nayak, and G. Panda, ”SLA-FS: Hybrid Feature Selection Framework using SHAP and LIME for Phishing Detection,” 2024 IEEE 9th International Conference on Communication and Electronics Systems (ICCES), IEEE, 2024. [5] H. Guo, Y. Liu, and X. Chen, ”EXPLICATE: Enhancing Phishing Detection Trust through LLM-Generated Explanations,” Proceedings of the 2025 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS), ACM, 2025. [6] O. K. Sahingoz, E. B. Tuncel, and A. O. Batur, ”Attention-Augmented Bi-LSTM for Phishing URL Detection,” Computers & Security, vol. 142, 103856, Elsevier, 2024. [7] R. Kumar, S. Gupta, and A. Sharma, ”LightGBM with LIME Explana- tions for Edge Phishing Detection,” 2024 International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Control Systems (ICICCS), IEEE, 2024. [8] S. Alghamdi, M. Alqahtani, and A. Alharbi, ”CNN-LSTM Hybrid Architecture for Malicious URL Classification,” Springer Journal of SN Computer Science, vol. 6, no. 2, 2025. 9. P. Verma and V. K. Shrivastava, ”Random Forest with Counterfactual Explanations for Phishing Detection,” 2024 5th International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communication and Control (ICACCI), IEEE, 2024. 10. L. Zhang, J. Li, and H. Wang, ”Graph Neural Networks for Phishing URL Relationship Analysis,” IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 45-58, 2025.
Publication Date
5/15/2026
Peer Review Type
Double-Blind Peer Review
Review Rounds: 2
Documents
Article Views
0
Total views since publication
PDF Downloads
4
Total downloads since publication
Geographic Reach
5
Digital Preservation: This article is permanently archived on Zenodo and complies with all data preservation standards across major indexing platforms.
Plagiarism Screening
This manuscript has been checked for plagiarism using TurnitinPlagiarismChecker software.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest related to this research work.
Funding Information
No funding information available for this research.
Related research in the same subject area
Loading similar articles...