You are provided with the abstract of a scientific paper and the abstracts of the papers it references. Your task is to write a Related Work section for the main paper. This section should concisely summarize and integrate the key points from the cited abstracts, reflecting how they relate to the main paper's contributions and context. In your summary, use numerical citation markers like [1], [2], etc., to refer to the corresponding papers.

Main Abstract:
Phishing is a major problem on the Web. Despite the significant attention it has received over the years, there has been no definitive solution. While the state-of-the-art solutions have reasonably good performance, they require a large amount of training data and are not adept at detecting phishing attacks against new targets. In this paper, we begin with two core observations: (a) although phishers try to make a phishing webpage look similar to its target, they do not have unlimited freedom in structuring the phishing webpage; and (b) a webpage can be characterized by a small set of key terms; how these key terms are used in different parts of a webpage is different in the case of legitimate and phishing webpages. Based on these observations, we develop a phishing detection system with several notable properties: it is language-independent, can be implemented entirely on client-side, has excellent classification performance and is fast. In addition, we developed a target identification component that can identify the target website that a phishing webpage is attempting to mimic. The target detection component is faster than previously reported systems and can help minimize false positives in our phishing detection system.

Cited Abstract(s):
[1]: The phishing scam and its variants are estimated to cost victims billions of dollars per year. Researchers have responded with a number of anti-phishing systems, based either on blacklists or on heuristics. The former cannot cope with the churn of phishing sites, while the latter usually employ decision rules that are not congruent to human perception. We propose a novel heuristic anti-phishing system that explicitly employs gestalt and decision theory concepts to model perceptual similarity. Our system is evaluated on three corpora contrasting legitimate Web sites with real-world phishing scams. The proposed system’s performance was equal or superior to current best-of-breed systems. We further analyze current anti-phishing warnings from the perspective of warning theory, and propose a new warning design employing our Gestalt approach.

[2]: Phishing is a significant problem involving fraudulent email and web sites that trick unsuspecting users into revealing private information. In this paper, we present the design, implementation, and evaluation of CANTINA, a novel, content-based approach to detecting phishing web sites, based on the TF-IDF information retrieval algorithm. We also discuss the design and evaluation of several heuristics we developed to reduce false positives. Our experiments show that CANTINA is good at detecting phishing sites, correctly labeling approximately 95 of phishing sites.

[3]: 

[4]: Conventional wisdom is that phishing represents easy money. In this paper we examine the economics that underly the phenomenon, and find a very different picture. Phishing is a classic example of tragedy of the commons, where there is open access to a resource that has limited ability to regenerate. Since each phisher independently seeks to maximize his return, the resource is over-grazed and yields far less than it is capable of. The situation stabilizes only when the average phisher is making only as much as he gives up in opportunity cost. Since the picture we paint is at variance with accepted wisdom we check against several publicly available data sources on phishing. We find the oft-quoted survey-based estimates of phishing losses unreliable. In particular the victimization rate found in most surveys is smaller than the margin of error, and dollar losses are estimated by averaging unverified self-reported numbers. We estimate that recent public estimates over-state phishing losses by as much as a factor of fifty. This economic portrait illuminates our enemy in an entirely new light. Far from being a path to riches, phishing appears to be a low-skill low-reward business. The enormous amount of phishing activity is evidence of its failure to deliver riches rather than its success, as phishers send more and more email hoping for their share of the bounty that eludes them. Repetition of questionable survey results and unsubstantiated anecdotes makes things worse by ensuring a steady supply of new entrants.
Table presents comparative performances results of our phishing detection system to the most relevant state-of-the-art systems. It presents the size of the testing sets used to evaluate each system and the provenance of the legitimate set, showing how representative the set is. For example, using popular websites (such as top Alexa sites) [1] [3] as the legitimate set is not representative. The ratio of training to testing instances indicates the scalability of the method and the ratio of legitimate to phishing instances shows the extent to which the experiments represents a real world distribution ( @math ) [4] [2] . We also identify the evaluation method (e.g., cross validation vs. training with old data and testing with new data). Finally, we present several metrics for assessing the classification performance. If data for any of the columns were missing from the original paper describing the system, we estimated them. For comparison purposes, if several experimental setups were proposed in a paper, we selected the most relevant to assess their practical efficacy using the following ordered criteria: