December stats are here
posted by Allison on January 4th, 2007 in PhishTank, Statistics
Happy New Year! December statistics are now ready for your viewing pleasure.
Highlights include:
- Total number of votes by the PhishTank community: 94,526
- Total number of unique, suspected phishing scams reported: 20,352
- Country hosting the most phishing sites: United States
- Percentage of phishing sites hosted in United States: 23
- Median time it took for the PhishTank community to verify phishes: 15 hours, 16 minutes
The Tank was a bit slower to verify this month, but that’s probably because of the holidays. And the two dips in verification - on December 9 and December 15 - were due to maintenence.
Enjoy!
Follow responses to this post through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Leave a response below, or send a trackback from your own site.
Leave a response below, or send a trackback from your own site.
MASA
Or the drops in verification rate could be because the site was almost impossible to navigate on with out running into “an internal server error has occurred” error.
— posted by MASA on January 4th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
someone1234
When i run into this internal server error, i just skip the whole day. I guess the server is overloaded and i don’t want to contribute to the DOS.
— posted by someone1234 on January 5th, 2007 at 8:15 am
John Roberts
someone1234 and MASA, we’ve added another server to PhishTank today. Load has diminished notably. Please use PhishTank fully, and let us know if you run into problems. We don’t want site performance to get in the way of community participation at all.
— posted by John Roberts on January 6th, 2007 at 1:00 am
JT
I’m still noticing the errors, been going on since before Christmas. Usually a refresh fixes it till I click another link.
— posted by JT on January 6th, 2007 at 2:19 am
Mick Partis
I have had problems with the “internal server error” as well. This not only slows down the verification process (it can take three or four attempts to verify a submission), but when manually submitting a phish, it is possible to create duplicate entries. The situation seems to be a little better today, but I’m still getting the “internal server error” message now and again, or a similar problem where the page that results from any action is blank. I too assumed that this was due to heavy traffic and the servers were suffering from post-festive season indigestion.
Submissions (through email) seem to be taking an inordinate time today: I’ve just added #67222 manually, but I originally forwarded that phish by email eight hours ago. Given that we are encouraged to “forward (or bounce) your emails to phish@phishtank.com”, I’d expect a speedier turn-around than this. Most of my day-to-day submissions are autoforwarded after being identified by mail rules, and having to check those and then manually submit them seems to be a real retrograde step. I’d rather spend the time verifying…
— posted by Mick Partis on January 7th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
JustaPerson
I’m getting way too many “Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage” while trying to verify a phish. I am trying for the fourth try right now.
There are far too many phishes to verify to get errors and slow repsonses.
I also stop trying when the edits stop working since it is a waste of time to submit and verify duplicates.
— posted by JustaPerson on January 9th, 2007 at 5:49 am
buaya
Whenever I run into the internal server error, I would first try to “refresh” the page.
If the error persists, then I would hit the “back” button.
Somehow, going “back” seems to get the vote through more frequently than just refreshing
the page. If it returns to the vote page, I would just re-vote and repeat the steps again.
— posted by buaya on January 10th, 2007 at 2:42 am
Astral
Thing have gotten a little better, not quite so many server errors. Seems like we must have a large verification backlog because the last 15 or so I’ve submitted still say Unknown even thought the sites are up and its been nearly a week for some of them.
— posted by Astral on January 10th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
John Roberts
Mike made a notable change this morning which should have eliminated the internal server errors altogether.
— posted by John Roberts on January 10th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
JustaPerson
John, I am still getting these pretty often. It really does cut down on the amount of time I spend on the site.
“Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage”
This just happened on a verify.
Mike
— posted by JustaPerson on January 11th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
John Roberts
JustaPerson, can you provide more details? That sounds like a very different type of error. What you describe is not something we’ve seen or heard about before with PhishTank. That error is usually either a DNS error or the connection was refused by the server.
— posted by John Roberts on January 11th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
JustaPerson
I am using OpenDNS and often get “Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage”.
I will keep track as I go through right now.
11:09pm eastern “Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage” verifying a phish 71565. hit back and says “I said a phish” - so the vote processed.
11:15pm “Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage” verifying a phish 71565. hit back and says “I said not a phish” - so the vote processed. (meant to hit “is a phish” - it’s distracting).
— posted by JustaPerson on January 12th, 2007 at 4:18 am
JustaPerson
The “Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage” error happens occasionally (every 10 minutes or so)and has always registered my vote on the first try.
The “internal server” error has not occured at all tonight.
Good job!
— posted by JustaPerson on January 12th, 2007 at 6:03 am
JustaPerson
Since this seems to be the only place to discuss performance issues, I would like to also comment on the submission process.
When the online edits fail to work during a phish submission (it’s happening now and was happening 9 hours ago), I stop submitting and wait for it to be corrected. I find it wasteful for everyone when submitting dulicates that are accepted and then we all need to vote on them multiple times.
I have also noticed that many phish submissions were submitted twice, once with the last slash (/) and once without the slash. Since it doubles our verification efforts, I am wondering why it is done. And, if it is needed, then maybe the Phishtank software can block both slash and no slash when a phish is verified without requiring the input of both URLs.
I hate to raise these issues here but I haven’t noticed another place to do this. Let me know if I should be doing this somewhere else.
Mike
— posted by JustaPerson on January 12th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Astral
Wow! Site performance has gotten sooooo much better. I can really fly through the verification process today.
Keep up the good work.
— posted by Astral on January 31st, 2007 at 2:15 pm