Detecting Phishing Patterns Through API-Driven Approaches Without Documentation Deadlocks

In the rapidly evolving landscape of cybersecurity, timely detection of phishing attempts is paramount. As a Lead QA Engineer, I faced the challenge of developing a system to identify phishing patterns efficiently — all while working without proper API documentation. This scenario is common in real-world environments where APIs evolve rapidly, and documentation lags behind the implementation.

The Challenge

The core obstacle was to craft an effective detection system that could interface with an internal API exposing endpoints for URL analysis, email content scanning, and user report submissions. Lacking documentation meant I had to reverse-engineer the API, deducing endpoints, request/response structures, and authentication mechanisms. This process required meticulous inspection and creative problem-solving.

Reverse Engineering the API

Our initial step was to monitor network traffic and analyze API calls using tools like Postman and Wireshark. Observing the request headers, payloads, and responses helped us understand the API’s architecture. For example, we identified a URL analysis endpoint:

POST /api/scan
Host: internal-api.security
Authorization: Bearer <token>
Content-Type: application/json

{
  "url": "http://suspicious-site.com"
}

Responses indicated whether a URL was flagged based on known phishing signatures.

Building the Detection Logic

Armed with insights, I designed a modular API client in Python. This client handled authentication, request retries, and response parsing, enabling us to automate detection tasks.

import requests
import json

class ApiClient:
    def __init__(self, base_url, token):
        self.base_url = base_url
        self.headers = {
            'Authorization': f'Bearer {token}',
            'Content-Type': 'application/json'
        }

    def scan_url(self, url):
        endpoint = f'{self.base_url}/api/scan'
        payload = {"url": url}
        response = requests.post(endpoint, headers=self.headers, json=payload)
        if response.status_code == 200:
            return response.json()
        else:
            response.raise_for_status()

# Usage example
client = ApiClient('https://internal-api.security', '<token>')
result = client.scan_url('http://suspicious-site.com')
print(result)

This approach streamlined the integration, allowing us to scale detection across numerous URLs and emails.

Implementing Pattern Recognition

We implemented heuristic rules based on response data, such as matching URL domains against known malicious patterns or analyzing the string similarity of email content. For example:

def is_phishing_pattern(response):
    suspicious_domains = ['suspicious-site.com', 'malicious.co']
    if response.get('malicious', False):
        return True
    if response.get('domain', '') in suspicious_domains:
        return True
    return False

Challenges and Solutions

Without documentation, the main challenge was ensuring robustness. To address this, I incorporated comprehensive error handling, fallback mechanisms, and extensive logging.

Furthermore, continuous communication with the API developers helped clarify behaviors and confirm assumptions, mitigating risks of misinterpretation.

Conclusion

By reverse-engineering the API, creating an adaptable client, and implementing practical pattern recognition, we built a resilient phishing detection system even without official documentation. This exemplifies how resourcefulness and technical acumen can overcome documentation gaps, ensuring security workflows stay effective and scalable.

In environments where documentation cannot be relied upon, the ability to understand and adapt API interactions becomes an invaluable skill for QA teams and developers alike.

---

🛠️ QA Tip

To test this safely without using real user data, I use TempoMail USA.