skip to main content
research-article

Detecting Spam and Promoting Campaigns in Twitter

Authors Info & Claims
Published:08 February 2016Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Twitter has become a target platform for both promoters and spammers to disseminate their messages, which are more harmful than traditional spamming methods, such as email spamming. Recently, large amounts of campaigns that contain lots of spam or promotion accounts have emerged in Twitter. The campaigns cooperatively post unwanted information, and thus they can infect more normal users than individual spam or promotion accounts. Organizing or participating in campaigns has become the main technique to spread spam or promotion information in Twitter. Since traditional solutions focus on checking individual accounts or messages, efficient techniques for detecting spam and promotion campaigns in Twitter are urgently needed. In this article, we propose a framework to detect both spam and promotion campaigns. Our framework consists of three steps: the first step links accounts who post URLs for similar purposes; the second step extracts candidate campaigns that may be for spam or promotion purposes; and the third step classifies the candidate campaigns into normal, spam, and promotion groups. The key point of the framework is how to measure the similarity between accounts' purposes of posting URLs. We present two measure methods based on Shannon information theory: the first one uses the URLs posted by the users, and the second one considers both URLs and timestamps. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed methods can extract the majority of the candidate campaigns correctly, and detect promotion and spam campaigns with high precision and recall.

References

  1. F. Benevenuto, G. Magno, T. Rodrigues, and V. Almeida. 2010. Detecting spammers on twitter. In Proceedings of the Collaboration, Electronic Messaging, Anti-Abuse, and Spam Conference (CEAS'10).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. F. Benevenuto, T. Rodrigues, V. Almeida, J. Almeida, and M. Gonçalves. 2009. Detecting spammers and content promoters in online video social networks. In Proceedings of the 32nd International ACM Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR'09). ACM, New York, NY, 620--627. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1571941.1572047 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. T. Bogers and A. Van den Bosch. 2009. Using language modeling for spam detection in social reference manager Websites. In Proceedings of the 9th Belgian-Dutch Information Retrieval Workshop (DIR'09). 87--94.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. F. Chen, P. N. Tan, and A. K. Jain. 2009. A co-classification framework for detecting Web spam and spammers in social media Web sites. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM'09). ACM, New York, NY, 1807--1810. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1645953.1646235 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Zi Chu, Indra Widjaja, and Haining Wang. 2012. Detecting social spam campaigns on Twitter. In Proceedings of the Applied Cryptography and Network Security Conference (ACNS'12). 455--472. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31284-7_27 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Y. Duan, L. Jiang, T. Qin, M. Zhou, and H. Y. Shum. 2010. An empirical study on learning to rank of tweets. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING'10). 295--303. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. F. Benevenuto, S. Ghosh, C. Freitas, and A. Veloso. 2015. Reverse engineering socialbot infiltration strategies in Twitter. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM'15). ACM, New York, NY, 25--32. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2808797.2809292 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. H. Gao, J. Hu, C. Wilson, Z. Li, Y. Chen, and B. Y. Zhao. 2010. Detecting and characterizing social spam campaigns. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference on Internet Measurement (IMC'10). ACM, New York, NY, 35--47. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1879141.1879147 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Saptarshi Ghosh, Bimal Viswanath, Farshad Kooti, Naveen Kumar Sharma, Gautam Korlam, Fabricio Benevenuto, Niloy Ganguly, and Krishna Phani Gummadi. 2012. Understanding and combating link farming in the Twitter social network. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW'12). ACM, New York, NY, 61--70. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2187836.2187846 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. C. Grier, K. Thomas, V. Paxson, and M. Zhang. 2010. @ Spam: The underground on 140 characters or less. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS'10). ACM, New York, NY, 27--37. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. T. Hatanaka and H. Hisamatsu. 2010. Method for countering social bookmarking pollution using user similarities. In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Networked Digital Technologies (NDT). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 523--528.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. P. Heymann, G. Koutrika, and H. Garcia-Molina. 2007. Fighting spam on social Web sites: A survey of approaches and future challenges. IEEE Internet Computing 11, 6, 36--45. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. C. F. Hsu, E. Khabiri, and J. Caverlee. 2009. Ranking comments on the social Web. In Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Computational Science and Engineering (CSE'09), Vol. 4. IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 90--97. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Xia Hu, Jiliang Tang, and Huan Liu. 2014. Online social spammer detection. In Proceedings of the 28th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'14). 59--65. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Xia Hu, Jiliang Tang, Yanchao Zhang, and Huan Liu. 2013. Social spammer detection in microblogging. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'13). 2633--2639. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. D. Irani, S. Webb, C. Pu, and K. Li. 2010. Study of trend-stuffing on Twitter through text classification. In Proceedings of the Collaboration, Electronic Messaging, Anti-Abuse, and Spam Conference (CEAS'10).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. X. Jin, C. X. Lin, J. Luo, and J. Han. 2011. SocialSpamGuard: A data mining-based spam detection system for social media networks. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB'11). 1458--1461.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. V. Kandylas and A. Dasdan. 2010. The utility of tweeted URLs for Web search. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW'10). ACM, New York, NY, 1127--1128. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1772690.1772837 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. B. Krause, C. Schmitz, A. Hotho, and G. Stumme. 2008. The anti-social tagger: Detecting spam in social bookmarking systems. In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Adversarial Information Retrieval on the Web (AIRWeb'08). ACM, New York, NY, 61--68. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. K. Lee, J. Caverlee, Z. Cheng, and D. Z. Sui. 2011. Content-driven detection of campaigns in social media. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM'11). ACM, New York, NY, 551--556. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2063576.2063658 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Kyumin Lee, James Caverlee, Zhiyuan Cheng, and Daniel Z Sui. 2013. Campaign extraction from social media. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology 5, 1, Article No. 9. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2542182.2542191 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. K. Lee, J. Caverlee, and S. Webb. 2010. Uncovering social spammers: Social honeypots+ machine learning. In Proceedings of the 33rd International ACM Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. ACM, New York, NY, 435--442. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1835449.1835522 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. B. Markines, C. Cattuto, and F. Menczer. 2009. Social spam detection. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Adversarial Information Retrieval on the Web (AIRWeb'09). ACM, New York, NY, 41--48. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1531914.1531924 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. M. G. Noll, C. Au Yeung, N. Gibbins, C. Meinel, and N. Shadbolt. 2009. Telling experts from spammers: Expertise ranking in folksonomies. In Proceedings of the 32nd International ACM Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR'09). ACM, New York, NY, 612--619. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1145/1571941.1572046 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. S. Sedhai and A. Sun 2015. HSpam14: A collection of 14 million tweets for hashtag-oriented spam research. In Proceedings of the 38th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR'15). ACM, New York, NY, 223--232. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1145/2766462.2767701 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. A. D. Sarma, A. D. Sarma, S. Gollapudi, and R. Panigrahy. 2010. Ranking mechanisms in Twitter-like forums. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM'10). ACM, New York, NY, 21--30. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1718487.1718491 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Enhua Tan, Lei Guo, Songqing Chen, Xiaodong Zhang, and Yihong Zhao. 2013. UNIK: Unsupervised social network spam detection. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM'13). ACM, New York, NY, 479--488. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1145/2505515.2505581 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. I. Uysal and W. B. Croft. 2011. User oriented tweet ranking: A filtering approach to microblogs. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM'11). ACM, New York, NY, 2261--2264. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2063576.2063941 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. A. H. Wang. 2010. Don't follow me: Spam detection in Twitter. In Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference on Security and Cryptography (SECRYPT'10). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. D. Wang, D. Irani, and C. Pu. 2011. A social-spam detection framework. In Proceedings of the 8th Annual Collaboration, Electronic Messaging, Anti-Abuse, and Spam Conference (CEAS'11). ACM, New York, NY, 46--54. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2030376.2030382 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. N. Wang, S. Parthasarathy, K. L. Tan, and A. K. H. Tung. 2008. CSV: Visualizing and mining cohesive subgraphs. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD'08). ACM, New York, NY, 445--458. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1772690.1772837 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Yinglian Xie, Fang Yu, Kannan Achan, Rina Panigrahy, Geoff Hulten, and Ivan Osipkov. 2008. Spamming botnets: Signatures and characteristics. SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 38, 4, 171--182. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1402946.1402979 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Chang Xu, Jie Zhang, Kuiyu Chang, and Chong Long. 2013. Uncovering collusive spammers in Chinese review Websites. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM'13). ACM, New York, NY, 979--988. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2505515.2505700 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Y. Yamaguchi, T. Takahashi, T. Amagasa, and H. Kitagawa. 2010. TURank: Twitter user ranking based on user-tweet graph analysis. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Web Information Systems Engineering (WISE'10). 240--253. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Chao Yang, Robert Harkreader, and Guofei Gu. 2013. Empirical evaluation and new design for fighting evolving Twitter spammers. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 8, 8, 1280--1293. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Chao Yang, Robert Harkreader, Jialong Zhang, Seungwon Shin, and Guofei Gu. 2012. Analyzing spammers' social networks for fun and profit: A case study of cyber criminal ecosystem on Twitter. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW'12). ACM, New York, NY, 71--80. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2187836.2187847 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. X. Zhang, S. Zhu, and W. Liang. 2012. Detecting spam and promoting campaigns in the Twitter social network. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM'12). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 1194--1199. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Yin Zhu, Xiao Wang, Erheng Zhong, Nathan Nan Liu, He Li, and Qiang Yang. 2012. Discovering spammers in social networks. In Proceedings of the 26th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'12). 171--177.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Detecting Spam and Promoting Campaigns in Twitter

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on the Web
      ACM Transactions on the Web  Volume 10, Issue 1
      February 2016
      198 pages
      ISSN:1559-1131
      EISSN:1559-114X
      DOI:10.1145/2870642
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2016 ACM

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 8 February 2016
      • Accepted: 1 November 2015
      • Revised: 1 August 2015
      • Received: 1 March 2015
      Published in tweb Volume 10, Issue 1

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader
    About Cookies On This Site

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

    Learn more

    Got it!