skip to main content
10.1145/2342549.2342551acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescommConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Free Access

Poultry markets: on the underground economy of twitter followers

Authors Info & Claims
Published:17 August 2012Publication History

ABSTRACT

Since Twitter has emerged as one of the easiest ways of reaching people, companies started using it to advertise their products. However, creating a functional network of followers to whom to promote content is not a straightforward task. On the one side, collecting followers requires time. On the other side, companies need to establish a reputation to motivate users to follow them.

A number of websites have emerged to help Twitter users create a large network of followers. These websites promise their subscribers to provide followers in exchange for a fee or limited services free of charge but in exchange for the user's Twitter account credentials. In addition, they offer to spread their clients' promotional messages in the network. In this paper, we study the phenomenon of these Twitter Account Markets, and we show how their services are often linked to abusive behavior and compromised Twitter profiles.

References

  1. klout. http://klout.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Oauth community site. http://oauth.net.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Twitter blog: #numbers. http://blog.twitter.com/2011/03/numbers.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Twitter terms of service. http://support.twitter.com/articles/18311-the-twitter-rules.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Twitter finally released a "stalkers" app? no, it's a phishing scam. http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/08/12/twitter-finally-released-a-stalkers-app-no-its-a-phishing-scam/, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. F. Benvenuto, G. Magno, T. Rodrigues, and V. Almeida. Detecting Spammers on Twitter. In Conference on Email and Anti-Spam (CEAS), 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. L. Bilge, T. Strufe, D. Balzarotti, and E. Kirda. All Your Contacts Are Belong to Us: Automated Identity Theft Attacks on Social Networks. In Wold Wide Web Conference (WWW), 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Z. Cai and C. Jermaine. The latent community model for detecting sybils in social networks. In Symposium on Network and Distributed System Security (NDSS), 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Y. Cao, V. Yegneswaran, P. Possas, and Y. Chen. Pathcutter: Severing the self-propagation path of xss javascript worms in social web networks. In Symposium on Network and Distributed System Security (NDSS), 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. M. Cha, H. Haddadi, F. Benvenuto, and K. Gummadi. Measuring User Influence in Twitter: The Million Follower Fallacy. In International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. J. Franklin, V. Paxson, A. Perrig, and S. Savage. An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of internet miscreants. In ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS), 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. H. Gao, Y. Chen, K. Lee, D. Palsetia, and A. Choudhary. Towards online spam filtering in social networks. In Symposium on Network and Distributed System Security (NDSS), 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. H. Gao, J. Hu, C. Wilson, Z. Li, Y. Chen, and B. Zhao. Detecting and Characterizing Social Spam Campaigns. In Internet Measurement Conference (IMC), 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. C. Grier, K. Thomas, V. Paxson, and M. Zhang. @spam: the underground on 140 characters or less. In ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS), 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. T. Jagatic, N. Johnson, M. Jakobsson, and T. Jagatif. Social phishing. Comm. ACM, 50(10):94--100, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. C. Kanich, C. Kreibich, K. Levchenko, B. Enright, G. Voelker, V. Paxson, and S. Savage. Spamalytics: An empirical analysis of spam marketing conversion. In ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS), 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. C. Kanich, N. Weaver, D. McCoy, T. Halvorson, C. Kreibich, K. Levchenko, V. Paxson, G. Voelker, and S. Savage. Show Me the Money: Characterizing Spam-advertised Revenue. USENIX Security Symposium, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. R. King. How companies use Twitter to bolster their brands. In BusinessWeek Online, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. H. Kwak, C. Lee, H. Park, and S. Moon. What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? In Wold Wide Web Conference (WWW), 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. K. Lee, J. Caverlee, and S. Webb. Uncovering social spammers: social honeypots+machine learning. In International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. S. Lee and J. Kim. Warningbird: Detecting suspicious urls in twitter stream. In Symposium on Network and Distributed System Security (NDSS), 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. K. Levchenko, A. Pitsillidis, N. Chachra, B. Enright, M. Félegyházi, C. Grier, T. Halvorson, C. Kanich, C. Kreibich, H. Liu, and Others. Click Trajectories: End-to-End Analysis of the Spam Value Chain. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. J. Song, S. Lee, and J. Kim. Spam filtering in twitter using sender-receiver relationship. In Symposium on Recent Advances in Intrusion Detection (RAID), 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. G. Stringhini, C. Kruegel, and G. Vigna. Detecting Spammers on Social Networks. In Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (ACSAC), 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. K. Thomas, C. Grier, J. Ma, V. Paxson, and D. Song. Design and Evaluation of a Real-Time URL Spam Filtering Service. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. C. Wilson, B. Boe, A. Sala, K. Puttaswamy, and B. Zhao. User Interactions in Social Networks and Their Implications. In ACM European conference on Computer systems (EuroSys), 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. W. Xu, F. Zhang, and S. Zhu. Toward worm detection in online social networks. In Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (ACSAC), 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. C. Yang, R. Harkreader, and G. Gu. Die Free or Live Hard? Empirical Evaluation and New Design for Fighting Evolving Twitter Spammers. In Symposium on Recent Advances in Intrusion Detection (RAID), 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Poultry markets: on the underground economy of twitter followers

      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
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        WOSN '12: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM workshop on Workshop on online social networks
        August 2012
        80 pages
        ISBN:9781450314800
        DOI:10.1145/2342549

        Copyright © 2012 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 17 August 2012

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        WOSN '12 Paper Acceptance Rate12of36submissions,33%Overall Acceptance Rate12of36submissions,33%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader