Communications of the ACM
Cat and mouse: content delivery tradeoffs in web access
Proceedings of the 15th international conference on World Wide Web
Net neutrality: the technical side of the debate: a white paper
ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review
HotBots'07 Proceedings of the first conference on First Workshop on Hot Topics in Understanding Botnets
Secure or insure?: a game-theoretic analysis of information security games
Proceedings of the 17th international conference on World Wide Web
Detecting in-flight page changes with web tripwires
NSDI'08 Proceedings of the 5th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation
An economic mechanism for better Internet security
Decision Support Systems
Integrity of the web content: the case of online advertising
CollSec'10 Proceedings of the 2010 international conference on Collaborative methods for security and privacy
Game theory meets network security and privacy
ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR)
Hi-index | 0.00 |
Botnets are a serious threat on the Internet and require huge resources to be thwarted. ISPs are in the best position to fight botnets and there are a number of recently proposed initiatives that focus on how ISPs should detect and remediate bots. However, it is very expensive for ISPs to do it alone and they would probably welcome some external funding. Among others, botnets severely affect ad networks (ANs), as botnets are increasingly used for ad fraud. Thus, ANs have an economic incentive, but they are not in the best position to fight botnet ad fraud. Consequently, ANs might be willing to subsidize the ISPs to do so. We provide a game-theoretic model to study the strategic behavior of ISPs and ANs and we identify the conditions under which ANs are likely to solve the problem of botnet ad fraud by themselves and those under which the AN will subsidize the ISP to achieve this goal. Our analytical and numerical results show that the optimal strategy depends on the ad revenue loss of the ANs due to ad fraud and the number of bots participating in ad fraud.