Understanding the network-level behavior of spammers
Proceedings of the 2006 conference on Applications, technologies, architectures, and protocols for computer communications
Proceedings of the 2007 conference on Applications, technologies, architectures, and protocols for computer communications
Filtering spam with behavioral blacklisting
Proceedings of the 14th ACM conference on Computer and communications security
Spamscatter: characterizing internet scam hosting infrastructure
SS'07 Proceedings of 16th USENIX Security Symposium on USENIX Security Symposium
Spamming botnets: signatures and characteristics
Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM 2008 conference on Data communication
Uncovering social spammers: social honeypots + machine learning
Proceedings of the 33rd international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval
@spam: the underground on 140 characters or less
Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer and communications security
Detecting and characterizing social spam campaigns
IMC '10 Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGCOMM conference on Internet measurement
Design and Evaluation of a Real-Time URL Spam Filtering Service
SP '11 Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
Spam is pervasive across many types of electronic communication, including email, instant messaging, and social networks. To reach more users and increase financial gain, many spammers now use multiple content-sharing platforms---including online social networks---to disseminate spam. In this paper, we perform a joint analysis of spam in email and social networks. We use spam data from Yahoo's web-based email service and from Twitter to characterize the publishing behavior and effectiveness of spam advertised across both platforms. We show that email spammers that also advertise on Twitter tend to send more email spam than those advertising exclusively through email. Further, we use DNS lookup information to show that sending spam on both email and Twitter correlates with a significant increase in coverage: spam domains appearing on both platforms are looked up by an order of magnitude more networks than domains using just one of the two platforms.