Cited by 11Information and Cyber SecuritySpam and Phishing DetectionCybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Exploiting Trust: Stealthy Attacks Through Socioware and Insider Threats

Sood, Aditya K., Zeadally, Sherali, Bansal, Rohit·2017·IEEE Systems Journal

Abstract

Online social networks (OSNs) provide a new dimension to people's lives by giving birth to online societies. OSNs have revolutionized the human experience, but they have also created a platform for attackers to distribute infections and conduct cybercrime. An OSN provides an opportunistic attack platform for cybercriminals through which they can spread infections at a large scale. We describe a category of malware (or attacks) known as socioware that exploits OSN environments for performing unauthorized and nefarious activities. Socioware can be an executable, an extension, an exploit code, etc., that conducts malicious operations in OSNs with serious impact on users. Furthermore, we discuss the socioware taxonomy highlighting the characteristics of socioware to illustrate the design and exploitation tactics of OSN malware. In contrast, insider threats (employees or contractors) are posing a grave threat to organizations, with a motivation to steal critical data and monetize it for financial gains. Insider threats have become a serious concern for many organizations today. We present a complete attack model to demonstrate how an insider threat exploits the online trust and confidentiality by transforming an OSN into a socioware distribution platform that infects other employees' systems. Finally, we discuss security defenses that can be adopted to defend against socioware.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/jsyst.2015.2388707

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. 2014, Making malware cleanup easier, Facebook Blog Post
  2. weber, 2014, Patent reveals how Twitter could protect users from malware on the mobile Web, Venture Beat Online Article
  3. greenberg, 2014, Yahoo quickly fixes Flickr SQL injection, remote code execution flaws, SC Magazine
  4. wisniewski, 2014, Twitter jumps to block XSS worm in Tweetdeck, Sophos Blog
  5. cluley, 2012, Giant snakes eating zookeepers and unwatchable videos—Facebook hit again by clickjacking scams, Sophos Blog
  6. book, 2013, Facebook Patches O-Auth Authentication Vulnerability, Kaspersky Threatpost Online Article
  7. liebowitz, 2012, Facebook logins easily stolen from iPhone Android, NBC News Online Article
  8. 0, Google Application Security Vulnerability Reward Program
  9. 0, Facebook Responsible Disclosure Policy and Whitehat Program
  10. wueest, 2011, New XSS Facebook Worm Allows Automatic Wall Posts, Symantec SecurityFocus
  11. constantin, 2011, Drive-by download attack on Facebook used malicious ads, Computer World
  12. kirk, 2010, Malicious Facebook ad redirects to fake antivirus software, PC World
  13. brandon, 2014, Google's DoubleClick ad servers exposed millions of computers to malware, The Verge
  14. meissner, 2013, Latest Security Intelligence Report Shows 24 Percent of PCs are Unprotected, Micro-blog
  15. 2012, Insider Threat Survey, SpectraSoft Survey
  16. kotenko, 2014, Evaluation of computer network security based on attack graphs and security event processing, J Wireless Mobile Netw Ubiquitous Comput Dependable Appl, 5, 14
  17. butler, 0, RAIDE: Rootkit analysis and identification elimination, Proc of the BlackHat Europe, 1
  18. baltazar, 2009, The Real Face of Koobface Botnet
  19. golvanov, 2012, Worm 2.0, or Lily Jade in action, Secure List
  20. smith, 2012, Facebook Ramnit Worm Swipes 45?000 Usernames and Passwords, Huffington Post
  21. lai, 2005, Teen uses worm to boost ratings on MySpace.com, Computer World
  22. cluley, 2010, Twitter ‘onMouseOver’ security flaw widely exploited, Sophos Blog
  23. goodin, 2010, Clickjacking worm hits hundreds of thousands on Facebook, The Register
  24. mariani, 2011, Spying on Internet Explorer
  25. surgeons, 2010, Social demographics 2010 A fresh look at Facebook and Twitter
  26. sood, 2011, Chain exploitation—Social networks malware, ISACA Journal, 1, 1
  27. sood, 2012, Malware Design Strategies for Circumventing Detection and Prevention Controls—Part One
  28. swiderski, 2004, Threat Modeling
  29. 0, OWASP
  30. sood, 2012, Dissecting the NGR Bot Framework
  31. 2012, MSDN

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Sood, A. K., Zeadally, S., & Bansal, R.
Affiliations
  • Capgemini (United States) (US)
  • University of Kentucky (US)
Venue
IEEE Systems Journal
Published
2017-06
Volume
11
Issue
2
Pages
415-426
ISSN
  • 1932-8184 (ISSN-L)
  • 1937-9234
  • 2373-7816
OpenAlex
W2312254734
Cited by
11
References
22
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1
FWCI
1.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE Systems Journal (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information and Cyber Security
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
  • Social Sciences › Law › Cybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
Keywords
insider threats, social networking sites, malware, cybercrime, attack models, data theft, security defenses

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review