The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Detecting spammers on social networks
Abstract
Social networking has become a popular way for users to meet and interact online. Users spend a significant amount of time on popular social network platforms (such as Facebook, MySpace, or Twitter), storing and sharing a wealth of personal information. This information, as well as the possibility of contacting thousands of users, also attracts the interest of cybercriminals. For example, cybercriminals might exploit the implicit trust relationships between users in order to lure victims to malicious websites. As another example, cybercriminals might find personal information valuable for identity theft or to drive targeted spam campaigns.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Such feature sets are then used to train and test machine learning classifiers in order to distinguish between humans and spammers.”
From Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake Twitter followers (2015) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“Both of them propose a list of features to be extracted from manually classified datasets of accounts.”
From Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake Twitter followers (2015) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“With both the [2] and [8] feature sets, BN, kNN and LR classifiers achieve, overall, worse performances.”
From Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake Twitter followers (2015) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“3. the content of spambots' tweets exhibits the so-called message similarity ;”
From Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake Twitter followers (2015) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“The study presented in [8] focuses on spambot detection.”
From Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake Twitter followers (2015) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“The ones built over the feature set of [2] achieve slightly better results.”
From Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake Twitter followers (2015) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“1. spambots do not have thousands of friends;”
From Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake Twitter followers (2015) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“In addition, all the classifiers based on the feature set by [2] have a higher AUC , when compared with the ones built with the feature set by [8].”
From Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake Twitter followers (2015) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“Anyway, the latter also obtain high detection levels: accuracy, precision, and recall are around 0.98 for RF, D and J48, with a MCC of around 0.96.”
From Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake Twitter followers (2015) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“The lower precision and recall with respect to the ones obtained using the set of Yang et al. [2] show that the features of Stringhini et al. [8] exhibit the tendency to consider as fake followers some human accounts.”
From Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake Twitter followers (2015) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“total tweets 5. spambots have a high friends ( followersˆ2 ) ratio value (i.e., lower ratio values mean legitimate users).”
From Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake Twitter followers (2015) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“The authors exploit several characteristics that can be gathered crawling an account's details, both from its profile and timeline. For each investigated account, such characteristics are exploited in a Random Forest algorithm [23, 43], that outputs if the account is a spambot or not.”
From Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake Twitter followers (2015) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“Even if the proposed features have been originally designed for spam detection, here, for the first time, we consider them to spot another category of Twitter accounts, i.e., the fake followers.”
From Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake Twitter followers (2015) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“4. spambots have a high tweets containing URLs ratio ( URL ratio );”
From Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake Twitter followers (2015) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“2. spambots have sent less than 20 tweets;”
From Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake Twitter followers (2015) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“We start observing that the Class C classifiers, built over all the features considered in our study, perform better than all the other ones, including the classifiers using the feature sets of Yang et al. [2] and Stringhini et al. [8], as reported in Table 12.”
From Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake Twitter followers (2015) · cites this paper as Stringhini et al. [8]
In the citing paper
“meaning that the latter is able to miss fewer fakes than the former one after pruning.”
From Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake Twitter followers (2015) · cites this paper as Stringhini et al. [8]
In the citing paper
“The decision tree obtained with the feature set of Stringhini et al. [8] has 22 leaves, 43 nodes, and a height of 7, whereas the best feature is the friends/(followersˆ2) ratio that places at the root.”
From Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake Twitter followers (2015) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“Looking at the tree structure, we observe some interesting differences between the fake followers in our BAS dataset and the spam accounts characterized in [8] and [2].”
From Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake Twitter followers (2015) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“Furthermore, we clearly observe that the pruned version of Stringhini et al. [8] reduces its recall of 0.017, while the one of Yang et al. [2] only drops of 0.004”
From Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake Twitter followers (2015) · cites this paper as Stringhini et al. [8]
In the citing paper
“Overall, the results of this experiment show that, even reducing the features, it is possible to have a detection rate higher than 0.95 (as in the last lines of Table 13, for [8] and [2], respectively).”
From Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake Twitter followers (2015) · cites this paper as Stringhini et al. [8]
In the citing paper
“Similarly, we have seen that the feature set proposed by Yang et al. [2] seems to be slightly more effective than the one proposed by Stringhini et al. [8], when used in feature-based classifiers aiming at fake followers detection.”
From Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake Twitter followers (2015) · cites this paper as Stringhini et al. [8]
In the citing paper
“Unlike [30, 44], we leverage timeline-based features for the detection of fake accounts.”
From Measuring, Characterizing, and Detecting Facebook Like Farms (2017) · cites this paper as [44]
Citations
Cites
Breiman, L. (2001) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1010933404324 · Cited by 133,538
Jagatic, T. N., Johnson, N. A., Jakobsson, M., & Menczer, F. (2007) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/1290958.1290968 · Cited by 1,156
Krishnamurthy, B., Gill, P., & Arlitt, M. (2008) · Proceedings of the first workshop on Online social networks · doi:10.1145/1397735.1397741 · Cited by 697
All your contacts are belong to us
Bilge, L., Strufe, T., Balzarotti, D., & Kirda, E. (2009) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/1526709.1526784 · Cited by 551
Detecting spam in a Twitter network
Schoenebeck, S. Y., Romero, D. M., Schoenebeck, G. R., & boyd, D. (2009) · First Monday · doi:10.5210/fm.v15i1.2793 · Cited by 349
Social networks and context-aware spam
Brown, G., Howe, T., Ihbe, M., Prakash, A., & Borders, K. (2008) · ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) · doi:10.1145/1460563.1460628 · Cited by 138
Social Honeypots: Making Friends With A Spammer Near You.
Webb, S., Caverlee, J., & Pu, C. (2008) · Cited by 110
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Sophos facebook id probe. http://www.sophos.com/pressoffice/news/articles/2007/08/facebook.html , 2008 . Sophos facebook id probe. http://www.sophos.com/pressoffice/news/articles/2007/08/facebook.html, 2008.
- J. Baltazar , J. Costoya , and R. Flores . Koobface: The largest web 2.0 botnet explained . 2009 . J. Baltazar, J. Costoya, and R. Flores. Koobface: The largest web 2.0 botnet explained. 2009.
- Harris Interactive Public Relations Research . A study of social networks scams . 2008 . Harris Interactive Public Relations Research. A study of social networks scams. 2008.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 701–783 of 783
Fast and accurate identification of implicit enterprise users in social media
You, Z., Wu, D., Wang, Y., & Qian, T. (2016) · doi:10.1145/2932194.2932195
Detection and Analysis of Malicious URLs
Murali, B. (2015)
Fake Likers Detection on Facebook
Satya, B., & Satya, P. R. B. (2016)
Facebook Rigorous Application Evaluator to Focused on Detecting Malicious Apps on Facebook
Kiranmai, N. (2016) · International Journal of Computer Applications · doi:10.5120/ijca2016912542
Zou, J. (2016) · SMARTech Repository (Georgia Institute of Technology)
A REVIEW OF DETECTION OF MALICIOUS URLS IN TWITTER STREAM USING A NEAR REAL TIME SYSTEM
Gawale, N. S., & Patil, N. N. (2014)
Real-time analytics for complex structure data
Guo, T. (2015) · OPUS - Open Publications of UTS Scholars (University of Technology Sydney)
Tracking Social Networks Events
Fonseca, H., Salvador, P., & Nogueira, A. (2015) · International Conference on Internet Monitoring and Protection
Garg, A. (2017) · International Journal Of Engineering And Computer Science · doi:10.18535/ijecs/v6i5.04
A Review on Spam Detection in Social Media Networks
Subhash, G. R., & Gunjal, B. L. (2016) · International journal of advance research and innovative ideas in education
Towards trustworthy social computing systems
Viswanath, B. (2016) · Publications of the UdS (Saarland University) · doi:10.22028/d291-25429
Review on Detecting OSN Malicious Account and Fake Reviews in Online Promotions
Gaidhani, P. A. R. (2017) · International Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology · doi:10.22214/ijraset.2017.10091
Analysing and detecting twitter spam
Chen, C. (2016)
Towards Generating Spam Queries for Retrieving Spam Accounts in Large-Scale Twitter Data
Washha, M., Qaroush, A. M., Mezghani, M., & Sèdes, F. (2018) · Lecture notes in business information processing · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-93375-7_18
A DeepWalk-Based Approach to Defend Profile Injection Attack in Recommendation System
Gao, X., Niu, W., Liu, J., Chen, T., Xiang, Y., Bai, X., & Liu, J. (2018) · IFIP advances in information and communication technology · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-00828-4_22
Statistical Analysis of Tweeter Data Using Language Model With KLD
Kumar, G., & Rishiwal, V. (2018) · International Conference on Internet of Things: Smart Innovation and Usages (IoT-SIU) · doi:10.1109/iot-siu.2018.8519938
Studying crowdsourcing using machine learning and optimisation-based approaches
Moayedikia, A. (2018) · Deakin Research Online (Deakin University)
Cybersecurity and safety analysis in online social networks
Liu, D. H. (2018) · Figshare
An Approach for Detecting Spammer Invasion Events with Poisson Process
Qu, Q., Yu, H., & Huang, R. (2018) · International Conference on Mechanical, Control and Computer Engineering (ICMCCE) · doi:10.1109/icmcce.2018.00111
Sosial şəbəkələrdə saxta profillərin aşkarlanması məsələləri
İmamverdiyev, Y., & Əhmədova, X. (2018) · İnformasiya təhlükəsizliyinin aktual multidissiplinar elmi-praktiki problemləri respublika konfransı · doi:10.25045/ncinfosec.2018.13
Honeypot boulevard : understanding malicious activity via decoy accounts
Onaolapo, J. O. (2019) · UCL Discovery (University College London)
Uncovering Social Spammers -Evaluation And Detection
India, & Thrippathy, G. (2019) · International Journal of Networks and Systems · doi:10.30534/ijns/2019/24832019
Bots and Gender Classification on Twitter.
Saeed, U., & Shirazi, F. (2019) · CLEF (Working Notes)
Osman, E., Mostafa, M., & Abdel, S. (2019) · International Journal of Computer Applications · doi:10.5120/ijca2019919369
Promotional Campaigns in the Era of Social Platforms
Abu-el-rub, N. (2019) · UNM’s Digital Repository (University of New Mexico)
Sosial şəbəkələrdə saxta profillərin aşkarlanması metodları haqqında
İnstitutu, A. İ. T., İmamverdiyev, Y., Əhmədova, X., & İnstitutu, A. İ. T. (2019) · İnformasiya təhlükəsizliyinin aktual multidissiplinar elmi-praktiki problemləri respublika konfransı · doi:10.25045/ncinfosec.2019.10
Li, D. (2020) · Scholars' Bank (University of Oregon)
Protecting the Web from Misinformation
Spezzano, F., & Gurunathan, I. (2020) · Lecture notes in social networks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-41251-7_1
Shaping Facebook and Twitter Public Spheres: The Case of Swiss Franc Mortgage Holders in Poland
Filipek, K., Cwynar, A., Cwynar, W., & Szkoła, J. (2020) · Konteksty Społeczne · doi:10.17951/ks.2020.8.1.5-23
Identification of Fake Profiles in Twitter Social Network
Antunes, M., Baptista, H., & Rodrigues, B. (2020) · Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT)
Homologous Sockpuppet Accounts Detection Based on Comment Behavior Features
Liu, D., & Wu, Q. (2020) · International Conference on Electronic Information Technology and Computer Engineering (EITCE) · doi:10.1145/3443467.3443750
Temporal Sentiment Analysis of Socially Important Locations of Social Media Users
Ecemiş, A., Dokuz, A. Ş., & Çelik, M. (2021) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-66840-2_1
A Content-based Intelligent Label Classification System for Warehouse Management
Xie, Z., Lin, Y., Ji, C., Zhao, W., & Liu, Y. (2020) · IEEE International Conference on Progress in Informatics and Computing · doi:10.1109/pic50277.2020.9350828
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
Wang, Y. (2014)
A Multi-agent Approach for Online Twitter Bot Detection
Abreu, J. V. F., Ralha, C. G., & Gondim, J. J. C. (2021) · Colección Jornadas y congresos · doi:10.18239/jornadas_2021.34.03
Tackling spam in the era of end-to-end encryption: A case study of WhatsApp.Preprint
Agarwal, P., Raman, A., Garimella, K., Ibosiola, D., Gareth Tyson, A., & Sastry, N. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University)
A Hierarchical Attention-Based Neural Network Model for Socialbot Detection in OSN
Fazil, M., Sah, A. K., & Abulaish, M. (2020) · IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology (WI-IAT) · doi:10.1109/wiiat50758.2020.00146
Use of a Recurrent Neural Network to Identify Spammers on Twitter
Patil, R., & Chaudhari, C. C. (2021) · Advances in intelligent systems and computing · doi:10.1007/978-981-16-5157-1_73
Spammers Detection on Online Social Media Based on Machine Learning
Pavani, M., Swapna, P., & Sethuraman, R. (2021) · Advances in intelligent systems and computing · doi:10.1007/978-981-16-1056-1_69
Spam analysis and detection on microblog
Sedhai, S. (2017) · doi:10.32657/10356/69594
Threat Evaluation Method of Social Network Nodes Based on PSO
Wang, X., Cao, S., Tang, H., Shi, Y., & Sui, Y. (2021) · IEEE International Conference on Information Technology, Big Data and Artificial Intelligence (ICIBA) · doi:10.1109/iciba52610.2021.9687933
Gregio, A. R. A. (2012) · doi:10.47749/t/unicamp.2012.896337
Algorithms, Automation, and Misinformation
Стукал, Д. (2020) · doi:10.35650/md.2072.d.2020
Hai-Jew, S. (2019) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-1754-3.ch060
Spamex: A Multi Array Methodology to Detect Computerized Spammers in Twitter social media
Assistant Professor, S. I., Sellam, V., Kumar, K., Pursuing B.Tech, C. S. A. E., Das, S. K., pursuing B.Tech computer Science and Engineering in SRM IST, R., Narayanan.V.Y, S. S., Pursuing B.Tech, C. S. A. E., Anurag, & Pursuing B.Tech, C. S. A. E. (2019) · International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology · doi:10.35940/ijeat.a1002.1091s19
Survey on Recognize Malignant Facebook Application
(2015) · International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR) · doi:10.21275/v4i12.nov151996
Vit, A. P., Puzis, R., & Shabtai, A. (2018) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-7131-2_110212
Automated Spammer Detection for Limited Length Social Media
Mehta, S. (2022) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-981-19-2130-8_13
A Data Mining Approach for Filtering out Social Spammers in Large-Scale Twitter Data Collections
Almayyan, W. I., & Alzayed, A. (2022) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence & Applications · doi:10.5121/ijaia.2022.13302
Social Media Spamming on the Class Room Electronic
Limanto, H., santiaji, S., Setiawan, I., Gaol, F. L., Prabowo, H., Meyliana, M., Winanti, W., & Hutagalung, F. D. (2022) · EPiC series in computing · doi:10.29007/n14f
Detection of Advertising Users Based on K-SMOTE and Ensemble Learning
Qiu, Z., Zhou, Z., Long, Y., Ji, C., Li, J., & Tang, Y. Z. (2022) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-23741-6_12
M, M. R. S., & Vijayakumar, J. (2023) · INTERANTIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT · doi:10.55041/ijsrem18969
Sicherheit und Datenschutz in der elektronischen Beteiligung
Leitner, M. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-31480-4_62-1
Is COVID-19 Being Used to Spread Malware
Ahmed, R. N., Javed, A., & Bedewi, W. (2023) · SN Computer Science · doi:10.1007/s42979-023-01838-6
Spam Detection in Social Networks Using Machine Learning Algorithms
Kibe, R., Suryawanshi, P., Sonar, S., & Deokate, A. (2023) · International Journal of Advanced Research in Science Communication and Technology · doi:10.48175/ijarsct-10458
A Comprehensive Study to Detect Social Spam Campaigns
Dhaka, D., & Mehrotra, M. (2023) · Advances in social networking and online communities book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-6684-6909-5.ch001
Towards Efficient and Domain-Agnostic Evasion Attack with High-Dimensional Categorical Inputs
Bao, H., Han, Y., Zhou, Y., Gao, X., & Zhang, X. (2023) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v37i6.25828
Twitter Spam Detection Using Different Machine Learning Techniques
Venkatesh, G., Reddy, D. S., Kavitha, C., & Jinila, Y. B. (2023) · Lecture notes in electrical engineering · doi:10.1007/978-981-99-1410-4_16
Identification and Characterization of Spammers from Lists of Recipients
Shinde, S., Chitre, V., Patil, S. J., Meganathan, R., Kaliappan, S., & Dhyani, B. (2023) · International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communication and Applied Informatics (ACCAI) · doi:10.1109/accai58221.2023.10200212
Detecting Fake Users in Online Social Networks
Yin, Q., Li, Q. L., Gong, N. Z., Xu, K., Liang, X., & Hu, S. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-42637-7_11
Card Mini Program Design and Implementation Based on SCHOLAT Social Network
Liu, G., Zhou, J., Weng, Y., Yu, L., & Yuan, C. (2024) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-981-99-9640-7_26
Ensemble Learning Models for Detecting Spam Over Social Networks Using RFE
Saraswathi, V., Adaikkammai, A., Jebamani, S. A., Devi, D., & Radhika, R. (2024) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-73068-9_13
Methodology for Countering Malicious Information on Social Networks
Popereshnyak, S., Zhebka, V., & Vecherkovskaya, A. (2024) · International Conference on Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Systems (COLINS) · doi:10.31110/colins/2024-3/008
"Breaking Bad": Ranking Bot’s Malevolence in Twitter
Abu-el-rub, N., Chavoshi, N., & Mueen, A. (2024) · International Arab Conference on Information Technology (ACIT) · doi:10.1109/acit62805.2024.10877247
Reddy, M. G., & Reddy, P. P. K. (2025) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-981-97-8090-7_31
Fake Social Media Accounts and Their Detection
KARTHIKEYAN, M. M., & Venkatesh, B. (2025) · INTERANTIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT · doi:10.55041/ijsrem44557
Visual Recognition Systems for Real-Time Sign Language Transliteration
Singh, A. K., Saxena, S., Singh, A., Rai, V., & Bajaj, R. K. (2025) · Algorithms for intelligent systems · doi:10.1007/978-981-96-3256-5_24
Spam social media profile detection using hybrid positive unlabelled learning
Patel, N. A., & Nanavati, N. R. (2025) · IAES International Journal of Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.11591/ijai.v14.i6.pp4838-4847
EVALUATION OF VISUAL ANALYTICS WITH APPLICATION TO SOCIAL SPAMBOT LABELING
Khayat, M. (2020) · Purdue e-Pubs (Purdue University System) · doi:10.25394/pgs.12509954
Anti-Abuse Protection of Online Social Networks using Machine Learning
El-Mawass, N. (2020) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/4da28cc2z492dz4ef1z8221z98c8beb02143
Social Media Fake Account Detection and Prevention Using Multi-Layered AI Analysis
Gottumukkala, D. P., Mounika, K., Harivallika, S. J., Kumar, J. V., & Siddhu, K. S. (2026) · International Journal of Innovative Research in Engineering & Management · doi:10.55524/ijirem.2026.13.2.8
Trust Check: Fraudulent Detection of Business Accounts in Instagram Using Machine Learning
Janani, B., Priyadharshini, S., Shreya, S., & Sowmiya, V. (2026) · Contemporary Computing Innovations Conference (CCIC) · doi:10.1109/ccic68129.2026.11486009
Balancing Accuracy and Explainability in Ai-Based Fraud Detection (Social Media Platforms)
Khatib, D. M. S., & Rehman, M. S. (2026) · International Journal of Drug Delivery Technology · doi:10.25258/ijddt.16.29s.89
A Review on Phishing Email Detection Using Domain Analysis and Transformer-Based Explainability
Kavitha, P. M., Akkina, B. C., & Perikala, R. S. (2026) · International Conference Big Data and Machine Learning · doi:10.1109/icbdml68582.2026.11545014
Ramachandran, M. (2026) · Texts in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-17367-6_4
Fake Accounts Detection in Social Media Using Machine Learning Techniques
Patidar, K., Kumar, M., Anand, A., Tiwari, A., Sharma, T., & Rai, A. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-18334-7_30
OTPCL: Optimal Transport Driven Pseudo-Labeling with Contrastive Learning for Social Bot Detection
Xu, R., Hu, M., Yang, X., Jiang, M., Wang, Z., Gao, H., & Cheng, R. (2026) · ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) · doi:10.1145/3770855.3818069
SafeBiz: A Secure Framework for Safe Transactions in Social Media Marketplaces
Kulkarni, V. R., & Balpande, S. S. (2026) · IEEE World Conference on Applied Intelligence and Computing (AIC) · doi:10.1109/aic70896.2026.11717100
Spam Text Detection Using A Supervised Sampling Approach for the Social Web of Things
Yadav, K. K., Abhilasha, K., Reddy, S. A. G. M., Sirisala, N., Basha, S. M., & Swetha, V. (2026) · doi:10.1109/click68749.2026.11741835
A NOVEL SPAM CAMPAIGN IN ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS
Zhen, Y. (2013) · VCU Scholars Compass (Virginia Commonwealth University) · doi:10.25772/6syf-hp86
Metadata
- Authors
- Stringhini, G., Kruegel, C., & Vigna, G.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 26th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2010-12-06
- Pages
- 1-9
- ISSN
- 1063-9527 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1986678144
- Cited by
- 791
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 49 · 2020: 57 · 2019: 81 · 2018: 80 · 2017: 85 · 2016: 93 · 2015: 84 · 2014: 63 · 2013: 40 · 2012: 35
- FWCI
- 20.43
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (publishedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Office of Naval Research (N000140911042)
- Division of Computer and Network Systems (CNS-0845559CNS-0905537)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
- Keywords
- spam detection, social networks, spammers, cybercrime, trust relationships, malicious websites, identity theft, personal data
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
