Analyzing spammers' social networks for fun and profit: a case study of cyber criminal ecosystem on twitter
Abstract
In this paper, we perform an empirical analysis of the cyber criminal ecosystem on Twitter. Essentially, through analyzing inner social relationships in the criminal account community, we find that criminal accounts tend to be socially connected, forming a small-world network. We also find that criminal hubs, sitting in the center of the social graph, are more inclined to follow criminal accounts. Through analyzing outer social relationships between criminal accounts and their social friends outside the criminal account community, we reveal three categories of accounts that have close friendships with criminal accounts. Through these analyses, we provide a novel and effective criminal account inference algorithm by exploiting criminal accounts' social relationships and semantic coordinations.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
Prior work has focused extensively on analysis and detection of sybil and/or fake accounts in online social networks by relying on tightly-knit community structures.
“Prior work has focused quite extensively on the analysis and the detection of sybil and/or fake accounts in online social networks by relying on tightly-knit community structures [54, 15, 53, 9, 52, 5].”
From Measuring, Characterizing, and Detecting Facebook Like Farms (2017) · cites this paper as [52]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 26 · Cited by 299
- Authors
- Yang, C., Harkreader, R., Zhang, J., Shin, S., & Gu, G.
- Affiliations
- Texas A&M University (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 21st international conference on World Wide Web
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2012-04-16
- Pages
- 71-80
- OpenAlex
- W2163898372
- Cited by
- 299
- References
- 26
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 24.15
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Cybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
- Keywords
- cybercriminals, spammer detection, Twitter, social networks, small-world networks, interpersonal relationships, semantic coordination
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