Serf and turf: crowdturfing for fun and profit
Abstract
Popular Internet services in recent years have shown that remarkable things can be achieved by harnessing the power of the masses using crowd-sourcing systems. However, crowd-sourcing systems can also pose a real challenge to existing security mechanisms deployed to protect Internet services. Many of these security techniques rely on the assumption that malicious activity is generated automatically by automated programs. Thus they would perform poorly or be easily bypassed when attacks are generated by real users working in a crowd-sourcing system. Through measurements, we have found surprising evidence showing that not only do malicious crowd-sourcing systems exist, but they are rapidly growing in both user base and total revenue. We describe in this paper a significant effort to study and understand these "crowdturfing" systems in today's Internet. We use detailed crawls to extract data about the size and operational structure of these crowdturfing systems. We analyze details of campaigns offered and performed in these sites, and evaluate their end-to-end effectiveness by running active, benign campaigns of our own. Finally, we study and compare the source of workers on crowdturfing sites in different countries. Our results suggest that campaigns on these systems are highly effective at reaching users, and their continuing growth poses a concrete threat to online communities both in the US and elsewhere.
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?
Some providers generate fake popularity signals using automated bots, while others use realistic accounts and even crowdsourced real humans.
“some providers generate fake popularity signals using automated bots (aka. sybils), but some others use realistic accounts and even crowdsourced real humans (aka. crowdturfing) [58, 83, 84, 93, 100].”
From Six Million (Suspected) Fake Stars on GitHub: A Growing Spiral of Popularity Contests, Spams, and Malware (2026) · cites this paper as [93]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 24 · Cited by 197
- Authors
- Wang, G., Wilson, C., Zhao, X., Zhu, Y., Mohanlal, M., Zheng, H., & Zhao, B. Y.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 21st international conference on World Wide Web
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2012-04-16
- Pages
- 679-688
- OpenAlex
- W2127935984
- Cited by
- 197
- References
- 24
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 16.35
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- National Research Foundation of Korea
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Mobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Cybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
- Keywords
- online communities, internet security, automated attacks, campaign effectiveness, web crawls
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