Cited by 38Spam and Phishing DetectionCybercrime and Law Enforcement StudiesDigital Marketing and Social Media

AppWatcher: unveiling the underground market of trading mobile app reviews

Xie, Zhen, Zhu, Sencun·2015·Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Security & Privacy in Wireless and Mobile Networks

Abstract

Driven by huge monetary reward, some mobile application (app) developers turn to the underground market to buy positive reviews instead of doing legal advertisements. These promotion reviews are either directly posted in app stores like iTunes and Google Play, or published on some popular websites that have many app users. Until now, a clear understanding of this app promotion underground market is still lacking. In this work, we focus on unveiling this underground market and statistically analyzing the promotion incentives, characteristics of promoted apps and suspicious reviewers. To collect promoted apps, we built an automatic data collection system, AppWatcher, which monitored 52 paid review service providers for four months and crawled all the app metadata from their corresponding app stores. Finally, AppWatcher exposes 645 apps promoted in app stores and 29, 680 apps promoted in some popular websites. The current underground market is then reported from various perspectives (e.g., service price, app volume). We identified some interesting features of both promoted apps and suspicious reviewers, which are significantly different from those of randomly chosen apps. Finally, we built a simple tracer to narrow down the suspect list of promoted apps in the underground market.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2766498.2766510

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Identifying organic ASO activities is an open problem due to the ability of such workers to evade existing detection solutions.

    “Identifying organic ASO activities is an open problem due to the ability of such workers to evade existing detection solutions, e.g., that leverage lockstep behaviors [32, 43, 51, 72, 73, 78, 85, 86, 89, 92, 93] or review bursts [27, 28, 35, 39, 40, 42, 44, 45, 50-53, 53, 5759, 65, 66, 84, 87, 88, 92].”

    From RacketStore (2021) · cites this paper as [86]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Xie, Z., & Zhu, S.
Affiliations
Pennsylvania State University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Security & Privacy in Wireless and Mobile Networks
Publisher
ACM
Published
2015-06-22
Pages
1-11
OpenAlex
W2019333963
Cited by
38
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7
FWCI
5.21
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
ACM Conference on Security and Privacy in Wireless and Mobile Networks (WiSec) (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (CCF- 1320605)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Cybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Marketing and Social Media
Keywords
review spam, promotion incentives

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