Cited by 43Spam and Phishing DetectionMobile Crowdsensing and CrowdsourcingAccess Control and Trust

Strength in Numbers: Robust Tamper Detection in Crowd Computations

Viswanath, Bimal, Bashir, Muhammad Ahmad, Zafar, Muhammad Bilal, Bouget, Simon, Guha, Saikat, Gummadi, Krishna P., Kate, Aniket, Mislove, Alan·2015·Proceedings of the 2015 ACM on Conference on Online Social Networks

Abstract

Popular social and e-commerce sites increasingly rely on crowd computing to rate and rank content, users, products and businesses. Today, attackers who create fake (Sybil) identities can easily tamper with these computations. Existing defenses that largely focus on detecting individual Sybil identities have a fundamental limitation: Adaptive attackers can create hard-to-detect Sybil identities to tamper arbitrary crowd computations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2817946.2817964

Cites

29 of 29 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?

  • The technique proposed by Viswanath et al. [40] is capable of spotting the differences between groups of genuine accounts and the new wave of social spambots.

    “Thus, the technique proposed in [40] is capable of spotting the differences between groups of genuine accounts and the new wave of social spambots.”
  • The technique proposed by Viswanath et al. [40] cannot directly spot the tampering accounts, so detection and removal of single accounts must be performed using a separate methodology.

    “However, the technique cannot directly spot the tampering accounts, and, thus, detection and removal of the single accounts must be performed using a separate methodology.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 31 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Viswanath, B., Bashir, M. A., Zafar, M. B., Bouget, S., Guha, S., Gummadi, K. P., Kate, A., & Mislove, A.
Affiliations
  • Max Planck Institute for Software Systems (DE)
  • Northeastern University (US)
  • Institut national de recherche en sciences et technologies du numérique (FR)
  • Microsoft Research (India) (IN)
  • Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2015 ACM on Conference on Online Social Networks
Publisher
ACM
Published
2015-11-02
Pages
113-124
OpenAlex
W1964235853
Cited by
43
References
31
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5
FWCI
6.06
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Conference on Online Social Networks (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (CNS-1319019, CNS-1421444)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Mobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Access Control and Trust
Keywords
Sybil attack, crowd computing, content rating, user ranking, e-commerce, social networks

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