skip to main content
10.1145/2939672.2939747acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageskddConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access
Best Paper

FRAUDAR: Bounding Graph Fraud in the Face of Camouflage

Authors Info & Claims
Published:13 August 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

Given a bipartite graph of users and the products that they review, or followers and followees, how can we detect fake reviews or follows? Existing fraud detection methods (spectral, etc.) try to identify dense subgraphs of nodes that are sparsely connected to the remaining graph. Fraudsters can evade these methods using camouflage, by adding reviews or follows with honest targets so that they look "normal". Even worse, some fraudsters use hijacked accounts from honest users, and then the camouflage is indeed organic. Our focus is to spot fraudsters in the presence of camouflage or hijacked accounts. We propose FRAUDAR, an algorithm that (a) is camouflage-resistant, (b) provides upper bounds on the effectiveness of fraudsters, and (c) is effective in real-world data. Experimental results under various attacks show that FRAUDAR outperforms the top competitor in accuracy of detecting both camouflaged and non-camouflaged fraud. Additionally, in real-world experiments with a Twitter follower-followee graph of 1.47 billion edges, FRAUDAR successfully detected a subgraph of more than 4000 detected accounts, of which a majority had tweets showing that they used follower-buying services.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

kdd2016_hooi_bounding_graph_01-acm.mp4

mp4

347.8 MB

References

  1. L. Akoglu, R. Chandy, and C. Faloutsos. Opinion fraud detection in online reviews by network effects. In ICWSM, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. A. Beutel, W. Xu, V. Guruswami, C. Palow, and C. Faloutsos. Copycatch: stopping group attacks by spotting lockstep behavior in social networks. In 22nd WWW, pages 119--130. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Q. Cao, M. Sirivianos, X. Yang, and T. Pregueiro. Aiding the detection of fake accounts in large scale social online services. In NSDI, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. M. Charikar. Greedy approximation algorithms for finding dense components in a graph. In Approximation Algorithms for Combinatorial Optimization, pages 84--95. Springer, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. C. Cortes, D. Pregibon, and C. Volinsky. Communities of interest. Springer, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. S. Ghosh, B. Viswanath, F. Kooti, N. K. Sharma, G. Korlam, F. Benevenuto, N. Ganguly, and K. P. Gummadi. Understanding and combating link farming in the twitter social network. In 21st WWW, pages 61--70. ACM, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. C. Giatsidis, D. M. Thilikos, and M. Vazirgiannis. Evaluating cooperation in communities with the k-core structure. In Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM), 2011 International Conference on, pages 87--93. IEEE, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Z. Gu, K. Pei, Q. Wang, L. Si, X. Zhang, and D. Xu. Leaps: Detecting camouflaged attacks with statistical learning guided by program analysis.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Z. Gyöngyi, H. Garcia-Molina, and J. Pedersen. Combating web spam with trustrank. In VLDB Endowment, pages 576--587, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. M. Jiang, A. Beutel, P. Cui, B. Hooi, S. Yang, and C. Faloutsos. A general suspiciousness metric for dense blocks in multimodal data. In Data Mining (ICDM), 2015 IEEE International Conference on, pages 781--786. IEEE, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. M. Jiang, P. Cui, A. Beutel, C. Faloutsos, and S. Yang. Catchsync: catching synchronized behavior in large directed graphs. In 20th KDD, pages 941--950. ACM, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. M. Jiang, P. Cui, A. Beutel, C. Faloutsos, and S. Yang. Inferring strange behavior from connectivity pattern in social networks. In Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 126--138. Springer, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. N. Jindal and B. Liu. Opinion spam and analysis. In ICDM 2008, pages 219--230. ACM, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. G. Karypis and V. Kumar. METIS: Unstructured graph partitioning and sparse matrix ordering system. The University of Minnesota, 2, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. J. Kleinberg. Authoritative sources in a hyperlinked environment. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 46(5):604--632, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. H. Kwak, C. Lee, H. Park, and S. Moon. What is twitter, a social network or a news media? In 19th WWW, pages 591--600. ACM, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. J. Leskovec, D. Huttenlocher, and J. Kleinberg. Signed networks in social media. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1361--1370. ACM, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. J. McAuley and J. Leskovec. Hidden factors and hidden topics: understanding rating dimensions with review text. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM conference on Recommender systems, pages 165--172. ACM, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. A. Molavi Kakhki, C. Kliman-Silver, and A. Mislove. Iolaus: Securing online content rating systems. In 22nd WWW, pages 919--930. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. M. Ott, Y. Choi, C. Cardie, and J. T. Hancock. Finding deceptive opinion spam by any stretch of the imagination. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies-Volume 1, pages 309--319. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. S. Pandit, D. H. Chau, S. Wang, and C. Faloutsos. Netprobe: a fast and scalable system for fraud detection in online auction networks. In 16th WWW, pages 201--210. ACM, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. B. Perozzi, L. Akoglu, P. Iglesias Sánchez, and E. Müller. Focused clustering and outlier detection in large attributed graphs. In 20th KDD, pages 1346--1355. ACM, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. B. Prakash, M. Seshadri, A. Sridharan, S. Machiraju, and C. Faloutsos. Eigenspokes: Surprising patterns and community structure in large graphs. PAKDD, 2010a, 84, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. A. Rajaraman, J. D. Ullman, J. D. Ullman, and J. D. Ullman. Mining of massive datasets, volume 1. Cambridge University Press Cambridge, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. N. Shah, A. Beutel, B. Gallagher, and C. Faloutsos. Spotting suspicious link behavior with fbox: An adversarial perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:1410.3915, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. D. N. Tran, B. Min, J. Li, and L. Subramanian. Sybil-resilient online content voting. In NSDI, volume 9, pages 15--28, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. C. Tsourakakis. The k-clique densest subgraph problem. In 24th WWW, pages 1122--1132. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. S. Virdhagriswaran and G. Dakin. Camouflaged fraud detection in domains with complex relationships. In 12th KDD, pages 941--947. ACM, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. H. Wang, Y. Lu, and C. Zhai. Latent aspect rating analysis without aspect keyword supervision. In 17th KDD, pages 618--626. ACM, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. B. Wu, V. Goel, and B. D. Davison. Propagating trust and distrust to demote web spam. MTW, 190, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. H. Yu, P. B. Gibbons, M. Kaminsky, and F. Xiao. Sybillimit: A near-optimal social network defense against sybil attacks. In Security and Privacy, 2008. SP 2008. IEEE Symposium on, pages 3--17. IEEE, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. H. Yu, M. Kaminsky, P. B. Gibbons, and A. Flaxman. Sybilguard: defending against sybil attacks via social networks. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 36(4):267--278, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. FRAUDAR: Bounding Graph Fraud in the Face of Camouflage

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      KDD '16: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining
      August 2016
      2176 pages
      ISBN:9781450342322
      DOI:10.1145/2939672

      Copyright © 2016 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 13 August 2016

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      KDD '16 Paper Acceptance Rate66of1,115submissions,6%Overall Acceptance Rate1,133of8,635submissions,13%

      Upcoming Conference

      KDD '24

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader