Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Toward Spam 2.0: An Evaluation of Web 2.0 Anti-Spam Methods
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Toward Spam 2.0: An Evaluation of Web 2.0 Anti-Spam Methods

857

Published on

Spammers have proven very powerfully adapt-able, if we thwart all current spam methods, they will find new loophole to use them. Blogs, comments, forums, opinions, online communities, wikis and tags …

Spammers have proven very powerfully adapt-able, if we thwart all current spam methods, they will find new loophole to use them. Blogs, comments, forums, opinions, online communities, wikis and tags are nowadays targets for their campaigns. This paper presents analysis of current anti-spam methods in Web 2.0 for spam detection and prevention against our proposed evaluation framework. The framework is a comprehensive framework to evaluate anti-spam methods from different perspectives. Our framework shows that the need for more robust methods which are prevention based, unsupervised and do not increase user and system interaction complexity is highly demanded.
More info: http://debii.curtin.edu.au/~pedram/research/publications/83-toward-spam-20-an-evaluation-of-web-20-anti-spam-methods.html

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
857
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
14
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Toward Spam 2.0: An Evaluation of Web 2.0 Anti-Spam Methods Pedram Hayati Vidyasagar Potdar Curtin University of Technology, Western Australia Digital Ecosystem and Business Intelligence Institute Anti-Spam Research Laboratory http://asrl.debii.curtin.edu.au
  • 2. AGENDA
    • Introduction
    • Web 2.0 SPAM (SPAM 2.0)
    • Proposed framework
    • Evaluation
    • Conclusion
  • 3. INTRODUCTION
    • Email spam is not the only campaign for spammers as they always find new targets to achieve their desires.
    • Web spam
    • Spammers nowadays, post promotional comments on blogs, write advertisement reviews for products, reply online forums threads with junk content, create eye-catching user profiles on online community websites, manipulate Wiki pages, and create mislead ing tags for their documents
  • 4. CONSEQUENCES
    • Tricking search engine to rank spam and junk contents higher. Hence it decreases quality of search engine results.
    • Misleading users to view unsolicited content.
  • 5. CONTRIBUTION
    • We focus on current anti-spam methods in
      • Blogs
      • Online forums
      • Wikis
      • Tags
      • Online communities
    • Evaluate them against our proposed framework
  • 6. Web 2.0 SPAM
    • Second generation of WWW
    • Easier platform to generate content
      • Legitimate
      • Spam!
    • Web 2.0 spam or Spam 2.0
  • 7. Spam 2.0 is
    • Hosting blogs, writing blog comments and making trackbacks
  • 8. Spam 2.0 is
    • Posting new threads in online forums
  • 9. Spam 2.0 is
    • Writing reviews/opinions
  • 10. Spam 2.0 is
    • Creating user profiles in online communities
  • 11. Spam 2.0 is
    • Modifying Wikis
  • 12. Spam 2.0 is
    • Making tags
  • 13. Proposed Framework
    • Is the method a detection strategy?
    • a. Is it a language dependent method?
    • b. Is the method content based or meta-data based?
    • c. Does the method use supervised, semi-supervised or
    • non-supervised machine learning approach?
    • d. Is the method behaviour based?
    • e. Does the method decrease user-interaction convenient?
    • 2. Is the method a prevention strategy?
    • a. Does the method prevent spammer to use user net-
    • work resources?
    • b. Does the method increase complexity of user-
    • interaction with system?
  • 14. EVALUATION
    • Blog, comment and trackback spam
    • Review/Opinion Spam
    • Social Spam
    • Wiki and forums spam
  • 15. CONCLUSION
    • Framework for evaluation of Anti-Spam 2.0 methods
    • Supervised methods need up-to-date datasets
    • Prevention method put pressure on user side and increase complexity of system
    • Framework shows that there is need for
      • Prevention based methods
      • Unsupervised methods
      • Not increasing complexity of system
  • 16. THANK YOU!
    • http://debii.curtin.edu.au/~pedram/
    • http://asrl.curtin.edu.au/

×