skip to main content
10.1145/2046707.2046763acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesccsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Cloak and dagger: dynamics of web search cloaking

Published:17 October 2011Publication History

ABSTRACT

Cloaking is a common 'bait-and-switch' technique used to hide the true nature of a Web site by delivering blatantly different semantic content to different user segments. It is often used in search engine optimization (SEO) to obtain user traffic illegitimately for scams. In this paper, we measure and characterize the prevalence of cloaking on different search engines, how this behavior changes for targeted versus untargeted advertising and ultimately the response to site cloaking by search engine providers. Using a custom crawler, called Dagger, we track both popular search terms (e.g., as identified by Google, Alexa and Twitter) and targeted keywords (focused on pharmaceutical products) for over five months, identifying when distinct results were provided to crawlers and browsers. We further track the lifetime of cloaked search results as well as the sites they point to, demonstrating that cloakers can expect to maintain their pages in search results for several days on popular search engines and maintain the pages themselves for longer still.

References

  1. John Bethencourt, Jason Franklin, and Mary Vernon. Mapping Internet Sensors with Probe Response Attacks. In Proceedings of the 14th USENIX Security Symposium, Baltimore, MD, July 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Andrei Z. Broder. On the Resemblance and Containment of Documents. In Proceedings of the Compression and Complexity of Sequences (SEQUENCES'97), pages 21--29, June 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Lee G. Caldwell. The Fast Track to Profit. Pearson Education, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Kumar Chellapilla and David Maxwell Chickering. Improving Cloaking Detection Using Search Query Popularity and Monetizability. In Proceedings of the SIGIR Workshop on Adversarial Information Retrieval on the Web (AIRWeb), August 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Marco Cova, Corrado Leita, Olivier Thonnard, Angelos Keromytis, and Marc Dacier. An Analysis of Rogue AV Campaigns. In Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on Recent Advances in Intrusion Detection (RAID), September 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Amir Efrati. Google Penalizes Overstock for Search Tactics. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704520504576162753779521700.html, February 24, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Google Safe Browsing API. http://code.google.com/apis/safebrowsing/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. John P. John, Fang Yu, Yinglian Xie, Arvind Krishnamurthy, and Martin Abadi. deSEO: Combating Search-Result Poisoning. In Proceedings of the 20th USENIX Security Symposium, August 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Brian Krebs. Huge Decline in Fake AV Following Credit Card Processing Shakeup. http://krebsonsecurity.com/2011/08/huge-decline- in-fake-av-following-credit-card-processing- shakeup/, August 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Nektarios Leontiadis, Tyler Moore, and Nicolas Christin. Measuring and Analyzing Search-Redirection Attacks in the Illicit Online Prescription Drug Trade. In Proceedings of the 20th USENIX Security Symposium, August 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Kirill Levchenko, Neha Chachra, Brandon Enright, Márk Félegyházi, Chris Grier, Tristan Halvorson, Chris Kanich, Christian Kreibich, He Liu, Damon McCoy, Andreas Pitsillidis, Nicholas Weaver, Vern Paxson, Geoffrey M. Voelker, and Stefan Savage. Click Trajectories: End-to-End Analysis of the Spam Value Chain. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium and Security and Privacy, Oakland, CA, May 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Jun-Lin Lin. Detection of cloaked web spam by using tag-based methods. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(4):7493--7499, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Marc A. Najork. System and method for identifying cloaked web servers, United States Patent number 6,910,077. Issued June 21, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Yuan Niu, Yi-Min Wang, Hao Chen, Ming Ma, and Francis Hsu. A Quantitative Study of Forum Spamming Using Contextbased Analysis. In Proceedings of 15th Network and Distributed System Security (NDSS) Symposium, February 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Moheeb Abu Rajab, Lucas Ballard, Panayiotis Mavrommatis, Niels Provos, and Xin Zhao. The Nocebo Effect on the Web: An Analysis of Fake Anti-Virus Distribution. In Proceedings of the 3rd USENIX Workshop on Large-Scale Exploits and Emergent Threats (LEET'10), April 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Search Engine Marketing Professional Organization (SEMPO). State of Search Engine Marketing Report Says Industry to Grow from $14.6 Billion in 2009 to $16.6 Billion in 2010. http://www.sempo.org/news/03--25--10, March 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Craig Silverstein, Monika Henzinger, Hannes Marais, and Michael Moricz. Analysis of a Very Large Web Search Engine Query Log. ACM SIGIR Forum, 33(1):6--12, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Julien Sobrier. Tricks to easily detect malware and scams in search results. http://research.zscaler.com/2010/06/tricks-to-easily-detect-malware-and.html, June 3, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Danny Sullivan. Search Engine Optimization Firm Sold For $95 Million. http://searchenginewatch.com/ 2163001, September 2000. Search Engine Watch.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Jason Tabeling. Keyword Phrase Value: Click-Throughs vs. Conversions. http://searchenginewatch.com/ 3641985, March 8, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Yi-Min Wang and Ming Ma. Detecting Stealth Web Pages That Use Click-Through Cloaking. Technical Report MSR-TR-2006--178, Microsoft Research, December 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Yi-Min Wang, Ming Ma, Yuan Niu, and Hao Chen. Spam Double-Funnel: Connecting Web Spammers with Advertisers. In Proceedings of the 16th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW'07), pages 291--300, May 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Wordtracker. Five Reasons Why Wordtracker Blows Other Keywords Tools Away. http://www.wordtracker.com/find-the-best-keywords.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Baoning Wu and Brian D. Davison. Cloaking and Redirection: A Preliminary Study. In Proceedings of the SIGIR Workshop on Adversarial Information Retrieval on the Web (AIRWeb), May 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Baoning Wu and Brian D. Davison. Detecting Semantic Cloaking on the Web. In Proceedings of the 15th International World Wide Web Conference, pages 819--828, May 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Cloak and dagger: dynamics of web search cloaking

      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
        CCS '11: Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on Computer and communications security
        October 2011
        742 pages
        ISBN:9781450309486
        DOI:10.1145/2046707

        Copyright © 2011 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: 17 October 2011

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        CCS '11 Paper Acceptance Rate60of429submissions,14%Overall Acceptance Rate1,261of6,999submissions,18%

        Upcoming Conference

        CCS '24
        ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security
        October 14 - 18, 2024
        Salt Lake City , UT , USA

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader