Note: When clicking on a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) number, you will be taken to an external site maintained by the publisher.
Some full text articles may not yet be available without a charge during the embargo (administrative interval).
What is a DOI Number?
Some links on this page may take you to non-federal websites. Their policies may differ from this site.
-
Online app search optimization (ASO) platforms that provide bulk installs and fake reviews for paying app developers in order to fraudulently boost their search rank in app stores, were shown to employ diverse and complex strategies that successfully evade state-of-the-art detection methods. In this paper we introduce RacketStore, a platform to collect data from Android devices of participating ASO providers and regular users, on their interactions with apps which they install from the Google Play Store. We present measurements from a study of 943 installs of RacketStore on 803 unique devices controlled by ASO providers and regular users, that consists of 58,362,249 data snapshots collected from these devices, the 12,341 apps installed on them and their 110,511,637 Google Play reviews. We reveal significant differences between ASO providers and regular users in terms of the number and types of user accounts registered on their devices, the number of apps they review, and the intervals between the installation times of apps and their review times. We leverage these insights to introduce features that model the usage of apps and devices, and show that they can train supervised learning algorithms to detect paid app installs and fake reviews with an F1-measure of 99.72% (AUC above 0.99), and detect devices controlled by ASO providers with an F1-measure of 95.29% (AUC = 0.95). We discuss the costs associated with evading detection by our classifiers and also the potential for app stores to use our approach to detect ASO work with privacy.more » « less
-
Black Hat App Search Optimization (ASO) in the form of fake reviews and sockpuppet accounts, is prevalent in peer-opinion sites, e.g., app stores, with negative implications on the digital and real lives of their users. To detect and filter fraud, a growing body of research has provided insights into various aspects of fraud posting activities, and made assumptions about the working procedures of the fraudsters from online data. However, such assumptions often lack empirical evidence from the actual fraud perpetrators. To address this problem, in this paper, we present results of both a qualitative study with 18 ASO workers we recruited from 5 freelancing sites, concerning activities they performed on Google Play, and a quantitative investigation with fraud-related data collected from other 39 ASO workers. We reveal findings concerning various aspects of ASO worker capabilities and behaviors, including novel insights into their working patterns, and supporting evidence for several existing assumptions. Further, we found and report participant-revealed techniques to bypass Google-imposed verifications, concrete strategies to avoid detection, and even strategies that leverage fraud detection to enhance fraud efficacy. We report a Google site vulnerability that enabled us to infer the mobile device models used to post more than 198 million reviews in Google Play, including 9,942 fake reviews. We discuss the deeper implications of our findings, including their potential use to develop the next generation fraud detection and prevention systems.more » « less
An official website of the United States government
