Platon Kotzias (Norton Research Group, BforeAI), Michalis Pachilakis (Norton Research Group, Computer Science Department University of Crete), Javier Aldana Iuit (Norton Research Group), Juan Caballero (IMDEA Software Institute), Iskander Sanchez-Rola (Norton Research Group), Leyla Bilge (Norton Research Group)

Online scams have become a top threat for Internet users, inflicting $10 billion in losses in 2023 only in the US. Prior work has studied specific scam types, but no work has compared different scam types. In this work, we perform what we believe is the first study of the exposure of end users to different types of online scams. We examine seven popular scam types: shopping, financial, cryptocurrency, gambling, dating, funds recovery, and employment scams. To quantify end-user exposure, we search for observations of 607K scam domains over a period of several months by millions of desktop and mobile devices belonging to customers of a large cybersecurity vendor. We classify the scam domains into the seven scam types and measure for each scam type the exposure of end users, geographical variations, scam domain lifetime, and the promotion of scam websites through online advertisements.

We examine 25.1M IP addresses accessing over 414K scam domains. On a daily basis, 149K devices are exposed to online scams, with an average of 101K (0.8%) of desktop devices being exposed compared to 48K (0.3%) of mobile devices. Shopping scams are the most prevalent scam type, being observed by a total of 10.2M IPs, followed by cryptocurrency scams, observed by 653K IPs. After being observed in the telemetry, the scam domains remain alive for a median of 11 days. In at least 9.2M (13.3%) of all scam observations users followed an advertisement. These ads are largely (59%) hosted on social media, with Facebook being the preferred source.

View More Papers

Ring of Gyges: Accountable Anonymous Broadcast via Secret-Shared Shuffle

Wentao Dong (City University of Hong Kong), Peipei Jiang (Wuhan University; City University of Hong Kong), Huayi Duan (ETH Zurich), Cong Wang (City University of Hong Kong), Lingchen Zhao (Wuhan University), Qian Wang (Wuhan University)

Read More

MALintent: Coverage Guided Intent Fuzzing Framework for Android

Ammar Askar (Georgia Institute of Technology), Fabian Fleischer (Georgia Institute of Technology), Christopher Kruegel (University of California, Santa Barbara), Giovanni Vigna (University of California, Santa Barbara), Taesoo Kim (Georgia Institute of Technology)

Read More

Vision: Comparison of AI-assisted Policy Development Between Professionals and...

Rishika Thorat (Purdue University), Tatiana Ringenberg (Purdue University)

Read More