Live data from Hacker News

How a Massive Ad Fraud Scheme Exploited Android Phones to Steal Millions

buzzfeednews.com

21–30 of 108 posts

Re: How a Massive Ad Fraud Scheme Exploited Android Phones to Steal Millions

#21
As someone who works monitoring ad network traffic at a large ad-tech company (not FAANG, but just below), let me just say: everyone does fraud.

Some don't need as much of it (e.g., Google), but quite literally saying "there's fraud in my online traffic" is like saying "there's tomato sauce in my spaghetti". It's quite literally such a normal thing that I've become immune to even getting roused by it (and remember, again, I work to find ad-fraud daily).

Does this make it right? No, absolutely not. But is this ever going to change, absolutely not. Too many people are making too much money from this. Just you try to tell an L2 that they can't hit their Q4 Revenue OKR because "we're doing something really immoral by allowing fraud".

Don't make me laugh XD

Re: How a Massive Ad Fraud Scheme Exploited Android Phones to Steal Millions

#22
post #3

I seems to me that - besides the specific fraud scheme in the article - there is something else to be worried about. From the article: >The revelation of this scheme shows just how deeply fraud is embedded in the digital advertising ecosystem, the vast sums being stolen from brands, and the overall failure of the industry to stop it. And, more relevant: >Pixalate’s latest analysis of in-app fraud found that 23% of al…

It's a known fact that the digital advertising industry is rifled with lies and overpromised goals. Everyone knows it, or at least suspects it, but there doesn't seem to be a way out. One third of web traffic is fraudulent. Google tries to track it and remove it from the bottom line but what the rest of the industry does is uncertain.

As for your conclusion you can see it another way. If fraud disappears perhaps ads efficiency rates would also drop. Because ad fraud isn't only about ads that never show to their indented audience. A lot of times is about fraudulent clicks. So while you think your ad had a 2% CTR in reality it could be half that. You can never know who actually clicks on your ads. What you can know and measure is the conversion, aka how many actually bought your product. But if your product isn't sold online, like say packaged consumer products which are sold in super markets and all you aim with advertising is brand awareness you can't even track that. So you're siphoning millions to a black hole and you just pray that your analytics data are correct. Chances are, they aren't but no one will bother telling you. So eventually you might start seeing less ads because companies will realize there's no reason to keep their budgets at current levels.

And then there is the fact that there are a lot of actors involved in fraud, either directly or indirectly. Take video ads for example which have a higher CPM. It's in the platform's interest, aka the publisher, to produce as much views as possible to pocket the money. It's not like the fraud is performed from some shady character who lives in the underground. A lot of the times it's the networks themselves who will try to rob clients from their money.

Bottom line, there are a lot of angles to this issue.

Re: How a Massive Ad Fraud Scheme Exploited Android Phones to Steal Millions

#24

How do these "bots" work? Is there like a big room with lots of Android phones hooked up to some automated robotic finger for tapping and scrolling? Or are they using VMs to run some Android emulator and do everything in software?

Based on the article it seems to be pure software emulating interaction between the apps and i guess the APIs.

Re: How a Massive Ad Fraud Scheme Exploited Android Phones to Steal Millions

#26

Didn't this type of fraud require massive domain expertise?

1. record all network interaction going out of your MRAID adapter, from your few, actual users.

2. replace timestamp and userIDs fields on the network requests you will replay with Math.random()

3. Profit!

Seems pretty simple and banal to me.

Re: How a Massive Ad Fraud Scheme Exploited Android Phones to Steal Millions

#27
post #21

As someone who works monitoring ad network traffic at a large ad-tech company (not FAANG, but just below), let me just say: everyone does fraud . Some don't need as much of it (e.g., Google), but quite literally saying "there's fraud in my online traffic" is like saying "there's tomato sauce in my spaghetti". It's quite literally such a normal thing that I've become immune to even getting roused by it (and remember,…

What kind of fraud does Google do?

Re: How a Massive Ad Fraud Scheme Exploited Android Phones to Steal Millions

#28
post #3

I seems to me that - besides the specific fraud scheme in the article - there is something else to be worried about. From the article: >The revelation of this scheme shows just how deeply fraud is embedded in the digital advertising ecosystem, the vast sums being stolen from brands, and the overall failure of the industry to stop it. And, more relevant: >Pixalate’s latest analysis of in-app fraud found that 23% of al…

#2 is true but not exactly for the reason you specify, basically every company I've ever dealt with has an advertising budget, they spend it and they monitor how much they spend and how sales change based on that (and ad types and ad channels etc). If you have ever seen an advertisement for a Data Scientist at an online retailer this is what they will do, day in and day out.

As long as the revenue gain (and resulting margin) is more than the advertising spend, it is a winning strategy. Meanwhile, every ad network has a 'beta' value which is the ratio of ad spend to revenue increase, ad networks with a low beta either have more fraud or they are hitting the wrong demographic, either way dollars are shifted away from that network to one with a higher beta.

Re: How a Massive Ad Fraud Scheme Exploited Android Phones to Steal Millions

#30

How do these "bots" work? Is there like a big room with lots of Android phones hooked up to some automated robotic finger for tapping and scrolling? Or are they using VMs to run some Android emulator and do everything in software?

A simple ad system shows an ad in an app or page, and when you click on it, sends a request off to the ad server which causes some ad credit (money) to change hands - the advertised company gets charged for a click, intermediaries get a cut, and the app or site owner gets their share.

Unsurprisingly, a site owner is heavily incentivized to click on their own ads, or have others click on them, in order to pay themselves. To avoid this the ad server will want to check that the click came from a real human. They can check by IP (e.g. clicks coming from AWS boxes are probably fraud, excessively fast clicks are rejected, etc.); by user activity (monitoring mouse clicks, keyboard entries, dwell time, and a host of other factors); and by statistical measures (is the ad statistically likely to be clicked on by the source, based on e.g. language, prior ad preferences, etc.)

The news article makes it sound like the bot owners are gathering usage data to simulate real human behavior, which they can then pass off as being real human inputs prior to clicking an ad. Of course, one wonders why they don’t just instruct these millions of phones to click on ads directly (e.g. in the background), which would give them access to a huge legitimate pool of IP addresses.

Post reply on HN