Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

buzzfeednews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 108 posts

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

#71

Post by canadapups »

Eridrus wrote: post #66
canadapups wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When it comes to email spam or fake email accounts, Google not only allows it, they enable it. One scammer can setup thousands of gmail accounts and google doesn't blink an eye. Gmail also allows "scammer+1@gmail.com" and "scammer+2@gmail" to be the same account. I've reported obvious gmail abuse to Google through their channels, but nothing. Same scammer keeps coming back with new email accounts.

So, you've basically outsourced your spam detection to Google, and you're here complaining that you have to do a few small things on your end?

No, my point is Google allows and/or enables fraud and they could be doing more to fight it. Source: the article we are discussing, "How a Massive Ad Fraud Scheme Exploited Android Phones to Steal Millions". And my experience with scammers using Gmail.

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

#72

Post by wiradikusuma »

TL;DR: Some company acquires apps to track those apps' users' activities so that the company can simulate the activities in a farm of bot-controlled ad-enabled phones?

1. Why don't they just show the ads to real users?

2. If the real users don't really get to see the ads, isn't this a win for everyone (except advertisers)?

(I'm not saying I agree with their practices, but just trying to think how they rationalize their moral decisions).

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

#73

Post by doodliego »

Donzo wrote: post #70
janesvilleseo wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not that they do it. It’s that they allow it. Not outright, but they don’t go out of their way to suppress/stop it anymore more than anybody else.

I'm a small to medium sized publisher and I've had to travel through Google's compliance funnels more than I would have liked. I've never had any compliance issues with any other advertising network. Google works hard to keep the ecosystem healthy because it's good for their long-term interests. But of course, their systems are not perfect.

If you're removing 700,000 apps a year from your store for violating your own policies, it's fair to say your system is not only not perfect, it's horribly broken.

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

#74

Post by ariwilson »

doodliego wrote: post #73
Donzo wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a small to medium sized publisher and I've had to travel through Google's compliance funnels more than I would have liked. I've never had any compliance issues with any other advertising network. Google works hard to keep the ecosystem healthy because it's good for their long-term interests. But of course, their systems are not perfect.

If you're removing 700,000 apps a year from your store for violating your own policies, it's fair to say your system is not only not perfect, it's horribly broken.

Completely disagree. Could also mean they're doing a great job finding problematic apps.

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

#75

Post by DeGi »

downandout wrote: post #63
cf498 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you point me towards credible work determining ROI for online advertisement? Whats the current state of the art? edit: I should rephrase, this sounds hostile. I know there is wide work in influencing people to buy stuff when influenced in person. The interpersonal dynamics are widely studied. I also know, that chumming content and goating works to gather more views, but that can only be turned into a ROI by peopl…

There are two distinct areas of online advertising: performance marketing, and brand advertising. I'm a performance marketer. I make a profit only when ads result in conversions - usually sales or signups for trial offers, but in some cases we do lead generation campaigns for clients as well. We spend high 5/low 6 figures per month, mostly on Facebook ads, with a monthly ROAS (return on ad spend) that beats Berkshire…

And without doing experimental setup (RCTs), how do you know you are not just paying for organic conversions?

I had this presentation a few months ago: https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/gregak/if-youre-not-measur... I would be interested to know what you think.

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

#76

Post by gcb0 »

stordoff wrote: post #60
gcb0 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> userIDs fields on the network requests you will replay with Math.random() Isn't this _why_ you'd need domain expertise? Random User IDs would be detectable - a French user suddenly clicking on English ads and following East Coast time would be a red flag.

the beauty is that everyone want to do re-attribution, so they can buy cheap and sell expensive.

if I send a bid to google with a random browser id, it will assign a new user on the spot (we wont be lucky to match a valid user as in your example) and all goes on normally.

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

#78

Post by Twisell »

rayvy wrote: post #52
milesskorpen wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Beyond this, ad spend ASSUMES some level of fraud. It's baked into your ROI numbers, at least for performance advertising. Probably the main people getting stiffed are the publishers who are offering real traffic, and getting a smaller share of dollars relative to the incremental value they deliver.

> Probably the main people getting stiffed are the publishers who are offering real traffic Unless you're a large premium publisher like say a NYT, a Techcrunch, or even a Forbes, more of your traffic probably wont be real , and you have little to no control over that. The online ad/traffic buying game is so mind-blowingly convoluted, you can be a small publisher (foo.com), having your site spammed, and what little r…

I would love to hear John Gruber opinion about that. His advertised funding model is sponsorship without agressive ad and without passive tracking. https://daringfireball.net

So yes I totally think that current bonus for add fraudster is not helping a "new John Gruber" to emerge.

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

#79

Post by mellow-lake-day »

That article is an example of outstanding journalism.

It probably required tremendous amounts of writing ability, knowing the subject matter, spending hours and hours of research, being familiar with the industry, etc. Doesn't see this much these days. Too bad a lot of journalism died in 2008/2009 when journalists lost their jobs and newspapers were either bought by big players or simply went out of business.

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

#80

Post by archi42 »

cwkoss wrote: post #57

Is Ad fraud a pro-social 'crime'? Every ad viewed by a bot is one less attempt at adversarially influencing a human against their will.

While this point of view is a neat idea and part of me really likes it, I'm afraid those people just want to make as much cash as possible. Also, if they make 750M$, that's 750M$ they deprived other parts of society of (e.g. app developers who could have had about 5000 more employees).
Post reply on HN