1. Typo-Squatting: a Nuisance or a Threat to Your Traffic? Mishari Almishari

2. Outline Introduction Background Methodology Parked Domain Classifier Measurements Future Work Related Work Conclusion

3. Introduction - Motivation Traffic is important to web domains! no point of launching without incoming traffic Loosing/Gaining traffic means loosing/gaining money One way to price the ADS is Pay Per Click Model Traffic Diversion could be a serious threat to a domain

4. Introduction - Motivation Typos may attract traffic Users vulnerable to making typos Users may forget about visiting target domain Threat to Target Domain! Intentionally registering such typo domains is called Typo-squatting

5. Introduction - Goal To study how much traffic typo- squatters can get from target domains Are those domains attracting much traffic? There are many typo-squatting domains registered (Banerjee et al., 08) Search engines typo-corrections and browser auto- completions! How much traffic target domains are loosing? Is it of negligible ratio or a serious threat? Do users go back to target domains or get distracted?

6. Introduction - Challenges How to identify typo-squatting domains? Does Typo mean Typo-squatting? Short Domains www.abc.com and www.abd.com www.abc.comwww.abd.com Longer Domains www.walmart.com and www.walkmart.com www.walmart.comwww.walkmart.com If not, how can we? Hijacking indicator

7. Introduction - Contribution Automatic and accurate identification of typo- squatting domains (Measurement Methodology) Bound on how much traffic target domains are loosing towards typo-squatting domains (Measurement Results)

8. Outline Introduction Background Methodology Parked Domain Classifier Measurements Related Work Future Work Conclusion

9. Background – Domain Parking Domain Parking is the practice of showing a temporary page for an unused domain before launching it

10. Background - Domain Parking

11. Background – Domain Parking

13. Domain Parking Service Parks and hosts unused domains Monetize the traffic by showing ads Many Typo-squatting domains are parked domains (Wang et al, 06), (Keats, 07)

14. Outline Introduction Background Methodology Parked Domain Classifier Measurements Future Work Related Work Conclusion

15. Methodology Data Collection Identifying Typo-Squatting Domains

16. Methodology - Data Collection DNS traces @ UCI Revolvers Internal requests to domain names DNS query proceeds http request Caching limitation Our study represents a lower-bound

17. Methodology - Data Collection UCI NET INTERNET UCI Resolver Our Machine DATE TIME HASHED-IP DOMAIN TYPE CLASS USER QUERY

18. Methodology – Identify Typo- squatting Domain Identify Similar Domains a. Single Error Typo Single error accounts for 90-95% of spelling/typo errors (Pollock et al, 83) www.walmart.com and www.wamart.com www.walmart.comwww.wamart.com b. gTLD substitution www.amazon.com and www.amazon.org www.amazon.comwww.amazon.org

19. Methodology – Identify Typo- squatting Domains But Similar domain is not enough! www.abc.com and www.abd.comwww.abc.comwww.abd.com www.walmart.com and www.walkmart.comwww.walmart.comwww.walkmart.com www.usps.com and www.usps.orgwww.usps.comwww.usps.org Random Sample More than 54% are not Typo-squatting Need to Identify Hijacking Intention

20. Methodology – Identify Typo- squatting Domain Identify Hijacking Indicator  Parked Domain (Ads – listing)  ~ 88%  Forwarding to other domains  ~ 8%  Others: Inappropriate Content, … Parked Domain as the indicator

21. Methodology – Identify Typo- squatting Domain Similar DomainParked Domain Typo-Squatting Domain

22. Methodology – Identify Typo- squatting Domain How to identify Parked Domain? Parked Domain Classifier 96% Presence of Parking signatures Well-known parking signatures (domain names/urls)

23. Methodology - Summary Identify Similar Domains Identify Parked Domains List of Typo-squatting Domains

24. Outline Introduction Background Methodology Parked Domain Classifier Measurements Future Work Related Work Conclusion

25. Parked Domain Classifier Build Data Set Extract Core Features Combine Into Classifier

26. Data Set Data Set consists of 2,800 domains 700 are parked domain Collected from MS Strider Website 2,100 are non-parked domains Collected From the fourteen Yahoo Directory Top Categories

27. Feature Selection Heuristically, Identify common features in parked domain Compute the distribution of those features for verification Common Link Ratio Max

28. Feature Selection

29. Combining Features Into Classifier Tried Different Classifier Algorithms Decision Tree SVM K-Nearest Neighbor Random Forest The best performance

30. Outline Introduction Background Methodology Parked Domain Classifier Measurements Future Work Related Work Conclusion

31. DATA Sets DNS Traces Four Months ~ 30 million domains ( ~ 2 billion hits ) ( ~ 30,000 users ) Target Domain Set Alexa’s Top 500 popular domains ~53,000,000 hits

32. Typo-Squatting Domains & Hits 1,332 typo-squatting 13,431 hits (~ 110 a day) Is it Large or Small? 500 Target Domains 4 Month Period ~ 30,000 users Given Similar Ratio may translate to non-trivial number 30,000 => 110 Per Day 300,000 => 1,100 Per Day 3000,000 => 11,000 (X 365 = ~ 4,000,000 A YEAR)

33. Typo-squatting Ratio 0.025% of total number of queries (89%, ≤ 1%) (70%, ≤ 0.1%) ( 57%, ≤ 0.01%)

34. User Correction Ratio – Alexa- 500 54% of typo-squatting queries are corrected ~ 51% squatted target domains have most squat hits corrected

35. Potential Hit Loss Potential Hit Loss Ratio = 0.012% (92%, ≤ 1%) (78%, ≤ 0.1%) (64%, ≤ 0.01%)

36. Potential Money Loss ~75% do not point to target domains Referring Typo-Sqt Ratio = 0.008% (96%, ≤ 1%) (91%, ≤ 0.1%) ( 81%, ≤ 0.01%)

37. Non-existing Similar Domains 8,285 potential hits (~ 500 non-existing typo domain) 0.015% of total number of queries (96%, ≤ 1%) (83%, ≤ 0.1%) (66%, ≤ 0.01%)

38. Typo-Squatting Distribution 19 % of all Typo-squatting hits

39. Top Ten Typo-squatting Domains 19 % of all Typo-squatting hits

40. Top Ten Target Domains Responsible of 55% to all typo-squatting queries of Alexa-500 50 Million hits of “www.facebook.com”

41. Typo Characterization Most Typos are single errors ( 95% VS 5%) Most gTLD sub are “com” to “org” (50%) Add – 37 % are of non-adjacent keys Sub – 77% are of non-adjacent keys Sub – 13% of substitutions are “a” and “o” Spelling error

42. Typo-squatting Domains – TP60 15,499 hits 0.045% of total number of queries (76%, ≤ 1%) (60%, ≤ 0.5%)

43. Outline Introduction Background Methodology Parked Domain Classifier Measurements Future Work Related Work Conclusion

44. Future Work How much of the ads budget go to squatters? Enhance our identification technique See, if the results hold at other ISPs Typo Modeling for getting traffic back

45. Outline Introduction Background Methodology Parked Domain Classifier Measurements Future Work Related Work Conclusion

46. Related Work MS Strider Project [Wang et al. Sruti06] McAfee Study [Keats McAfee White Paper 07] JAAL project [Banerjee et al. Infocom 08]

47. Outline Introduction Background Methodology Parked Domain Classifier Measurements Future Work Related Work Conclusion

48. Accurately and automatically identify typo-squatting domains How much traffic go to typo-squatters Bound on how much traffic the target domain is loosing towards typo-squatting inconsequential