1 / 27

VoteTrust Leveraging Friend Invitation Graph to Defend Social Network Sybils

VoteTrust Leveraging Friend Invitation Graph to Defend Social Network Sybils. Jilong Xue , Zhi Yang , Xiaoyong Yang, Xiao Wang, Lijiang Chen and Yafei Dai Computer Science Department, Peking University. Sybil attack in Social networks. Sybils. Friend invitation. reject.

Télécharger la présentation

VoteTrust Leveraging Friend Invitation Graph to Defend Social Network Sybils

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. VoteTrustLeveraging Friend Invitation Graph to DefendSocial Network Sybils Jilong Xue , Zhi Yang , Xiaoyong Yang, Xiao Wang, Lijiang Chen and Yafei Dai Computer Science Department, Peking University

  2. Sybil attack in Social networks Sybils Friend invitation reject Non-popular users accept

  3. VoteTrust: An Overview • Basic idea: • Considering invitation feedback as voting • Key techniques: • Trust-based votes assignment • Global vote aggregation • Properties: • High precision in Sybil detection • Efficient in limiting Sybil’s attack ability

  4. Graph Model A A 1 C C 0 B B Link initiation graph Link acceptance graph

  5. Framework of VoteTrust • Select trust seed – high reliable users • Distribute votes • Collect votes and computing score

  6. Outline • Preliminary • Implementation • Trust-based vote assignment • Global vote aggregation • Evaluation • Conclusion

  7. Votes Assignment • Problem: • How to distribute votesacross users? • Principle: • Reliable user should get more votes • How to implement? v Reliable user v v v v Non-popular user Sybil

  8. Trust-based Votes Assignment • Step1: Assigning votes to little human-selected reliable seeds • Step2: Propagating to whole users across the Link initiation graph

  9. Example A B C D E A B t=0 5 0 0 0 0 t=1 0.75 4.25 0 0 0 t=2 0.75 0.65 0 1.80 1.80 C D E t=3 2.59 0.94 0.31 0.58 0.58 … t=n 1.69 1.57 0.14 0.80 0.80 • Node A is reliable seed • Total votes =5

  10. Outline • Preliminary • Implementation • Trust-based vote assignment • Global vote aggregation • Evaluation • Conclusion

  11. Vote Aggregating • Problem: • How to collect votes and compute user trust score? • Trust score • Principle: • Trust user should have high weight in voting. vote=1,score=0.2 vote=1,score=0.9 A B 0 1 C score=?

  12. Global Vote Aggregation • Step1: Set all users’ initial score as 0.5; • Step2: Iteratively computing each user’s trust score according to aggregated votes.

  13. Small-sample Problem • Number of votes is too small. • Wilson score • weighted average of and . vote=1,score=0.2 0 score=0 ? A B score=0.40 vote=1,score=0.2 1 score=1 ? A B score=0.61

  14. Security Properties (I) • Theorem 1:The number of Sybil’s attack-link needs to satisfy the following upper bound where is detection threshold. Sybil Normal user

  15. Simulation of Theorem 1 • Comm size: 100 • # of in-links: 10 • Noutavg: 2.36 • Noutmax:4

  16. Security Properties (II) • Theorem 2: Sybil community size need to satisfy the upper bound , where is vote collection threshold.

  17. Simulation of Theorem 2

  18. Outline • Preliminary • Implementation • Trust-based vote assignment • Global vote aggregation • Evaluation • Conclusion

  19. Experimental Setup • Data Set • Renren regional network (PKU) include 200K users, 5.01 million friend invitations • 2502 Sybil accounts detected by Renren • Manual checking 73 Sybils from 500 random user • Methodology • Compared with TrustRank and BadRank • Evaluation metrics: Precisionand Recall

  20. TrustRank vs. VoteTrust Averagely improve 32.9% Averagely improve 75.6%

  21. BadRank vs. VoteTrust Averagely improve 44.5% Averagely improve 41.6%

  22. Separating Normal User from Sybils 80% with low score

  23. Separating Normal User from Sybils Maximum accuracy=85.7%

  24. Performance Summary • Outperforms TrustRank by 32.9% in detection precision averagely; • Outperforms BadRank by 44.5% in detection precision averagely; • High accurate in classifying the Sybil and normal user (include non-popular user)

  25. Outline • Preliminary • Implementation • Trust-based vote assignment • Global vote aggregation • Evaluation • Conclusion

  26. Conclusion • VoteTrust is a rating system • high accuracy in Sybil detection • Efficient in resisting Sybil (community) • Key techniques • Trust-based vote assignment • Global vote aggregation

  27. Thank you!

More Related