Latest large spam attacks - can anything be done at all?

Biggins

In the last few weeks boards.ie has (and still is) being hit by large spam attacks.
Its either an American sports illegal broadcasting spammer or a Chinese based sales website.

Surely for at least a time being, there should be a rule that new posters have to have posted into other threads a minimum amount of times (maybe at least twenty times) before they can start new threads?

I know it won't solve the problem and/or make the spammers go away but the present system doesn't seem to be any deterrent to them at all whatsoever.

Surely something different has to be tried? Some sections are just getting filled up with new topic, spam filled crap EVERY NIGHT NOW.

Example:



and:

AlmightyCushion

Biggins wrote: »

Surely for at least a time being, there should be a rule that new posters have to have posted into other threads a minimum amount of times (maybe at least twenty times) before they can start new threads?

I'm not a fan of that. It'll just annoy and frustrate new users. The sign up process manages to put off a fairly substantial number of new users from what I remember (admin, developer or Dav said it somewhere). I'd well believe it too because there are many sites I've just left because they made it too difficult for me to do what I wanted to do or find what I wanted to find. When I started out on boards it was because I was stuck with a problem and couldn't find an answer anywhere. I started a thread here asking for help and I got it. Many years and 25,000 posts later and I'm still here. Would I still be here if we had loads of rules like that for new users? I don't know. How many others started the same way I did or will start the same way I did? I don't know either but I'd guess it's plenty. Places like boards can be a nightmare for a new user (just look at how often they post threads on the help desk or make mistake that we would consider simple), boards needs to make it easier for new users on the site not more difficult.

Biggins wrote: »

I know it won't solve the problem and/or make the spammers go away but the present system doesn't seem to be any deterrent to them at all whatsoever.

Surely something different has to be tried? Some sections are just getting filled up with new topic, spam filled crap.

The thing is though I'd be willing to bet it is a deterrent. The spam we see is probably a tiny fraction of the amount that would get through without the current spam preventing measures. Things could do with a bit of beefing up though. I imagine the developers are constantly looking at ways to cut down on the spam that gets through but inconveniencing users further isn't the way to do it.

Insect Overlord

Hey Biggins,

just to let you know, the new tech guys are working with the mods/Cmods/Admins to come up with potential solutions. No idea if it'll be an increase in man-power or some new features, but plans are in the works.

Biggins

I can see your point - I can see both sides of the argument.
Sadly what we are seeing lately is a madding amount to spam too though.
The Celeb section tonight alone had eight or nine threads started up just containing spam and as of late, this is becoming a very nightly thing.

I know the mods are doing there best - they can't be around all the time.
Surely though a different way to deter them must be found? So far as of late, nothing seems to be sadly working.

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Hey Biggins,

just to let you know, the new tech guys are working with the mods/Cmods/Admins to come up with potential solutions. No idea if it'll be an increase in man-power or some new features, but plans are in the works.

Good to hear.
Its because I like boards.ie so much that I hate to see it filled with the spam crap.
Its a shame. It seems to be getting worse as of late.
I hope they can come up with some possible better deterrent.

Yitzhak Rabin

Hey!

Can you believe my sister wore this dress? It is too short no.

But seriously, not allowing users would definitely deter about 80% of new users, and I would have fallen into that category. I don't really find the spam that annoying. Its pretty obvious which ones are spam and I just ignore them. Like threads about immigrants, lenient court sentences and people on the dole.

Biggins

yekahS wrote: »

Hey!

Can you believe my sister wore this dress? It is too short no.

But seriously, not allowing users would definitely deter about 80% of new users ...

Aye, its a valid point but as much as its a pain, maybe for the first 20/30 new posts/threads, new users also have to fill in one of those 'captha' (if I have spelt that right) letters and numbers things?
Having to fill in one of those every time a spammer wants to post their crap, might slow them down and/or lessen the amount of spam new threads they start in each section?
Just an idea...

Genuine people if its explained to why they for a while, have to fill one of those things in, shouldn't really be put off if they are that interested/stuck for help?

kmart6

I actually came into Feedback wondering was there a current topic on this!

I think I'm only noticing the Spam more since I've moved to the US as it seems to be my late night compared to very early morning!

Could a prevention method not be that you can't post links until you have a certain number of posts(say 10 or 20) or is that even possible to implement?!

TheZohanS

I think the 60 seconds wait between reporting posts is a bit silly, although I have a feeling it's a vBulletin limitation that's there to actually stop spammers posting threads.

mike65

The tidal wave got me wondering about other sites like digitalspy and P.ie which I browse/use and which appear to have no problem stopping spam.

stovelid

Jesus Christ, Biggins, where did you get that skin.

Is it it called Psychedelic Sunflower?

:pac:

El Weirdo

Is it possible to ban the Ugg boot/dress/stream spammers from prison at the same time as their regular site ban?

The amount of spam in prison is ridiculous the last week or so.

Boards.ie: Danny

Patience guys, we are working on solutions and are very busy with other stuffs to boot

Sitting here fighting spam on Sunday afternoon/evening wasn't exactly how I'd planned to spend it myself, I'm well aware of the inconveniences for all involved.

Feel free to propose solutions in here though.

Gordon

Biggins, Danny, one of the new employees (and the tech team, as mentioned) is looking into options wrt spam. So, keep the ideas coming! A form of SpamPo has been mentioned in the past, whether or not we'll do this I'm not sure. But if we do, I'm happy to get stuck in to use my superpowers against spam as it really annoys me.

I think we've been hit by a small number of spammers to be honest. I don't want to say much openly, but a vast number of them have similar tell-tale signs (that can't necessarily be auto-blocked due to the rough-organic/precise-digital divide). This could be down to the purchase of spam software that does exist, but also down to sloppy blunderbust approach - fire everything at an object and something's bound to stick. They don't care if we catch on to the spam, if they've fired off enough with their automated software, just a couple of legit hits will pay them back.

mike65 wrote: »

The tidal wave got me wondering about other sites like digitalspy and P.ie which I browse/use and which appear to have no problem stopping spam.

Well, p.ie has maybe 20% of boards' traffic so that doesn't surprise me. A spammer will target the biggest audience possible, so we are a victim of our own success. It's because we're popular that we're getting targeted. Digital spy, this is slightly more popular than boards.ie as it's a UK site. It seems to have 5000 more posts per day than us though, which isn't that much. Maybe their site is smaller than other UK websites which is why they aren't targeted as much? Or maybe they have better measures in place - what do they do to combat spam mike?

Oh, and I have no idea how you browse boards on an electronic-custard screen Biggins!

pickarooney

How likely would it be to lead to civil war if normal users could downvote spam into invisibility?

Gordon

How exactly would that work?

pickarooney

An icon under a post that anyone could click to mark it as spam. If a post gets marked three (or five or whatever) times it's hidden/soft-deleted.

Boards.ie: Danny

pickarooney wrote: »

How likely would it be to lead to civil war if normal users could downvote spam into invisibility?

Be thankful you have an upvote

@Gordon: Its a post system whereby good posts get upvoted/thanked/liked (and may or may not move further up the thread [which wouldn't suit boards IMO]) and nonsense/spam/troll posts get downvoted. When they reach a threshold they do not appear by default, you have to view them explicitly like posts from ignored users and mods with deleted posts/threads.

Open for systematic abuse by users who hold grudges, and there's a few of them about

My name is URL

Would it be possible to restrict new members from posting links until they have a certain amount of posts?

Boards.ie: Danny

My name is URL wrote: »

Would it be possible to restrict new members from posting links until they have a certain amount of posts?

They'll post anyway, just without the hyperlinking. Or they'll get smart and post a few times to break the limit, and then go at it again.

The #1 fight mechanism is to improve our registration page I think. And then perhaps some content analysis on their post, flagging suspected spam and leaving it for mods/admins to approve (like Adverts does with ads).

Again, more suggestions are welcome:)

Gordon

Aye, I understand the vote concept, but how exactly do you see it working pickarooney? I would have guessed 3 votes and it flags and deletes, like Danny, but that's impractical imo. If it takes 3 votes and deletes a comment, it's prone to our vast userbase to quickly delete loads of comments and waste mod/admin time. Also, how does the flag system work exactly - does it flag a reported post? Hopefully it does so that an Admin can manually look and ban the user if spammer. If so, is it a separate button to the 'report post' button? If so, how do people choose which button to press? If not, does the 3rd report generate a 4th report to the Admin? Exactly how does this work?

MNIU - They don't always post links, they cotton on very fast to the thresholds that BB systems put into place to combat spam by posting apparent genuine content. And if we stop links (does this include images?) will this make genuine first posters confused with our systems and not want to post here?

My name is URL

Gordon wrote: »

MNIU - They don't always post links, they cotton on very fast to the thresholds that BB systems put into place to combat spam by posting apparent genuine content. And if we stop links (does this include images?) will this make genuine first posters confused with our systems and not want to post here?

Yeah, it probably would annoy some genuine new posters. The same will probably go for many possible anti-spam measures.

Are these spammers actual people or just bots? If it's the latter; perhaps something like this might help - http://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?t=135094

Biggins

Gordon wrote: »

...I have no idea how you browse boards on an electronic-custard screen Biggins!

stovelid wrote: »

Jesus Christ, Biggins, where did you get that skin.

Is it it called Psychedelic Sunflower?

:pac:

LOL :pac:

Its the Simsons theme available.
Guess I've just gotten used to it.

---

Glad to see the problem is still being currently looked at in various ways.
Keep up the good work.

MungBean

Gordon wrote: »

Aye, I understand the vote concept, but how exactly do you see it working pickarooney? I would have guessed 3 votes and it flags and deletes, like Danny, but that's impractical imo. If it takes 3 votes and deletes a comment, it's prone to our vast userbase to quickly delete loads of comments and waste mod/admin time. Also, how does the flag system work exactly - does it flag a reported post? Hopefully it does so that an Admin can manually look and ban the user if spammer. If so, is it a separate button to the 'report post' button? If so, how do people choose which button to press? If not, does the 3rd report generate a 4th report to the Admin? Exactly how does this work?

Doesnt have to be a down vote really, could just be another report option. Normal report post for mod attention and report post for spam and admin attention. More like a direct link from report to admin rather than an automatic spam system.

But you could have it that it needs 3+ reports before actually being reported to avoid single individuals abusing it. Could possibly have the post invisible until its dealt with by admin once its being reported by 3 users as spam.

Socialist_Pig

as regards the spam,its running the banlist!!

Ken.

Create a new forum. In the new forum publish the e-mail address(s) of the spammer's.

Free coke and hookers to the boardsie who spam's them back the most.

Just to clarify, I'm not joking. I'm 100% serious.

Gordon

MungBean wrote: »

Doesnt have to be a down vote really, could just be another report option. Normal report post for mod attention and report post for spam and admin attention. More like a direct link from report to admin rather than an automatic spam system.

But you could have it that it needs 3+ reports before actually being reported to avoid single individuals abusing it. Could possibly have the post invisible until its dealt with by admin once its being reported by 3 users as spam.

Seems like a lot of work to code when the spammers will just adapt, plus, all they want is for it to be viewable by one or two people, and they mass register thousands of accounts to do this.

Socialist_Pig wrote: »

as regards the spam,its running the banlist!!

That's just me and Zaph trying to outdo each other

lucyfur09 wrote: »

Create a new forum. In the new forum publish the e-mail address(s) of the spammer's.

Free coke and hookers to the boardsie who spam's them back the most.

Just to clarify, I'm not joking. I'm 100% serious.

They don't register with proper email addresses, they use one-use accounts. I've even seen some that can't possibly be email addresses, but that could have been a botched job by the spammer. This won't work.

Socialist_Pig

Gordon wrote: »

accounts to do this.

That's just me and Zaph trying to outdo each other

in fairness you are a bastard:Dcan you de-vowel my post?

Gordon

Disemvowel your post? You only get that special treatment in Prison!

Socialist_Pig

Gordon wrote: »

Disemvowel your post? You only get that special treatment in Prison!

before you go checking if im a re-reg i closed by previous account of 4 + years by choice:pac:

Gordon

Dude, I didn't even notice you were a new registration until you mentioned that!

alwaysadub

Gordon wrote: »

That's just me and Zaph trying to outdo each other

.

Did you wait to come back till Zaph was just catching up on you?
Smart.

Gordon

I was keeping an eye out..!

Zaph

Gordon wrote: »

That's just me and Zaph trying to outdo each other

I know when I'm beaten! It's like trying to keep up with a more relentless version of the Ruubot. I'm just content in the knowledge that I'm ahead of Beruthiel.

Zaph

alwaysadub wrote: »

Did you wait to come back till Zaph was just catching up on you?
Smart.

I think I got to within about 200 and that seemed to be the trigger.

Boards.ie: Danny

Zaph wrote: »

I know when I'm beaten! It's like trying to keep up with a more relentless version of the Ruubot. I'm just content in the knowledge that I'm ahead of Beruthiel.

She better watch out. A few more Sundays and I'll be beating her too

strobe

I've a suggestion, not sure how implementable it is. What if there was a separate check box (circle) thing in the 'report post' screen along with 'report post' and 'report sig'. A dedicated 'report spam' one. When people click this one it means that these posts (and these alone) can be altered/deleted and the user banned by any mod on the site rather than just mods of that particular forum. If that makes sense?

So when a post gets flagged as spam in AH or Celebrity and Showbiz, for example, a mod from The Nocturnal Forum or the Australia New Zealand forum would be able to check it and delete it, and visa versa.

A kind of interdepartmental co-op approach.

Biggins

strobe wrote: »

I've a suggestion, not sure how implementable it is. What if there was a separate check box (circle) thing in the 'report post' screen along with 'report post' and 'report sig'. A dedicated 'report spam' one. When people click this one it means that these posts (and these alone) can be altered/deleted and the user banned by any mod on the site rather than just mods of that particular forum. If that makes sense?

So when a post gets flagged as spam in AH or Celebrity and Showbiz, for example, a mod from The Nocturnal Forum or the Australia New Zealand forum would be able to check it and delete it, and visa versa.

A kind of interdepartmental co-op approach.

Simple idea but brilliant!
Good one Strobe.

28064212

Zaph wrote: »

I know when I'm beaten! It's like trying to keep up with a more relentless version of the Ruubot. I'm just content in the knowledge that I'm ahead of Beruthiel.

Boards.ie: Danny wrote: »

She better watch out. A few more Sundays and I'll be beating her too

Lol, I think she saw this thread first thing in the morning :pac:

OldGoat

strobe wrote: »

I've a suggestion, not sure how implementable it is. What if there was a separate check box (circle) thing in the 'report post' screen along with 'report post' and 'report sig'. A dedicated 'report spam' one. When people click this one it means that these posts (and these alone) can be altered/deleted and the user banned by any mod on the site rather than just mods of that particular forum. If that makes sense?

So when a post gets flagged as spam in AH or Celebrity and Showbiz, for example, a mod from The Nocturnal Forum or the Australia New Zealand forum would be able to check it and delete it, and visa versa.

A kind of interdepartmental co-op approach.

One problem with that is (speaking for myself here only) I don't look at other forums reported posts and I don't get notified of them. So if you report a spammer in Aardvark forum it's very unlikely I'll see it.
I would imagine it's the same for most other mods too.
If there were a dedicated Spanner (<---Ha, mistyping WIN) Spammer Report forum I'd happily go in there and kill stuff if I had the ability.

Ken.

OldGoat wrote: »

One problem with that is (speaking for myself here only) I don't look at other forums reported posts and I don't get notified of them. So if you report a spammer in Aardvark forum it's very unlikely I'll see it.
I would imagine it's the same for most other mods too.
If there were a dedicated Spanner (<---Ha, mistyping WIN) Spammer Report forum I'd happily go in there and kill stuff if I had the ability.

But if there was a button available to mods only that could nuke spam anywhere and for example you were browsing after hours and seen spam you could take care of it.
I think that's what strobe was suggesting. (sorry strobe if i'm mistaken)

Boards.ie: Paddy

I reckon that this is a job for Bayesian filter. The spam we're dealing with is mostly pretty obvious stuff. 'Watch this stream of an NFL game' etc etc.

There's no reason why we shouldn't be able to recognise it at source and either flag it as awaiting approval or just disallow it entirely. There will be some training and perhaps some false positives but I think we can solve at least 80% of the problem with this approach.

It also has the benefit of killing spam floods very quickly since once a message is identified as spam the bayes filter will stop the flood in it's tracks.

I'm still in proof of concept/effort estimation territory with this but hopefully early in the new year I'll be able to start rolling out something.

My name is URL

Socialist_Pig wrote: »

as regards the spam,its running the banlist!!

Gordon wrote: »

That's just me and Zaph trying to outdo each other

The competition is fiercer than anyone could have imagined! :pac:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056484052

Gordon

Deary me, even Mods aint safe from my flailing banhammer!

Gordon

Incidentally, I checked some figures on a certain type of spam that's quite obvious (I mean, really obvious that it's spam) and saw that there was quite a jump in October. Not that this will surprise anyone, though. The last time there was any spam of this exact sort was in October 2008 strangely, where we saw 131 spam accounts registered in a period of two days. The below is number of (one specific type of) registrations on a daily basis. I reckon this type of spam is possibly done by a small group of people, so could simply disappear as quickly as it came.



Also, these are registrations, not 'posters'. They are accounts that are sitting dormant, waiting to post some spam.

Overheal

Gordon wrote: »

Also, these are registrations, not 'posters'. They are accounts that are sitting dormant, waiting to post some spam.

Thats what I was thinking. I was noticing lots of new accoutns being created with zero postcounts and reckoned that had to be what was occuring.

Frankly, I would delete any account that hasn't made a post within the first 14 days of it's registration.

accoutns

...yep, had enough beer.

mecco

(more than) Similar to what strobe said

How about a groupsource approach to it? Anyone that has over 1000* posts (for example) can mark a post as spam. Once 3* people mark it, it gets made invisible until a suitable mod/supermod/admin/whateverYouCallEm decides to reinstate the post or ban the account.

Also, if you use the spam button 5* times and it isn't agreed with by the decision makers, then you lose the ability to report it. Might be necessary for the group warfare in forums like soccer, politics, AH , etc

*numbers are obviously just examples

EDIT: Having re-read what strobe said, it's exactly the same actually. I thought he was saying just mods can flag as spam, which might increase the workload. Ignore me people!!

Boards.ie: Paddy

We had our quarterly hack day yesterday and I decided to take a look at implementing this anti-spam technique:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_spam_filtering

It seems to have worked pretty well although we'll probably need to do some extra work on it so that it will scale properly(it was a hack day project after all!).

There will also be a period where we need mods and admins to help train the filter as we will need to be sure the false positive rate is extremely low.

So, all going well we will have a tech based solution for at least the more obvious spam, some time next year.

Victor

Paddy, just feed it the contents of this thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055283046

RoundyMooney

Agreed, the people who post there are doing their bit to keep this place as spam free as possible.

There's a couple of dozen people there with a hundred posts or up, and it's a fair wager that many people just report the post, without posting on that thread. I usually do the latter tbh, and it's only lately I've started coming across spam in any quantity. The radio forum got a good few there lately.

later12

What about infracting users who post responses in blatant spam threads (i.e. do my boobs look too big in this dress?; postcount 1), inadvertently bumping the thread and encouraging more views.

The less attention these spammers get the less they might be inclined to return.

FarmerGreen

A link in a first post of a new reg might be a bit of a give away.
Successive posts in a short time span from the same person, likewise.
Obvious contenders are Ugg boots and Football streaming, so if in doubt,
dont publish until its approved by a mod.
They seem to be a bit fixated on certain phrases, so that could be handy.