Your browser does not support JavaScript!

Detection of compromised accounts for online social networks based on a supervised analytical hierarchy process

Detection of compromised accounts for online social networks based on a supervised analytical hierarchy process

For access to this article, please select a purchase option:

Buy article PDF
(plus tax if applicable)
Buy Knowledge Pack
10 articles for $120.00
(plus taxes if applicable)

IET members benefit from discounts to all IET publications and free access to E&T Magazine. If you are an IET member, log in to your account and the discounts will automatically be applied.

Learn more about IET membership 

Recommend Title Publication to library

You must fill out fields marked with: *

Librarian details
Your details
Why are you recommending this title?
Select reason:
IET Information Security — Recommend this title to your library

Thank you

Your recommendation has been sent to your librarian.

In recent years, the security of online social networks (OSNs) has become an issue of widespread concern. Searching and detecting compromised accounts in OSNs is crucial for ensuring the security of OSN platforms. In this study, the authors proposed a new method of detecting compromised accounts based on a supervised analytical hierarchy process (SAHP). First, they considered the expression habits of a user to present the profile features of a user more comprehensively than previous research. Next, the information gain ratio was combined with the analytical hierarchy process algorithm to calculate the weight of each feature. Finally, a detection decision was taken, and varying thresholds were used to obtain different detection results. The experimental results showed that the accuracy and precision of the SAHP were 81.7 and 96.4%, respectively. The results indicated that the new method improved upon the previously established COMPA (detecting compromised accounts on social networks) methods for detecting compromised accounts.


    1. 1)
      • 35. Varol, O., Ferrara, E., Davis, C.A., et al: ‘Online human-bot interactions: detection, estimation, and characterization’, arXiv, 2017, 4.
    2. 2)
      • 12. Lee, K., Caverlee, J., Webb, S.: ‘Uncovering social spammers: social honeypots + machine learning’. Int. ACM SIGIR Conf. on Research & Development in Information Retrieval, ACM, Geneva, Switzerland, August 2010, pp. 435442.
    3. 3)
      • 5. Gao, H., Hu, J., Wilson, C., et al: ‘Detecting and characterizing social spam campaigns’. ACM Conf. on Computer and Communications Security, ACM, Chicago, IL, USA, January 2010, pp. 681683.
    4. 4)
      • 21. Hu, X., Tang, J., Gao, H., et al: ‘Social spammer detection with sentiment information’. IEEE Int. Conf. on Data Mining, Lisbon, Portugal, December 2014, pp. 180189.
    5. 5)
      • 9. Yu, H., Shi, C., Kaminsky, M., et al: ‘DSybil: optimal sybil-resistance for recommendation systems’. Security and Privacy, 2009 30th IEEE Symp. on Security and Privacy, Oakland, CA, USA, May 2009, pp. 283298.
    6. 6)
      • 1. Palomar, E., González-Manzano, L., Alcaide, A., et al: ‘Implementing a privacy-enhanced attribute-based credential system for online social networks with co-ownership management’, IET Inf. Sec., 2016, 10, (2), pp. 6068.
    7. 7)
      • 22. Fakhraei, S., Foulds, J., Shashanka, M., et al: ‘Collective spammer detection in evolving multi-relational social networks’. ACM SIGKDD Int. Conf. on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, ACM, Sydney, Australia, August 2015, pp. 17691778.
    8. 8)
      • 30. Yang, C., Harkreader, R., Gu, G.: ‘Die free or live hard? Empirical evaluation and new design for fighting evolving twitter spammers’. Symp. on Recent Advances in Intrusion Detection (RAID), Menlo Park, USA, September 2011, pp. 318337.
    9. 9)
      • 36. Beck, J., Dia, B.M., Espath, L., et al: ‘Fast Bayesian experimental design: Laplace-based importance sampling for the expected information gain’, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 2018, 334, pp. 523553.
    10. 10)
      • 15. Chao, M.Z., Paxson, V: ‘Detecting and analysing automated activity on twitter’. Passive and Active Measurement Int. Conf., PAM 2011, Atlanta, GA, USA, March 2011, pp. 102111.
    11. 11)
      • 3. Spam and phishing in 2017’,, accessed February 2018.
    12. 12)
      • 4. Knight, W.: ‘Caught in the net [internet and e-mail security issues]’, IEE Rev., 2005, 51, (7), pp. 2630.
    13. 13)
      • 29. Stringhini, G., Kruegel, C., Vigna, G.: ‘Detecting spammers on social networks’. Annual Computer Security Applications Conf. (ACSAC), Austin, USA, December 2010, pp. 19.
    14. 14)
      • 18. Li, H., Achim, A., Bull, D.: ‘Unsupervised video anomaly detection using feature clustering’, IET Signal Process., 2012, 6, (5), pp. 521533.
    15. 15)
      • 14. Amleshwaram, A., Reddy, N., Yadav, S., et al: ‘CATS: characterizing automation of twitter spammers’. Int. Conf. on Communication Systems & Networks, Riva del Garda, Italy, January 2013, pp. 110.
    16. 16)
      • 13. Chu, Z., Gianvecchio, S., Wang, H., et al: ‘Detecting automation of twitter accounts: are you a human, bot, or cyborg?’, IEEE Trans. Dependable Secure Comput., 2012, 9, (6), pp. 811824.
    17. 17)
      • 24. Viswanath, B., Bashir, M.A., Crovella, M., et al: ‘Towards detecting anomalous user behaviour in online social networks’. 23rd {USENIX} Security Symp. ({USENIX} Security 14), San Diego, CA, USA, August 2014, pp. 223238.
    18. 18)
      • 7. Karimi, H., Vandam, C., Ye, L., et al: ‘End-to-End compromised account detection’. 2018 IEEE/ACM Int. Conf. on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM), IEEE Computer Society, Barcelona, Spain, August 2018, pp. 314321.
    19. 19)
      • 31. Cai, Z., Jermaine, C.: ‘The latent community model for detecting sybils in social networks’. Symp. on Network and Distributed System Security (NDSS), San Diego, USA, February 2012.
    20. 20)
      • 16. Yean, C.J., Yee, T.C., Tan, I.K.T.: ‘Relative trust management model for twitter: an Analytic hierarchy process approach’. Int. Conf. on Frontiers of Communications, Networks and Applications, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, September 2014, pp. 16.
    21. 21)
      • 34. Dai, J., Xu, Q.: ‘Attribute selection based on information gain ratio in fuzzy rough set theory with application to tumour classification’, Appl. Soft Comput. J., 2013, 13, (1), pp. 211221.
    22. 22)
      • 25. Nauta, M.: ‘Detecting hacked twitter accounts by examining behavioural change using twitter metadata’. Proc. of the 25th Twente Student Conf. on IT, Enschede, Netherlands, 2016.
    23. 23)
      • 6. Benevenuto, F., Rodrigues, T.: ‘Identifying video spammers in online social networks’. Int. Workshop on Airweb, Beijing, People's Republic of China, 2008, pp. 4552.
    24. 24)
      • 32. Song, J., Lee, S., Kim, J.: ‘Spam filtering in twitter using sender-receiver relationship’. Symp. on Recent Advances in Intrusion Detection (RAID), Menlo Park, USA, September 2011, pp. 301317.
    25. 25)
      • 19. Fire, M., Katz, G., Elovici, Y.: ‘Strangers intrusion detection - detecting spammers and fake profiles in social networks based on topology anomalies’, Comput. Methods Biomech. Biomed. Eng., 2012, 11, (11), pp. 8384.
    26. 26)
      • 27. Vandam, C., Tan, P.N., Tang, J., et al: ‘CADET: A multi-view learning framework for compromised account detection on twitter’. 2018 IEEE/ACM Int. Conf. on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM), IEEE Computer Society, Barcelona, Spain, August 2018, pp. 417478.
    27. 27)
      • 28. Grier, C., Thomas, K., Paxson, V., et al: ‘@Spam: the underground on 140 characters or less’. ACM Conf. on Computer and Communications Security (CCS), Chicago, USA, October 2010, pp. 2737.
    28. 28)
      • 8. Egele, M., Stringhini, G., Kruegel, C., et al: ‘Compa: detecting compromised accounts on social networks’, NDSS The Internet Society, February 2013.
    29. 29)
      • 20. Martinez-Romo, J., Araujo, L.: ‘Detecting malicious tweets in trending topics using a statistical analysis of language’, Expert Syst Appl, 2013, 40, (8), pp. 29923000.
    30. 30)
      • 23. Sedhai, S., Sun, A.: ‘HSpam14: A collection of 14 million tweets for hashtag-oriented spam research’. SIGIR, Santiago, Chile, August 2015, pp. 223232.
    31. 31)
      • 17. Pal, R., Mukherjee, A., Mitra, P., et al: ‘Modelling visual saliency using degree centrality’, IET Comput. Vis., 2010, 4, (3), pp. 218229.
    32. 32)
      • 33. Yigit, T., Isik, A.H., Ince, M.: ‘Web-based learning object selection software using analytical hierarchy process’, IET Softw., 2014, 8, (4), pp. 174183.
    33. 33)
      • 11. Mrugala, K., Tuptuk, N., Hailes, S.: ‘Evolving attackers against wireless sensor networks using genetic programming’, IET Wirel. Sensor Syst., 2017, 7, (4), pp. 113122.
    34. 34)
      • 26. Trang, D., Johansson, F., Rosell, M.: ‘Evaluating algorithms for detection of compromised social Media user accounts’. Network Intelligence Conf., Karlskrona, Sweden, September 2015, pp. 7582.
    35. 35)
      • 2. Smart Insights - Global social media research summary’,, accessed February 2019.
    36. 36)
      • 10. Benevenuto, F., Magno, G., Rodrigues, T., et al: ‘Detecting spammers on twitter’. Seventh Annual Collaboration, Electronic Messaging, Anti Abuse and Spam Conf., Washington, US, July 2010, pp. 1220.

Related content

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address