On the heels of the widespread adoption of web services such as social networks and URL shorteners, scams, phishing, and malware have become regular threats. Despite extensive research, email-based spam filtering techniques generally fall short for protecting other web services. To better address this need, we present Monarch, a real-time system that crawls URLs as they are submitted to web services and determines whether the URLs direct to spam. We evaluate the viability of Monarch and the fundamental challenges that arise due to the diversity of web service spam. We show that Monarch can provide accurate, real-time protection, but that the underlying characteristics of spam do not generalize across web services. In particular, we find that spam targeting email qualitatively differs in significant ways from spam campaigns targeting Twitter. We explore the distinctions between email and Twitter spam, including the abuse of public web hosting and redirector services. Finally, we demonstrate Monarch's scalability, showing our system could protect a service such as Twitterwhich needs to process 15 million URLs/day-for a bit under $800/day.

Malware researchers rely on the observation of malicious code in execution to collect datasets for a wide array of experiments, including generation of detection models, study of longitudinal behavior, and validation of prior research. For such research to reflect prudent science, the work needs to address a number of concerns relating to the correct and representative use of the datasets, presentation of methodology in a fashion sufficiently transparent to enable reproducibility, and due consideration of the need not to harm others.In this paper we study the methodological rigor and prudence in 36 academic publications from 2006-2011 that rely on malware execution. 40% of these papers appeared in the 6 highest-ranked academic security conferences. We find frequent shortcomings, including problematic assumptions regarding the use of execution-driven datasets (25% of the papers), absence of description of security precautions taken during experiments (71% of the articles), and oftentimes insufficient description of the experimental setup. Deficiencies occur in top-tier venues and elsewhere alike, highlighting a need for the community to improve its handling of malware datasets. In the hope of aiding authors, reviewers, and readers, we frame guidelines regarding transparency, realism, correctness, and safety for collecting and using malware datasets.

No abstract