Skip to content

Comment on Discovered: Botnet Costing Display Advertisers over $6,000,000 per Monthparent

Comments

They appear to have coloured states based on the number of infected hosts in such states. Since states in the northeast are generally smaller (i.e. less populous) than, say, California, we can assume that there are also fewer people getting infected there.

E.g., there are approx. 1e6 people in Maine and 4e7 people in California. If you assume 1e2 infected hosts in Maine (0-99) and 3e4 in California (>1e4, 1.2e5 in total), you get an infection rate in California of about 7.5 that in Maine.

Given the very coarse graining in the data source, such a factor can either be dismissed as statistical fluctuation or you could try to explain it using, for example, an infection model that favours geographical proximity, such as one based on Facebook friends. Furthermore, it might well be that internet connectivity is better in California than it is in Maine and the bot prefers hosts with high uplink rates. I don’t know :)

Edit: We don’t know what websites were targeted, but maybe they ran ads that would prefer users from the southwest for some reason?

Ah, didn't realize they weren't weighted. Still, it'd be interesting to see if the apparent bias to the southwest is statistically significant.

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.