Ways Google is shaking the security world

1 2 Page 2
Page 2 of 2

What it is: The act of manipulating pay-per-click advertising. Perpetrators inflate the number of people who have legitimately clicked an online ad, either to make money for themselves or to bleed a competitor's advertising budget.

How it works: With pay-per-click advertising, an advertiser pays each time someone clicks an ad hosted on a website. Google, Yahoo and other search engine companies make their money by selling advertisers the right to have their text-only ads appear when someone searches for a particular keyword. There are two ways to manipulate pay-per-click advertising: competitor click fraud and network click fraud.

First, the competitor variety: Let's suppose a company that sells life insurance wants to advertise on Google. The company might bid for and win rights to the phrase "life insurance". Then, when someone runs a Google search for that exact phrase, the company's ad appears next to the search results as a sponsored link. (How close to the top of the list depends on both the price per click and the superpowered algorithms that constitute Google's secret sauce.) Each time someone clicks the sponsored link, Life Insurance Co. pays the agreed-upon price­ to Google -- say $5. With competitor click fraud, an unscrupulous competitor tries to run up Life Insurance Co.'s advertising bill by clicking the link. A lot.

Network click fraud, on the other hand, cashes in on the fact that Google isn't the only company that hosts Google advertising. Suppose someone has a blog about insurance. She can sign up as a Google advertising affiliate and have ads for insurance run on her site. If Life Insurance Co. is paying Google $5 per click, Ms. Insurance Blogger might pocket $1 for each click her site generates. Network click fraud is when an affiliate generates fraudulent traffic in order to boost its revenue.

Google insists it is trying to keep the problem in check. Shuman Ghosmajumder, product manager for trust and safety at Google, says the company monitors for all kinds of what it dubs "invalid clicks," and that it routinely issues refunds to advertisers and closes down fraudulent affiliates. In 2005, Google even won a lawsuit against an affiliate it charged with click fraud. But some advertisers say that Google isn't doing enough to prevent and monitor for fraud because it profits from the fraud. Google faces a class-action lawsuit led by AIT, a Web-hosting company, and is in the midst of reaching a $90 million settlement with Lane's Gifts & Collectibles, a mail-order store. (At press time, the proposed settlement was before a judge.)

Why it matters: Click fraud is following a trajectory that will be familiar to any CSO, and it's a telling example of how sophisticated and profitable electronic crime has become. First, the good guys started looking at server logs to find IP addresses in patterns that indicated fraud. The bad guys responded by creating automated bots that simulated different IP addresses and had varying time stamps. Then, the good guys improved their click-fraud detection tools, with a cottage industry sprouting up that specializes in helping online advertisers monitor for fraud. Queue up "click farms," where the bad guys hire people in other countries to do the clicking in a way that looks more realistic. "It's a cat-and-mouse game," says Chris Sherman, executive editor of SearchEngine-Watch.com.

What to do: The first step is to put tracking measures in place. In a recent survey done by the Search Engine Marketing Professional Organization (Sempo), a trade group, 42% of respondents said they had been victims of click fraud, but nearly one-third of respondents said they weren't actively tracking fraud. "The way you monitor it is you look for something that doesn't make sense," explains Kevin Lee, chair of the group's research committee. "If you spent $100 every day last week, and then this week you spent $130 every day and didn't get any more conversions, or whatever your success metrics are," then you might have a problem, he says.

"Usually the engines will catch the obvious fraud, and they won't even bill you for it," Lee continues. But if you have a larger problem, you may need to gather information about why you believe some of the clicks are fraudulent and ask the company hosting the ads for a refund. Ghosmajumder says Google devotes significant resources to a team of investigators who proactively monitor for fraud and also do research about possible fraud reported by advertisers. Google also has engineers working on technical means to identify invalid clicks. According to the Sempo survey, 78% of advertisers that have been victims of click fraud have received credit from a paid search provider, and 40% of the time it was based on their request.

The question, of course, is whether to bother making a request. Who better than the CSO to help the advertising department figure out whether it would cost more for the company to tamp down on the problem or simply to pay for the fraud?

Shock waves: 2 (moderate). For companies using pay-per-click, this is one to watch. Click fraud has the potential to dramatically reduce the effectiveness of online advertising. But with more than 90 percent of Google's revenue coming from advertising, the company has a serious incentive to keep the problem in check so that advertisers don't lose faith in the pay-per-click model.

5. Google Desktop

What it is: A free tool offered by Google that allows users to quickly search the contents of their hard drives. (Similar tools are offered by MSN, Yahoo and others.) The latest version can also be used to share files between computers.

How it works: After the user downloads the tool, it works in the background to index everything on his hard drive, much like Google indexes the Web. All fixed drives are indexed by default, but the user can specify folders to exclude or extra drives to add. The software can be set to return results on text files, spreadsheets, PDFs, Web history, e-mail and more. Once the indexing is done, when the user runs a Google search, items from his own computer appear at the top of the results. Alternately, he can use the tool by itself by opening it on his desktop; he doesn't even need to be connected to the Web.

A new version also has a controversial feature that allows a user to share files between computers. With this setting enabled, Google indexes the files on one computer, pulls them up on its servers, then pushes them down onto another computer (which is similarly configured with the software). Then, a search done on one computer returns results from both.

Why it matters: It's easy to see why people get all prickly about this one. Once the tool is installed and files are indexed, a snoop needs only a coffee break, rather than a lunch hour, to search someone's hard drive for files about, say, Bob Jones's salary. To make matters worse, freewheeling users may not pay attention or understand how to make sure that sensitive documents aren't indexed.

To its credit, Google has tried to improve the standard configuration of the tool. An early version automatically returned results with password-protected files and secure HTTP pages; now, those types of files aren't indexed unless the user changes a setting. "People screamed about that, and Google changed it very quickly," SearchEngineWatch.com's Sherman says. Even so, setting up appropriate exclusions can get complicated. Some companies -- as well as many individuals who are concerned about their personal privacy -- are also leery of making so much information available to Google.

The new Search Across Computers feature only heightens these concerns. With this feature, Google says, copies of users' personal files can sit on Google's servers for up to 30 days. Google downplays this time frame. Says Matthew Glotzbach, product manager for Google Enterprise, "If both of your computers are on and syncing, [the files are on Google's servers] only a matter of minutes"--the time it takes for Google to pull up the information and push it back down onto the second computer.

But having the information saved on Google's servers at all is troubling, given that search engine companies are routinely subpoenaed by prosecutors. (Google's privacy policy states: "We may also share information with third parties in limited circumstances, including when complying with legal process, preventing fraud or imminent harm, and ensuring the security of our network and services.") In one especially charged case, Google fought a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice, which wanted search results to help analyze its enforcement of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. A judge reduced the amount of information Google must turn over, and the ensuing debate raised awareness about the amount (and nature) of information that Google has in its stores.

The fact that the software is relatively untested raises additional questions. Last November, an Israeli researcher reported that he had found a vulnerability in Microsoft Internet Explorer that allowed him to illicitly access information in Google Desktop. Google fixed the problem, but legitimate concerns linger. "Anytime you install software from a third party directly on a hard drive of a particular machine, you're potentially opening up holes in the security of that machine," says Matt Brown, a Forrester senior analyst.

What to do: It's time to catch up -- something that Brown says is especially important given the fact that Sarbanes-Oxley requires companies to keep tabs on where and how long their information is retained. Consider whether your users actually need desktop search for their jobs. If they do, you'll want to have a hand in how it's configured and used. (Bonus points go to the CSO who makes sure that users understand the privacy implications of all these tools, beyond just telling them to read the privacy policy.)

At the FDA, Stine is in the early stages of looking at the tool. "There have been some requests [for desktop search] here and there, but there hasn't been a user outcry," he says. If (or when) there comes a point when a lot of users have a legitimate need for desktop search, Stine says he'll look carefully at how the technology identifies, indexes and presents information. "We'd have to ensure that we still maintain complete control -- at least as complete as possible -- over the information," he says.

Fortunately, he'd have plenty of options. Several companies have enterprise desktop search tools that help CISOs keep tabs on the information. Google Desktop 3 for Enterprise, currently in beta, allows administrators to completely disable features such as the Search Across Computers feature. Google says it is working make future versions of this tool easier to manage. "I don't think we anticipated such a concerned or negative response," Glotzbach says. "We've taken to heart the feedback on the Search Across Computers feature, especially in the enterprise context, and we're actively working on making it even easier for the companies to use" in a secure manner, he says.

X1 Technologies, which has partnered with Yahoo, offers a competing enterprise search tool that Brown says is more manageable from an IT perspective. "Part of the problem with these technologies is they get announced and people immediately start downloading," Brown says. "It takes companies a little while to catch on to what's happening."

Shock waves: 4 (highest). Desktop search is an untested technology with a wide potential for misuse. If your users don't need it, don't let them use it; if they do need it, consider enterprise tools that can be centrally managed and controlled.

Future Shocks

Google has shaken us, by holding up a mirror and forcing us to look at what we've put online. "Google provides a lot of capability that can do you harm as well as providing you search capabilities," Winkler says. "What makes it its strength makes it its danger."

The future will make search technology only more dangerous. Bell Canada's Garigue points out that search technology is still in its very infancy, barely scratching the surface of what he calls the shallow Web. "The shallow Web is everything that's public on Web servers," he says. "The deep Web is what's hidden inside databases." From the Library of Congress to Lexis-Nexis' legal and news archives, to Medline's medical databases, the great bulk of information that people access online is still available only to subscribers, not to Google. "Google is the first generation of tools," Garigue says. As those tools get more sophisticated, the shock waves will only grow stronger.

This story, "Ways Google is shaking the security world" was originally published by CSO.

Copyright © 2006 IDG Communications, Inc.

1 2 Page 2
Page 2 of 2
9 steps to lock down corporate browsers
  
Shop Tech Products at Amazon