1. Presented by: Alex Misstear Spam Filtering An Artificial Intelligence Showcase

2. What is Spam Messages sent indiscriminately to a large number of recipients We all hate it Term attributed to a Monty Python skit Legitimate messages sometimes referred to as “ham”.

3. History of Spam First recorded case in 1978 An ad created by Digital Equipment Corporation Sent to a few hundred over ARPANET Instant negative feedback but did result in some sales Term first used to describe an accidental post caused by a bug to a USENET newsgroup in 1993 Considered humorous at the time First major use as a business practice in 1994

4. Spam Email Everywhere Spam estimations (Symantec): January 2013: 64.1% December 2012: 70.6% July 2012: 67.6% January 2012: 69.0% At times these figures can be > 80%

5. Filtering Techniques Rule based Prone to false positives E.g.: The word mortgage appears in a lot of spam but also some very important ham. Checksum Filtering Easily circumvented by senders Insert random characters to disrupt the hash Blacklisting/whitelisting Prone to complications for the recipient Bayesian Filtering Low false positives Many more…

6. Bayesian Spam Filtering Particular chunks of text occur often in spam while seldom in ham messages. First introduced in 1996 Improved upon by Paul Graham in 2002 Not just a simple text classification problem. Obscure characters/HTML content is seen. leetspeak: v1agra IP addresses: (127.0.0.1) Empty HTML comments:

7. Concept Based on the idea that the probability of a message being spam is related to the previous occurrences of words in the message. Each word can be used to help calculate this probability. Maintain a database of words to probabilities Probability the word appears in spam Probability the word appears in ham

8. Bayes Theorem

9. Biased & Unbiased Filtering

10. Example

11. Applying Bayes Theorem Break down messages into words as they arrive. Single out the most interesting/relevant words (those with the greatest spam probability in the database). Generate the spamicity for each. Combine all the spamicities If the overall spamicity is greater than a certain threshold the message is marked as spam

12. Combining Probabilities

13. Results Statistics vary based on the individual/message received Spam detection rates of 99.7% are common 0.03% of false positives Calculating spamicity for phrases has been shown to improve these numbers slightly Requires an initial learning period with ham/spam classification feedback to build the database Typically a couple weeks

14. Bayesian Poisoning Spammers send messages with random, seemingly legitimate words to degrade the filters Future spam messages may then get through later on Can also increase the false positive rate Difficult for the attacker to train the filter if no feedback is given (critical to protection) Can be prevented with periodic retraining

15. Conclusion Bayesian Filtering considered the best Adaptive solution Can look at more than just the message body Inherently multilingual Individuals/corporations can have their own filter which learns from their message behavior Difficult to circumvent for attackers Requires an initial learning period

16. References http://www.paulgraham.com/spam.html http://www.paulgraham.com/better.html http://www.gfi.com/whitepapers/why-bayesian- filtering.pdf http://www.gfi.com/whitepapers/why-bayesian- filtering.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_spam_filtering http://www.symantec.com/theme.jsp?themeid=state_of_s pam http://www.symantec.com/theme.jsp?themeid=state_of_s pam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-spam_techniques ftp://ftp.research.microsoft.com/users/joshuago/papers- 2005/125.pdf ftp://ftp.research.microsoft.com/users/joshuago/papers- 2005/125.pdf

17. Questions?