Measuring the Perpetrators and Funders of Typosquatting

  • Tyler Moore
  • Benjamin Edelman
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6052)


We describe a method for identifying “typosquatting”, the intentional registration of misspellings of popular website addresses. We estimate that at least 938 000 typosquatting domains target the top 3 264 .com sites, and we crawl more than 285 000 of these domains to analyze their revenue sources. We find that 80% are supported by pay-per-click ads, often advertising the correctly spelled domain and its competitors. Another 20% include static redirection to other sites. We present an automated technique that uncovered 75 otherwise legitimate websites which benefited from direct links from thousands of misspellings of competing websites. Using regression analysis, we find that websites in categories with higher pay-per-click ad prices face more typosquatting registrations, indicating that ad platforms such as Google AdWords exacerbate typosquatting. However, our investigations also confirm the feasibility of significantly reducing typosquatting. We find that typosquatting is highly concentrated: Of typo domains showing Google ads, 63% use one of five advertising IDs, and some large name servers host typosquatting domains as much as four times as often as the web as a whole.


Levenshtein Distance Daily Visitor Popular Site Parking Site Trademark Owner 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Brand Owners Could Have Prevented $220 Millio. In: Domain Name Recovery By Spending $1 Million. Corporation Service Company (August 24, 2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Damerau, F.J.: A Technique for Computer Detection and Correction of Spelling Errors. Communications of the ACM 7(3), 171–176 (1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Edelman, B.: Domains Reregistered for Distribution of Unrelated Content: A Case Study of Tina’s Free Live Webcam (2002),
  4. 4.
    Edelman, B.: How Google and Its Partners Inflate Measured Conversion Rates and Increase Advertisers’ Costs (2009),
  5. 5.
    Edelman, B.: Large-Scale Registration of Domains with Typographical Errors (2003),
  6. 6.
    Levenshtein, V.I.: Binary Codes Capable of Correcting Deletions, Insertions, and Reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady (1966)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lands’ End, Inc. v. Eric Remy, et al, W.D.Wis (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    MTV Networks v. Curry, 867 F.Supp. 202. SDNY (1994)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    The Neiman Marcus Group Inc., et al., v. Dotster Inc., et al, W.D.Wa (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Perez, M.: Verizon wins $33 Million In Cybersquatting Case. Information Week (December 30, 2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vulcan Golf, LLC, et al., v. Google, Inc., et al. N.D.Ill. Case No 1:2007cv03371Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wang, Y., Beck, D., Wang, J., Verbowski, C., Daniels, B.: Strider Typo-Patrol: Discovery and Analysis of Systematic Typo-Squatting. In: 2nd USENIX Workshop on Steps to Reducing Unwanted Traffic on the Internet (SRUTI) (July 2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tyler Moore
    • 1
  • Benjamin Edelman
    • 2
  1. 1.Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences 
  2. 2.Harvard Business School 

Personalised recommendations