Analysis of the Malicious Bots Market
Maxim Kolomeets, Andrey Chechulin
St. Petersburg Federal Research Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Abstract—Social media bots can pose a serious threat by
manipulating public opinion. Attempts to detect bots on social
networks have resulted in bots becoming more sophisticated. A
wide variety of types of bots has appeared, which must be taken
into account when developing methods for detecting them. In
this paper, we present the classiﬁcation of the types of bots,
which we made after analyzing the offers from bot traders
in the market. We studied 1657 offers from 7 companies for
5 social networks: VKontakte, Instagram, Telegram, YouTube,
and TikTok. Based on this information and descriptions from
bot-traders, we are aggregating the types of bots and their key
features. We also perform price analysis for different types of
bots for the Russian Internet segment. The results show that
the main pricing factors are bot action and bot quality. At the
same time for different social networks, they affect pricing in
different ways. Also, for messengers and social networks in which
recommendation algorithms take into account complex actions
more strongly, there is a tendency for higher quality bots to
perform more complex actions. While in other social networks,
the complexity of the action and the quality of bots are not
correlating. The results of this study can be useful for developers
of tools for detecting bots and determining the cost of an attack.
Social networks have changed the internet and our society.
As platforms for information exchange, they have brought the
whole world together so much that even a distant event is
perceived as something personal. According to the latest polls
, , a signiﬁcant part of society draws information from
social networks, preferring them to television, newspapers, and
other classical media. This trend is growing from year to year
 and is not expected to reverse. Along with the popularity,
the trust in social networks as a source of information is
growing too. This phenomenon can be easily explained by the
”all-permeability” and ”speed of distribution” of information.
Anyone with a smartphone can become a source of informa-
tion at the click of a camera while disseminating information
takes minutes. This is an opportunity to receive news ﬁrst-
hand, bypassing media companies, newspaper editors, and
Social media has inﬂuenced our world and the Internet
for the better by making it more transparent. But the same
information dissemination mechanisms can be used to manip-
ulate opinion, spread misinformation , spread rumors and
conspiracy theories , create a fake reputation, fraud, and
even suppress political competitors , . The world has
not yet developed universal mechanisms for the dissemination
and identiﬁcation of malicious information on social networks.
Damage can be done to anyone who acts on a social network
platform: social media, a third-party company, civil society, or
At the same time, social networks have a simple, built-
in, and self-organizing defense mechanism – institutional
reputation, which is based on social network metrics (views,
likes, etc.). Low-trust accounts cannot effectively disseminate
information. Therefore, to effectively spread misinformation,
the attacker either needs to enlist the support of someone with
a huge following (inﬂuencer) or use bots to simulate metrics
of social networks.
That’s why bot detection on social networks is one of the
most requested security functions from commercial companies
and law enforcement agencies.
Existing bot detection approaches are based on machine
learning , . Machine learning models are trained on the
features that are extracted from bots and real users: informa-
tion from a proﬁle; graph structures of friends; written texts;
uploaded photos and videos; etc. As a result, such bot detection
methods are highly dependent on the quality of the training
datasets. After all, different bots can use different strategies for
generating features. Therefore, for the development of high-
quality bot detection models, the training dataset must include
a variety of bot types.
Attempts to perform typing of bots have been made earlier.
Bot typing has already been done in several papers for bot-
detection . For example, in paper  described strategies
for controlling bots by software, human and hybrid approach.
Bots classiﬁcation by types of threats is presented in . The
analysis of bot prices is well presented in the report .
In this paper, we propose the classiﬁcation of bots through
the market. We have collected information on 1657 offers of
bot services from 7 companies for 5 social networks. Based
on this information and descriptions from bot-traders, we are
aggregating the types of bots and their key features. We also
perform price analysis for different types of bots.
Thus, the goal of the paper is to build a classiﬁcation
of bot types by investigating offers from bot-traders. This
classiﬁcation will be useful for understanding the diversity of
bots, which can be useful for obtaining high-quality training
The paper consists of the following sections. In Classiﬁca-
tion of bots threats we describe the types of threats that bots
can pose. In Classiﬁcation bot types we describe the types of
bots, their characteristics, and strategies for bot creation and
bot management. In Methodology of data collection, pricing
analysis and implementation we’ll explore bot pricing for 5
social networks: VKontakte, Instagram, Telegram, YouTube
and TikTok. In Discussion we discuss the correlations of bot
characteristics. In Conclusion we summarizing results and
presenting plans for future work.
The proposed bots threats and bots types we built based on
papers , , , and (to a greater extent) based on the
analysis of the bot market, which we performed ourselves.
II. CL AS SI FIC ATIO N OF B OTS T HR EATS
As part of our research, we consider bots that pose security
threats. Of course, not all bots are malicious. For example,
bots that provide weather forecasts, generate memes, provide
store services and so on are harmless.
In this paper, we only consider malicious bots. To do this,
we identify a malicious bot through the types of threats.
There are many threats on social media, including password
leaks, use of private data by third-party companies, compro-
mise of personal correspondence, etc. But in this paper, we
focus only on those threats that can be implemented using
bots. We distinguish 3 classes of threats:
1) Fraud – deceiving social media users to get money or
private information. Fraud occurs through correspon-
dence with the user. For example, bots can collect private
photos on dating services for blackmail, or the data
needed to bypass the bank and mail security systems
based on security questions. If such bots have AI and
can automatically conduct conversations, this will cause
serious damage to tens of thousands of users. Even if
the success rate is low, they can fraud a large number
of people simply by scaling the botnet.
2) Promotion of harmful or censored information – pro-
paganda of information that was prohibited by social
network platform (heat speech, trolling, etc.) or was
prohibited by the government (terrorism, incitement to
violence, etc.) Depending on the goal of the attacker
it can be integrity – if the goal is to exacerbate the
conﬂict and violate the integrity of the community
or accessibility – if the goal is to drown alternative
viewpoints with spam.
3) Rating manipulation – overestimating the rating to in-
crease user conﬁdence. For this, social network metrics
are faked - the number of likes, friends, reviews, etc.
The implementation of these threats by bots requires one
key quality from them - malicious bots pretend to be real
people because it is a key component of user trust.
A person will not believe a fraudster if the account does
not look like a real person. Real users will be skeptical about
rumors spread by bots. And, of course, the customer will be
suspicious of a store that has a lot of positive reviews from
As we will show below, the similarity of a bot with a real
person is the main property that the bots management is aimed
at. Besides, the similarity of a bot to a real person is one of
the main criteria for their pricing.
The complexity of creating bots that look like real people, as
well as the difference in strategies for creating and managing
them, creates many types of bots. We propose an analysis of
the bot market, the understanding of which is necessary for
people who are developing tools for detecting them.
III. CLA SS IFI CATI ON O F BOT S TY PE S
To classify bots by type, we analyzed a variety of sites that
trade bots. Bot traders provide 2 options – buy an account and
manage the bot yourself, or rent an account (buy bot activity)
and the bot trader will perform the necessary actions.
We analyzed offers from 7 bot trader companies that provide
a bot rental service and 1 forum where bots are sold. The
companies were selected from the Russian-speaking segment
of the Internet, as we believe that this market looks more
saturated. We analyzed rental offers on 5 platforms: VKon-
takte, Instagram, Telegram, YouTube, and TikTok. We analyze
account sales only for one platform: Vkontakte (because there
is not enough sales data on other platforms compared to the
number of rental offers). A total of 1,657 rental offers and 45
sales offers were studied. We also bought 9 offers to analyze
bot metrics. More information about the dataset is available
on its page .
We propose several classiﬁcation systems that will describe
the whole variety of commercial offers.
A. Characteristics of malicious bots
Each bot trader deﬁnes the bot classes differently over
Bot stores introduced their parameter systems, many of
which differed terminologically. For example, one store had
a quality scale with terms such as: start, premium+, ultima,
etc; and another store: low, high, medium; and the third store:
standard, good, best. Some stores determined the speed of
bots’ actions in quantitative form, other stores - in qualitative,
and third stores did not write about speed.
But the bot traders published detailed instructions on their
sites on what these or those characteristics of bots mean. We
have aggregated all of these instructions together to develop a
common terminology system.
For buying and renting account parameters are:
1) Activity. Do the real owner (if applicable) of this account
still use it? If yes, then the real owner can quickly notice
the suspicious activity. Thus can happen if accounts with
legal activity were compromised, but the attacker was
unable to change the password.
2) Registration date. When the account was registered?
Older accounts are more valuable and are less likely to
be blocked than newer ones. Also, people’s trust in new
accounts is lower as they are relatively easy to register.
3) Phone number. What is the phone number the account
binds to? If the account is not tied to the phone number,
then the bot is often forced to enter a captcha (what can
be a problem for an attacker if the bot is controlled by
4) Location. What is country/region the account tied to and
what the country/region of the person which it imitates
to be belong to? Bots imitating people from one location
may seem suspicious to real users from another one.
5) Owner. Is it the real person (e.g. if the account was
stolen) or a virtual phone number generated by the
program? Also the important parameter is the number
of owners – how many people can buy and use this
account at the same time. An account can be obtained
by hacking or fraud through the:
•mail service (if the attacker gained access to mail
and requests to restore access to the social network);
•malware on PC or mobile phone;
•spooﬁng through unsecured public networks (metro,
•brute force password attack on social networks or
•fraud, which involves the usage of social engineer-
ing through correspondence with the user.
For renting account bot traders also provide the next param-
1) Quality – an integral ranking of bot that expresses how
much a bot looks like a human. Usually expressed as:
a) ”Low” – the user can easily recognize the bot.
Usually, the proﬁle is empty, with no photos, few
friends. It also includes active users who may
notice that they have been hacked and the account
is being used.
b) ”Middle” – it is difﬁcult for the user to recognize
the bot. Usually the proﬁle not empty, some photos,
the average number of friends.
c) ”High” – bot cannot be distinguished by proﬁle
analysis. Usually, these are accounts of real people
who have lost or shared access to them (due
to hacking or sale). But the bot can be easily
recognized by its characteristics that change due
to unnatural activity (illogical messages or reposts,
unusual distribution of friends, etc.).
d) ”Live” – accounts of real people (hacked and those
who act for money). Unnatural activity is the only
way to recognize a bot of this type.
2) Type of action – what action the bot needs to perform.
We divided the types of activity according to the degree
of attracting attention:
•leaving no public digital footprints – e.g. views;
•leaving public digital footprints that cannot be seen
by visiting the bot page – e.g. likes;
•leaving public digital footprints that can be seen by
visiting the bot page – e.g. friends;
•leaving a digital footprint of direct user interaction,
difﬁcult to implement in automatic mode – e.g.
3) Speed of action – how quickly bots can take the required
action. For example, how quickly can 100 bots write a
comment. Usually measured in the number of activities
per day. A spike in activity can trigger social media
Fig. 1. The structure of friends is a small world for a real user, and the bot
simulating a similar small world to disguise itself
B. Strategies for management and creation
Different bot stores provide different management strate-
gies. Bots can be controller by:
1) Software – the bot actions perform automatically by
some algorithms. For low, middle, and high quality bots.
Usually for actions that can be implemented in automatic
2) Operator – the bot is manually controlled by the oper-
ator. For high and live quality bots. Usually for actions
that cannot be implemented in automatic mode.
3) Exchange platform – the bot is controlled by a real
account owner who agrees to perform some actions for
money. For high quality bots. Usually for actions that
cannot be implemented in automatic mode.
4) Troll Fabric – SMM agencies employing professionals.
The services of such companies are not public – there-
fore we did not ﬁnd them. But we believe that they
should be included in the list, as they are responsible
for many attacks according to a lot of evidence.
Of course, to know exactly the characteristics of the account
is possible only after its purchase. Nothing is stopping the bot
trader from deceiving you, since this market is not entirely
legal. Besides, different bot traders understand quality differ-
ently. But most of the parameters describe various aspects of
the bot’s similarity to a real person – quality.
By investigating bots and comparing them to real people
on social media, we’ve identiﬁed the main ways bots try to
disguise themselves as real people:
1) Use privacy settings. An attacker can ﬁll in just a
few ﬁelds (proﬁle photo, name, and surname) and hide
the rest with privacy settings. Since many users prefer
to hide pages on social networks, this will not raise
suspicion. This technique is used by a wide variety
of bots - from low to high quality. According to our
observations, live bots use privacy settings much less
2) Use account of a real person. An attacker can use a
real person’s account by hacking it or buying/renting it.
Bot have live quality if a person is an inactive and low
quality if active.
3) Generate proﬁle. A difﬁcult task that can include 3
•An attacker can try to generate proﬁle ﬁelds. To do
this, an attacker can ﬁll an account with photos from
another user who has this data open and randomly
generate numeric and string parameters.
•Attacker can generate photos and text content using
neural networks. This approach allows the bot to
pass the duplicate check (when we are looking for
another account with the same photos). A neural
network for writing text allows attackers to automate
bots that work in chats. Depending on the ﬁlling of
the account can vary from the middle to live quality.
•Attacker can generate friendslist graph structure.
Real users add people they already know to their
friends, forming a small world. The likelihood that
a real person will add an unfamiliar account is small.
Therefore, it is difﬁcult for a bot to form a list of
friends from real users where everyone is connected.
He can add random users - then they will be less
likely to form at least some connected graph, or try
to form the small-world structure of the friendslist
from other bots (see Fig 1).
IV. MET HO DO LO GY O F DATA COL LE CT IO N,PRICING
ANA LYSIS AND IMPLEMENTATIO N
We carried out a pricing analysis and checked some correla-
tions of parameters. The purpose of this analysis is to see how
price, quality, and type of bot action correlate for various social
networks. The information about the prices and parameters of
the commercial offer will be sufﬁcient for valid conclusions
because the bot market obeys the same laws of the regular
market, supply, and demand.
To do analysis, we have parsed HTML-pages with bots
rental offers from 7 companies. In each rental offer, we
1) the lot size – bot activity is sold in batches, for example,
1, 100, 1000, etc.;
Fig. 2. Correlation between bot’s quality, action type and price for different
2) cost per unit – in cases where the price was indicated
for a lot, we calculated the price for one bot;
3) social network – VKontakte, Instagram, Telegram,
YouTube, or TikTok.
4) action – view (viewing post, photo, video, etc.), like, poll
(cheat votes in a poll), repost, participate (subscribe to
channel, group, etc.), friend, alerts (massive alerts for
blocking content by a social network), comment.
5) quality –– Low, Middle, High, and Live.
To mark up the dataset by action and quality, we looked
for keywords in the description of the offer. For example, to
include an offer in the low quality class, we looked for the
words: ”low”, ”no avatars”, ”no guarantee”, ”slow”, ”possible
activity”, etc. We did the same for the rest of the quality and
As the result we built 3 charts:
1) Figure 3 shows the bubble chart of bot pricing over
quality and actions for different social networks. The
size of the bubble indicates the price.
2) Figure 4 shows the scatter plot of bot pricing over
actions for different social networks.
3) Figure 5 shows the scatter plot of bot pricing over quality
for different social networks.
We also perform some correlation analyses.
To do this, we converted qualitative types to quantitative for
actions (see table I) and quality (see table II). The conversion
logic is based on the classiﬁcations that were presented before:
actions that leave a more visible digital footprint have bigger
values, and the quality increases linearly from low to live.
For each group of offers (the same social network, bot
trader, quality, and action), we calculated the median price
value. This is necessary because the same bot store usually
sells services in lots. Thus, these are the same set of bots, and
the price difference is due to the discount for buying a large
The results of the correlation between these groups of offers
are shown in Figure 2. We scaled the color scale from 0 to
0.7 (maximum correlation value excluding diagonal) for better
perception of results.
Correlation shows how social networks’ features affect bot
trading and bot diversity.
As expected, for all social networks the price of bots
depends on the quality and actions, but this dependence is
not the same for different social networks.
Comments and alerts, as the most complex and attention-
grabbing to the bot’s proﬁle, have the highest price tag (Fig. 3
and Fig. 4). Views are the least expensive because they do not
leave digital traces and are easily automated. This conﬁrms
the validity of the proposed classiﬁcation.
For all social networks (except for Instagram), there is a
dynamics of price growth depending on quality (Fig. 5). These
dynamics are also noticeable in the correlation results. It can
be seen that the dependence of quality on price is different
QUAL ITATIV E SC ORE S TO QUA NT ITATIV E FO R BOT’S A CTI ON
leaving public footprints
which difﬁcult to implement
in automatic mode
leaving public footprints
that cannot be seen
by visiting the bot page
leaving public footprints
that can be seen
by visiting the bot page
view 1 leaving no public footprints
QUAL ITATIV E SC ORE S TO QUA NT ITATIV E FO R BOT’S Q UAL ITY
(quantitive score) description
Live 4 accounts of
High 3 the bot cannot be
distinguished by proﬁle
Middle 2 it is difﬁcult for the
user to recognize the bot
Low 1 the user can easily
recognize the bot
for social networks. We attribute this to the effectiveness of
algorithms and measures to combat bots. The more efﬁcient
the algorithms on a social network, the more valuable the
difference between low and high quality bots becomes.
There is also a noticeable correlation for Telegram and
YouTube that better bots are used for more complex actions.
For all other social networks, it is almost zero.
For Telegram, this is explained by the fact that Telegram is a
messenger, where the main function is participating in chats,
discussion, and comments. Therefore, Telegram has a clear
demand for human-controlled bots that can write complex text.
For YouTube, this can be explained by changes in the
promotion algorithms. YouTube has signiﬁcantly increased the
role of comment activity to promote videos with its recommen-
dation systems. Thus, the demand for human-controlled bots
that can write complex text has also increased.
TikTok and Instagram also have a function for writing
comments. But in TikTok and Instagram, comments are meant
to express emotions, not discussion. Thus, bots can leave
emojis or some phrases from the dictionary of sentiments,
which low and mid quality bots can also do.
This analysis allows one to better understand which bots are
widespread in which networks, and speculate about possible
features. This can be taken into account for the development
of bot detection tools. For example, to detect bots on YouTube,
it must be taken into account that comments are likely to
be written by human-controlled bots. At the same time, on
Instagram or TikTok it will be a more mixed group of bots.
In this paper, we present the classiﬁcation of the types of
bots, which we made after analyzing the offers from bot traders
in the market.
We have presented the parameters that the bot traders
indicate and which affect bot pricing. We have presented a
classiﬁcation by type of action and by quality. At the same
time, market analysis showed that the price of bots depends
on the complexity of the action performed by the bot and the
quality (similarity of the bot to a real person). But for some
social networks, this dependence may be stronger than for
We also demonstrated that on some social networks, better
quality bots perform more complex actions. While in others
there is no such correlation.
This study makes it possible to obtain better datasets for
training machine learning models that are used to detect
malicious bots. To do this, training datasets must contain all
the variety of bots, as well as their characteristics.
We plan to continue our research and consider what speciﬁc
features (which are already used to train models) are most
useful for detecting bots of various classes.
The dataset collected and marked up for this paper is
available via the link .
This research was supported by the Russian Science Foun-
dation under grant number 18-71-10094 in SPC RAS.
 Levada-Center, “Channels of information,” 2017. [Online]. Available:
 A. M. Elisa Shearer, “News use across social media platforms in
2020,” 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.journalism.org/2021/01/
 C. Shao, G. L. Ciampaglia, O. Varol, A. Flammini, and F. Menczer, “The
spread of fake news by social bots,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.07592,
vol. 96, p. 104, 2017.
 E. Ferrara, “# covid-19 on twitter: Bots, conspiracies, and social media
activism,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.09531, 2020.
 F. Pierri, A. Artoni, and S. Ceri, “Investigating italian disinformation
spreading on twitter in the context of 2019 european elections,” PloS
one, vol. 15, no. 1, p. e0227821, 2020.
 R. Faris, H. Roberts, B. Etling, N. Bourassa, E. Zuckerman, and
Y. Benkler, “Partisanship, propaganda, and disinformation: Online media
and the 2016 us presidential election,” Berkman Klein Center Research
Publication, vol. 6, 2017.
 C. A. Davis, O. Varol, E. Ferrara, A. Flammini, and F. Menczer,
“Botornot: A system to evaluate social bots,” in Proceedings of the 25th
international conference companion on world wide web, 2016, pp. 273–
 M. Orabi, D. Mouheb, Z. Al Aghbari, and I. Kamel, “Detection of
bots in social media: a systematic review,” Information Processing &
Management, vol. 57, no. 4, p. 102250, 2020.
 C. Grimme, M. Preuss, L. Adam, and H. Trautmann, “Social bots:
Human-like by means of human control?” Big data, vol. 5, no. 4, pp.
 B. Oberer, A. Erkollar, and A. Stein, “Social bots–act like a human,
think like a bot,” in Digitalisierung und Kommunikation. Springer,
2019, pp. 311–327.
 S. Bay et al., “The black market for social media manipulation,” NATO
StratCom COE, 2018.
 M. Kolomeets, “Security datasets: Bot market,” 2021. [Online].
Fig. 3. Offers for renting bots with a certain quality and a certain action. Price expressed as bubble size.
Fig. 4. Dependence of the action of bots on the price in rubles
Fig. 5. Dependence of the quality of bots on the price in rubles