Ad Fraud IOC Databases Signal New Phase in Programmatic Threat Intelligence

Ad fraud threat intelligence is moving closer to cybersecurity practice, with new indicator of compromise databases targeting programmatic inventory and connected TV activity. For PPC professionals and media buyers, this shift confirms what we see daily at ClickPatrol: protecting ad budgets is no longer just a matter of basic invalid traffic filters. It now depends on sharing granular signals about fraudulent domains, apps, devices and supply paths before fake traffic reaches your campaigns.

Why an ad fraud IOC database matters for PPC and programmatic buyers

In security operations, indicator of compromise databases help teams spot malicious IPs, devices or domains before serious damage occurs. Applying the same concept to ad fraud means buyers, DSPs and verification vendors can reference structured threat data when assessing whether an impression or click is likely to be fake.

For advertisers running Google Ads, Meta Ads, Microsoft Ads or CTV and display campaigns through programmatic platforms, this matters in three ways:

• Faster detection: Known fraudulent domains, apps and devices can be identified more quickly, reducing wasted spend on invalid traffic.
• Cleaner measurement: When fake traffic is filtered based on transparent, shared indicators, performance data reflects real user behavior instead of bots or spoofed devices.
• Better buying decisions: Media teams can use IOC style threat feeds as an extra layer of due diligence when evaluating inventory sources, supply paths and partners.

At ClickPatrol, we see this as part of a broader trend where ad fraud defenses look more like formal security operations, with shared data, standardized formats and regular updates rather than one off blocklists.

Key components of an ad fraud IOC style database

The newly announced ad fraud IOC database is structured to mirror common security workflows, with fields that can be consumed by SOC tools and programmatic systems. While each provider will differ, the key elements typically include:

• Lists of apps, websites and CTV channels that have shown patterns of invalid traffic or misrepresentation.
• Device identifiers and IP addresses linked to automated traffic, spoofed environments or repeated fake activity.
• Supply path information that shows where fraudulent inventory is entering the auction chain.
• Contextual metadata such as timestamps, platform, environment and evidence categories.

Because these signals are formatted as indicators of compromise, they can be integrated into existing security and monitoring workflows that many large brands already run across their tech stacks. That helps bridge the long standing gap between marketing teams and cybersecurity teams.

What this shift means for ad fraud prevention strategies

For brands and agencies, the emergence of ad fraud IOC databases reinforces a few practical points about traffic quality management:

• Relying on platform filters is not enough: Google Ads, Meta Ads and Microsoft Ads all apply their own invalid click protections, but our experience shows that sophisticated click farms and bots still pass through, especially on high volume search and performance campaigns.
• Evidence based blocking is crucial: Using indicators tied to specific devices, IP ranges, apps or placements allows more precise blocking than broad geo or audience exclusions that can affect real users.
• Cross channel coordination is essential: Fraudulent devices and sources often touch multiple channels. A device ID that triggers fake CTV impressions can just as easily appear in display retargeting or paid social clicks.

Our detection methods at ClickPatrol already rely on a similar principle. We track behavioral patterns over many data points per click, then tie those patterns back to concrete identifiers. When we block a bad source in Google Ads, the same indicators can be referenced when monitoring Meta or Microsoft Ads, which supports more consistent protection across your mix.

How PPC teams can make practical use of threat intelligence

While IOC style databases are designed for technical teams, there are several direct applications for PPC managers, performance marketers and agencies:

• Stricter placement and app controls: Maintain and regularly refresh exclusion lists for suspicious domains and apps, informed by current threat intelligence and your own campaign data.
• Risk based bidding: Treat high risk exchanges, placements or CTV environments as a separate risk tier, with tighter bid caps and stricter frequency controls.
• More accurate attribution: Work with analytics teams to ensure that invalid sessions, fake conversions and bot driven micro events are stripped from your measurement before optimization decisions are made.
• Vendor evaluation: Ask verification and protection vendors how they integrate external threat intelligence, how often indicators are updated and how they validate sources before blocking traffic.

From our vantage point at ClickPatrol, advertisers that treat ad fraud as an ongoing security problem rather than a one time setup issue see far stronger gains in ROI and data reliability.

IOC style data plus real time click inspection

Indicator lists are powerful, but they only cover known threats. Many fraud schemes are short lived, low volume or tailored to specific verticals, which means they may not appear in broad threat databases quickly enough.

This is where combining IOC style data with real time behavioral inspection of each click is vital. Our systems at ClickPatrol evaluate every click against a wide range of signals, including:

• Unnatural interaction patterns such as rapid repeated clicks, no-scroll sessions or impossible navigation behavior.
• Technical markers associated with spoofed devices or automation tools.
• Cross campaign reappearance of the same devices or IPs that previously generated invalid activity.

When we confirm suspicious behavior, we automatically block that source in platforms like Google Ads, Meta and Microsoft Ads, so your campaigns stop paying for repeated or fake visits. If that same source later appears in an IOC style feed, it acts as further validation rather than the first line of defense.

Budget impact: why this matters now

Industry studies over the last few years have consistently estimated digital ad fraud in the tens of billions of dollars annually, with programmatic display and CTV among the highest risk areas. Even relatively low fraud rates can distort performance metrics in search and social campaigns, especially for advertisers with large daily budgets.

For a typical search account spending a few thousand per day, a modest percentage of invalid clicks can quickly translate into thousands in monthly losses, plus poor optimization decisions based on corrupted data. The appearance of ad fraud IOC databases is a clear sign that the industry is acknowledging this problem as a security issue, not just an accounting annoyance.

We recommend that advertisers:

• Review their current fraud prevention setup and identify whether they are using any external threat feeds or solely relying on platform defaults.
• Evaluate third party solutions that combine IOC style data with real time click analysis and automatic blocking.
• Align marketing, security and data teams on a shared view of what constitutes invalid traffic and how it should be treated in reporting.

ClickPatrol is built around these principles. Our goal is to protect your PPC budgets from click fraud, keep your analytics cleaner and give you the confidence to scale campaigns that truly work.

Next steps for advertisers concerned about ad fraud

The rise of ad fraud IOC databases is a positive development, but it is only one piece of the defense stack. Advertisers still need day to day controls that are close to their campaigns, not just upstream in the supply chain.

If you manage significant spend on Google Ads, Meta or Microsoft Ads and suspect inflated click or impression volumes, it is a good time to audit your accounts for signals of invalid traffic. That includes repeated clicks from the same devices, high click to session drop off on key campaigns and sharp performance swings when you change placement settings.

To complement broader threat intelligence efforts, we encourage performance marketers and agencies to test dedicated click fraud protection. With ClickPatrol, you can start a free trial, see exactly which clicks we classify as invalid and how much budget we can recover. That transparency makes it easier to align internal teams on traffic quality and build a long term strategy against fraud.

Abisola

Meet Abisola! As the content manager at ClickPatrol, she’s the go-to expert on all things fake traffic. From bot clicks to ad fraud, Abisola knows how to spot, stop, and educate others about the sneaky tactics that inflate numbers but don’t bring real results.

View all posts by Abisola (Abisola)

Twitter LinkedIn

Related Articles

Meta Ad Fraud Concerns Put PPC Transparency Back in the Spotlight

The rise of competitor click fraud in 2025: Protect your ad spend with ClickPatrol

Google Certified Click Tracking Raises the Bar for Audit-Grade Ad Accuracy