PerfWeb: How to Violate Web Privacy with Hardware Performance Events

The browser history reveals highly sensitive information about users, such as financial status, health conditions, or political views. Private browsing modes and anonymity networks are consequently important tools to preserve the privacy not only of regular users but in particular of whistleblowers and dissidents. Yet, in this work we show how a malicious application can infer opened websites from Google Chrome in Incognito mode and from Tor Browser by exploiting hardware performance events (HPEs). In particular, we analyze the browsers' microarchitectural footprint with the help of advanced Machine Learning techniques: k-th Nearest Neighbors, Decision Trees, Support Vector Machines, and in contrast to previous literature also Convolutional Neural Networks. We profile 40 different websites, 30 of the top Alexa sites and 10 whistleblowing portals, on two machines featuring an Intel and an ARM processor. By monitoring retired instructions, cache accesses, and bus cycles for at most 5 seconds, we manage to classify the selected websites with a success rate of up to 86.3%. The results show that hardware performance events can clearly undermine the privacy of web users. We therefore propose mitigation strategies that impede our attacks and still allow legitimate use of HPEs

Locational wireless and social media-based surveillance

The number of smartphones and tablets as well as the volume of traffic generated by these devices has been growing constantly over the past decade and this growth is predicted to continue at an increasing rate over the next five years. Numerous native features built into contemporary smart devices enable highly accurate digital fingerprinting techniques. Furthermore, software developers have been taking advantage of locational capabilities of these devices by building applications and social media services that enable convenient sharing of information tied to geographical locations. Mass online sharing resulted in a large volume of locational and personal data being publicly available for extraction. A number of researchers have used this opportunity to design and build tools for a variety of uses – both respectable and nefarious. Furthermore, due to the peculiarities of the IEEE 802.11 specification, wireless-enabled smart devices disclose a number of attributes, which can be observed via passive monitoring. These attributes coupled with the information that can be extracted using social media APIs present an opportunity for research into locational surveillance, device fingerprinting and device user identification techniques. This paper presents an in-progress research study and details the findings to date

The Dark Side(-Channel) of Mobile Devices: A Survey on Network Traffic Analysis

In recent years, mobile devices (e.g., smartphones and tablets) have met an increasing commercial success and have become a fundamental element of the everyday life for billions of people all around the world. Mobile devices are used not only for traditional communication activities (e.g., voice calls and messages) but also for more advanced tasks made possible by an enormous amount of multi-purpose applications (e.g., finance, gaming, and shopping). As a result, those devices generate a significant network traffic (a consistent part of the overall Internet traffic). For this reason, the research community has been investigating security and privacy issues that are related to the network traffic generated by mobile devices, which could be analyzed to obtain information useful for a variety of goals (ranging from device security and network optimization, to fine-grained user profiling). In this paper, we review the works that contributed to the state of the art of network traffic analysis targeting mobile devices. In particular, we present a systematic classification of the works in the literature according to three criteria: (i) the goal of the analysis; (ii) the point where the network traffic is captured; and (iii) the targeted mobile platforms. In this survey, we consider points of capturing such as Wi-Fi Access Points, software simulation, and inside real mobile devices or emulators. For the surveyed works, we review and compare analysis techniques, validation methods, and achieved results. We also discuss possible countermeasures, challenges and possible directions for future research on mobile traffic analysis and other emerging domains (e.g., Internet of Things). We believe our survey will be a reference work for researchers and practitioners in this research field.Comment: 55 page

Case study: disclosure of indirect device fingerprinting in privacy policies

Recent developments in online tracking make it harder for individuals to detect and block trackers. This is especially true for de- vice fingerprinting techniques that websites use to identify and track individual devices. Direct trackers { those that directly ask the device for identifying information { can often be blocked with browser configu- rations or other simple techniques. However, some sites have shifted to indirect tracking methods, which attempt to uniquely identify a device by asking the browser to perform a seemingly-unrelated task. One type of indirect tracking known as Canvas fingerprinting causes the browser to render a graphic recording rendering statistics as a unique identifier. Even experts find it challenging to discern some indirect fingerprinting methods. In this work, we aim to observe how indirect device fingerprint- ing methods are disclosed in privacy policies, and consider whether the disclosures are sufficient to enable website visitors to block the track- ing methods. We compare these disclosures to the disclosure of direct fingerprinting methods on the same websites. Our case study analyzes one indirect ngerprinting technique, Canvas fingerprinting. We use an existing automated detector of this fingerprint- ing technique to conservatively detect its use on Alexa Top 500 websites that cater to United States consumers, and we examine the privacy poli- cies of the resulting 28 websites. Disclosures of indirect fingerprinting vary in specificity. None described the specific methods with enough granularity to know the website used Canvas fingerprinting. Conversely, many sites did provide enough detail about usage of direct fingerprint- ing methods to allow a website visitor to reliably detect and block those techniques. We conclude that indirect fingerprinting methods are often technically difficult to detect, and are not identified with specificity in legal privacy notices. This makes indirect fingerprinting more difficult to block, and therefore risks disturbing the tentative armistice between individuals and websites currently in place for direct fingerprinting. This paper illustrates differences in fingerprinting approaches, and explains why technologists, technology lawyers, and policymakers need to appreciate the challenges of indirect fingerprinting.Accepted manuscrip