Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/2508859.2516651acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesccsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Users get routed: traffic correlation on tor by realistic adversaries

Authors Info & Claims
Published:04 November 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

We present the first analysis of the popular Tor anonymity network that indicates the security of typical users against reasonably realistic adversaries in the Tor network or in the underlying Internet. Our results show that Tor users are far more susceptible to compromise than indicated by prior work. Specific contributions of the paper include(1)a model of various typical kinds of users,(2)an adversary model that includes Tor network relays, autonomous systems(ASes), Internet exchange points (IXPs), and groups of IXPs drawn from empirical study,(3) metrics that indicate how secure users are over a period of time,(4) the most accurate topological model to date of ASes and IXPs as they relate to Tor usage and network configuration,(5) a novel realistic Tor path simulator (TorPS), and(6)analyses of security making use of all the above. To show that our approach is useful to explore alternatives and not just Tor as currently deployed, we also analyze a published alternative path selection algorithm, Congestion-Aware Tor. We create an empirical model of Tor congestion, identify novel attack vectors, and show that it too is more vulnerable than previously indicated.

References

  1. 0x539 Dev Group. Gobby: A Collaborative Text Editor.http://gobby.0x539.de, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. T. G. Abbott, K. J. Lai, M. R. Lieberman, and E. C. Price. Browser-Based Attacks on Tor. In Privacy Enhancing Technologies Symposium (PETS), 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. M. Akhoondi, C. Yu, and H. V. Madhyastha. LASTor: A Low-Latency AS-Aware Tor Client. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (Oakland), 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. B. Augustin, B. Krishnamurthy, and W. Willinger. IXPs: Mapped? In ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Internet Measurement (IMC), November 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. S. L. Blond, P. Manils, A. Chaabane, M. A. Kaafar, A. Legout, C. Castellucia, and W. Dabbous. De-anonymizing BitTorrent Users on Tor (poster). In USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI), 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. N. Borisov, G. Danezis, P. Mittal, and P. Tabriz. Denial of Service or Denial of Security? How Attacks on Reliability can Compromise Anonymity. In ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS), 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. X. Cai, J. Heidemann, B. Krishnamurthy, and W. Willinger. Towards an AS-to-organization Map. In Internet Measurement Conference, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. X. Cai, X. C. Zhang, B. Joshi, and R. Johnson. Touching from a Distance: Website Fingerprinting Attacks and Defenses. In ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS), 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. CAIDA. IPv4 Routed /24 Topology Dataset. http://www.caida.org/data/active/ipv4_routed_24_topology_dataset.xml, December 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. CAIDA. The CAIDA AS Relationships Dataset. http://www.caida.org/data/active/ as-relationships/, June 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. D. L. Chaum. Untraceable Electronic Mail, Return Addresses, and Digital Pseudonyms. Communications of the ACM, 24(2):84--90, 1981. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. C. Díaz, S. Seys, J. Claessens, and B. Preneel. Towards Measuring Anonymity. In Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PET), 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. R. Dingledine, N. Mathewson, and P. Syverson. Tor: The Second-Generation Onion Router. In USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX), 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. P. Eckersley. How Unique is Your Browser? In Privacy Enhancing Technologies Symposium (PETS), 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. M. Edman and P. Syverson. AS-Awareness in Tor Path Selection. In ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS), 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. T. Elahi, K. Bauer, M. AlSabah, R. Dingledine, and I. Goldberg. Changing of the Guards: A Framework for Understanding and Improving Entry Guard Selection in Tor. In ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society (WPES), 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Equinix. Equinix Internet Exchange Enables Efficient Interconnection between Hundreds of Networks. http://www.equinix.com/solutions/by-services/interconnection/exchanges/equinix-internet-exchange/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. N. S. Evans, R. Dingledine, and C. Grothoff. A Practical Congestion Attack on Tor using Long Paths. In USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX), 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. N. Feamster and R. Dingledine. Location Diversity in Anonymity Networks. In ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society (WPES), 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. J. Feigenbaum, A. Johnson, and P. Syverson. Probabilistic Analysis of Onion Routing in a Black-box Model. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security (TISSEC), 15(3):14:1--14:28, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. L. Gao. On Inferring Autonomous System Relationships in the Internet. In IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, volume 9, pages 733--745, December 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. S. Hahn and K. Loesing. Privacy-preserving Ways to Estimate the Number of Tor Users, November 2010. Available at https://metrics.torproject.org/papers/countingusers-2010--11--30.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. A. Hamel, J.-C. Grégoire, and I. Goldberg. The Misentropists: New Approaches to Measures in Tor. Technical Report 2011--18, Cheriton School of Computer Science, University of Waterloo, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. N. Hopper, E. Y. Vasserman, and E. Chan-Tin. How Much Anonymity Does Network Latency Leak? ACM Transactions on Information and System Security (TISSEC), 13(2):13, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. R. Jansen and N. Hopper. Shadow: Running Tor in a Box for Accurate and Efficient Experimentation. In Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS), 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. R. Jansen, K. Bauer, N. Hopper, and R. Dingledine. Methodically modeling the tor network. In USENIX Workshop on Cyber Security Experimentation and Test (CSET), August 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. A. Johnson, P. Syverson, R. Dingledine, and N. Mathewson. Trust-based anonymous communication: Adversary models and routing algorithms. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS 2011), pages 175--186. ACM, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. J. P. J. Juen. Protecting Anonymity in the Presence of Autonomous System and Internet Exchange Level Adversaries. Master's thesis, University of Illinois, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. S. J. Murdoch and G. Danezis. Low-Cost Traffic Analysis of Tor. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (Oakland), 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. S. J. Murdoch and P. Zielinski. Sampled Traffic Analysis by Internet-Exchange-Level Adversaries. In Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PET), 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Office of Engineering and Technology and Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau. A Report on Consumer Wireline Broadband Performance in the U.S. Technical report, Federal Communications Commission, February 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. L. Øverlier and P. Syverson. Locating Hidden Servers. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (Oakland), 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. J. Qiu and L. Gao. AS Path Inference by Exploiting Known AS Paths. In Global Telecommunications Conference, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. A. Serjantov and G. Danezis. Towards an Information Theoretic Metric for Anonymity. In Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PET), 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. M. Sherr, M. Blaze, and B. T. Loo. Scalable Link-Based Relay Selection for Anonymous Routing. In Privacy Enhancing Technologies Symposium (PETS), August 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. R. Smits, D. Jain, S. Pidcock, I. Goldberg, and U. Hengartner. BridgeSPA: Improving Tor Bridges with Single Packet Authorization. In ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society (WPES), 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. P. Syverson. Why I'm not an Entropist. In International Workshop on Security Protocols, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. P. Syverson, G. Tsudik, M. Reed, and C. Landwehr. Towards an Analysis of Onion Routing Security. In Designing Privacy Enhancing Technologies, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. The Tor Project. Changelog Tor 0.2.4.12-alpha. https://gitweb.torproject.org/tor.git?a=blob_plain;hb=HEAD;f=ChangeLog.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Tor Project, Inc. Tor Metrics Portal. https://metrics.torproject.org/, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Tor Project, Inc. The Tor Project. https://www.torproject.org/, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. TorPS. TorPS: The Tor Path Simulator. http://torps.github.io, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. University of Oregon. RouteViews Project. http://www. routeviews.org/, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. C. Wacek, H. Tan, K. Bauer, and M. Sherr. An Empirical Evaluation of Relay Selection in Tor. In Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS), 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. T. Wang, K. Bauer, C. Forero, and I. Goldberg. Congestionaware Path Selection for Tor. In Financial Cryptography and Security (FC), 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. L. Wasserman. All of Nonparametric Statistics (Springer Texts in Statistics). Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., Secaucus, NJ, USA, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. M. Wright, M. Adler, B. N. Levine, and C. Shields. The Predecessor Attack: An Analysis of a Threat to Anonymous Communications Systems. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security (TISSEC), 4(7):489--522, November 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Users get routed: traffic correlation on tor by realistic adversaries

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CCS '13: Proceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGSAC conference on Computer & communications security
      November 2013
      1530 pages
      ISBN:9781450324779
      DOI:10.1145/2508859

      Copyright © 2013 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 4 November 2013

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CCS '13 Paper Acceptance Rate105of530submissions,20%Overall Acceptance Rate1,261of6,999submissions,18%

      Upcoming Conference

      CCS '24
      ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security
      October 14 - 18, 2024
      Salt Lake City , UT , USA

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader