skip to main content
research-article

How much anonymity does network latency leak?

Published:05 March 2010Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Low-latency anonymity systems such as Tor, AN.ON, Crowds, and Anonymizer.com aim to provide anonymous connections that are both untraceable by “local” adversaries who control only a few machines and have low enough delay to support anonymous use of network services like Web browsing and remote login. One consequence of these goals is that these services leak some information about the network latency between the sender and one or more nodes in the system. We present two attacks on low-latency anonymity schemes using this information. The first attack allows a pair of colluding Web sites to predict, based on local timing information and with no additional resources, whether two connections from the same Tor exit node are using the same circuit with high confidence. The second attack requires more resources but allows a malicious Web site to gain several bits of information about a client each time he visits the site. We evaluate both attacks against two low-latency anonymity protocols—the Tor network and the MultiProxy proxy aggregator service—and conclude that both are highly vulnerable to these attacks.

References

  1. 2008. TOR node status information. https://torstat.xenobite.edu/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Back, A., Möller, U., and Stiglic, A. 2001. Traffic analysis attacks and trade-offs in anonymity providing systems. In Proceedings of Information Hiding Workshop (IH'01). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 245--257. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Blum, A., Song, D., and Venkataraman, S. 2004. Detection of interactive stepping stones: Algorithms and confidence bounds. In Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Recent Advances in Intrusion Detection (RAID'04). Springer, Berlin.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Chaum, D. L. 1981. Untraceable electronic mail, return addresses, and digital pseudonyms. Comm. ACM 24, 2, 84--88. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Chroboczek, J. 2003--2008. Polipo--A caching web proxy. http://www.pps.jussieu.fr/jch/software/polipo/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Chun, B., Culler, D., Roscoe, T., Bavier, A., Peterson, L., Wawrzoniak, M., and Bowman, M. 2003. PlanetLab: an overlay testbed for broad-coverage services. SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 33, 3, 3--12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Costa, M., Castro, M., Rowstron, A., and Key, P. 2004. PIC: Practical internet coordinates for distance estimation. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS'04). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 178--187. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Dabek, F., Cox, R., Kaashoek, F., and Morris, R. 2004. Vivaldi: A decentralized network coordinate system. In Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Applications, Technologies, Architectures, and Protocols for Computer Communications (SIGCOMM'04). ACM, New York, 15--26. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Danezis, G. 2003. Statistical disclosure attacks: Traffic confirmation in open environments. In Proceedings of Security and Privacy in the Age of Uncertainty (SEC'03). Kluwer, The Netherlands, 421--426.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Danezis, G., Dingledine, R., and Mathewson, N. 2003. Mixminion: Design of a type III anonymous remailer protocol. In Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP'03). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 2. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Díaz, C. and Serjantov, A. 2003. Generalizing mixes. In Proceedings of Privacy Enhancing Technologies Workshop (PET'03). Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Dingledine, R., Mathewson, N., and Syverson, P. F. 1999. Anonymity bibliography. http://freehaven.net/anonbib.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Dingledine, R., Mathewson, N., and Syverson, P. F. 2004. Tor: The second-generation onion router. In Proceedings of the 13th USENIX Security Symposium. USENIX, Berkeley, CA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Fawcett, T. 2006. An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recogn. Lett. 27, 8, 861--874. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Federrath, H. and Köpsell, S. 2006. JAP: Java anonymous proxy. http://anon.inf.tu-dresden.de/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., Masinter, L., Leach, P., and Berners-Lee, T. 1999. IETF RFC 2616: Hypertext transfer protocol -- HTTP/1.1. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Gil, T. M., Kaashoek, F., Li, J., Morris, R., and Stribling, J. 2005. The “King” data set. http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/p2psim/kingdata/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Gueye, B., Ziviani, A., Crovella, M., and Fdida, S. 2006. Constraint-based geolocation of Internet hosts. IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking 14, 6, 1219--1232. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Gummadi, K. P., Saroiu, S., and Gribble, S. D. 2002. King: Estimating latency between arbitrary Internet end hosts. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Internet Measurement. ACM, New York, 5--18. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Hintz, A. 2002. Fingerprinting Web sites using traffic analysis. In Proceedings of the Privacy Enhancing Technologies Workshop (PET'02). Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Hopper, N., Vasserman, E. Y., and Chan-Tin, E. 2007. How much anonymity does network latency leak? In Proceedings of the 14th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS'07). ACM, New York, 82--91. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. jrandom. 2007. I2P. http://www.i2p.net/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Kesdogan, D., Egner, J., and Büschkes, R. 1998. Stop-and-go MIXes: Providing probabilistic anonymity in an open system. In Proceedings of the Information Hiding Workshop (IH'98). Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Ledlie, J., Gardner, P., and Seltzer, M. 2007. Network coordinates in the wild. In Proceedings of the 4th USENIX Symposium on Network Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI). USENIX, Berkeley, CA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Mathewson, N. and Dingledine, R. 2004. Practical traffic analysis: Extending and resisting statistical disclosure. In Proceedings of the Privacy Enhancing Technologies Workshop (PET'04). Springer, Berlin, 17--34. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Moeller, U., Cottrell, L., Palfrader, P., and Sassaman, L. 2005. IETF draft: Mixmaster protocol version 2. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-sassaman-mixmaster-03. txt.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Murdoch, S. J. 2006. Hot or not: Revealing hidden services by their clock skew. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS). ACM, New York. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Murdoch, S. J. and Danezis, G. 2005. Low-cost traffic analysis of Tor. In Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 183--195. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Ng, T. E. and Zhang, H. 2004. A network positioning system for the Internet. In Proceedings of the USENIX Conference. USENIX, Berkeley, CA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Oikarinen, J. and Reed, D. 1993. IETF RFC 1459: Internet relay chat protocol. http://www. ietf.org/rfc/rfc1459.txt. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Øverlier, L. and Syverson, P. 2006. Locating hidden servers. In Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP'06). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 100--114. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Panchenko, D. 2006. Lecture Notes of 18.443, Statistics for Applications. MIT Open Courseware Projec. http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Mathematics/18-443Fall-2006/CourseHome/index.htm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Reiter, M. K. and Rubin, A. D. 1998. Crowds: Anonymity for Web transactions. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur. 1, 1, 66--92. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Rennhard, M. and Plattner, B. 2002. Introducing MorphMix: Peer-to-peer based anonymous Internet usage with collusion detection. In Proceedings of the 2002 ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society. ACM, New York, 91--102. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and Schooler, E. 2002. SIP: Session initiation protocol. IETF RFC 3261. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Serjantov, A. and Sewell, P. 2003. Passive attack analysis for connection-based anonymity systems. In Proceedings of 8th European Symposium on Research in Computer Security (ESORICS'03). Springer, Berlin.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Spring, N., Wetherall, D., and Anderson, T. 2003. Scriptroute: A public Internet measure-ment facility. In Proceedings of the USENIX Symposium on Internet Technologies and Systems (USITS). USENIX, Berkeley, CA, 225--238. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Syverson, P., Tsudik, G., Reed, M., and Landwehr, C. 2000. Towards an analysis of onion routing security. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Design Issues in Anonymity and Unobservability. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 96--114. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Wong, B., Stoyanov, I., and Sirer, E. G. 2006. Geolocalization on the Internet through constraint satisfaction. In Proceedings of the USENIX Workshop on Real, Large, Distributed Systems. USENIX, Berkeley, CA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Wright, M., Adler, M., Levine, B. N., and Shields, C. 2003. Defending anonymous communication against passive logging attacks. In Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. IEEE, Los Alamtios, CA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. How much anonymity does network latency leak?

            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

            Full Access

            • Published in

              cover image ACM Transactions on Information and System Security
              ACM Transactions on Information and System Security  Volume 13, Issue 2
              February 2010
              230 pages
              ISSN:1094-9224
              EISSN:1557-7406
              DOI:10.1145/1698750
              Issue’s Table of Contents

              Copyright © 2010 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 ACM 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: 5 March 2010
              • Accepted: 1 October 2008
              • Revised: 1 July 2008
              • Received: 1 February 2008
              Published in tissec Volume 13, Issue 2

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • research-article
              • Research
              • Refereed

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader