skip to main content
10.1145/2517840.2517856acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesccsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

ScrambleSuit: a polymorphic network protocol to circumvent censorship

Published:04 November 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

Deep packet inspection technology became a cornerstone of Internet censorship by facilitating cheap and effective filtering of what censors consider undesired information. Moreover, filtering is not limited to simple pattern matching but makes use of sophisticated techniques such as active probing and protocol classification to block access to popular circumvention tools such as Tor.

In this paper, we propose ScrambleSuit; a thin protocol layer above TCP whose purpose is to obfuscate the transported application data. By using morphing techniques and a secret exchanged out-of-band, we show that ScrambleSuit can defend against active probing and other fingerprinting techniques such as protocol classification and regular expressions.

We finally demonstrate that our prototype exhibits little overhead and enables effective and lightweight obfuscation for application layer protocols.

References

  1. Thomas H. Ptacek and Timothy N. Newsham. Insertion, Evasion, and Denial of Service: Eluding Network Intrusion Detection. Technical report, Secure Networks, Inc., 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Olli-Pekka Niemi, Antti Levomäki, and Jukka Manner. Dismantling Intrusion Prevention Systems (Demo). In SIGCOMM. ACM, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Mark Handley, Vern Paxson, and Christian Kreibich. Network Intrusion Detection: Evasion, Traffic Normalization, and End-to-End Protocol Semantics. In USENIX Security. USENIX Association, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Marcel Dischinger, Alan Mislove, Andreas Haeberlen, and Krishna P. Gummadi. Detecting BitTorrent Blocking. In IMC. ACM, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Richard Clayton, Steven J. Murdoch, and Robert N. M. Watson. Ignoring the Great Firewall of China. In PETS. Springer, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Sparks, Neo, Tank, Smith, and Dozer. The Collateral Damage of Internet Censorship by DNS Injection. SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 42(3), 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Christopher Rhoads and Loretta Chao. Iran's Web Spying Aided By Western Technology, 2009. URL: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124562668777335653.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Jillian C. York. Government Internet Surveillance Starts With Eyes Built in the West, 2011. URL: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/09/government-internet-surveillance-starts-eyes-built.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Roger Dingledine, Nick Mathewson, and Paul Syverson. Tor: The Second-Generation Onion Router. In USENIX Security. USENIX Association, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. The Tor Project. Iran. URL: https://censorshipwiki.torproject.org/CensorshipByCountry/Iran.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Philipp Winter and Stefan Lindskog. How the Great Firewall of China is Blocking Tor. In FOCI. USENIX Association, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. The Tor Project. Ethiopia. URL: https://censorshipwiki.torproject.org/CensorshipByCountry/Ethiopia.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Charles Arthur. China tightens "Great Firewall" internet control with new technology, 2012. URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/dec/14/china-tightens-great-firewall-internet-control.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. GFW actively probes obfs2 bridges, 2013. URL: https://bugs.torproject.org/8591.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Zakir Durumeric, Eric Wustrow, and J. Alex Halderman. ZMap: Fast Internet-Wide Scanning and its Security Applications. In USENIX Security. USENIX Association, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Zachary Weinberg, Jeffrey Wang, Vinod Yegneswaran, Linda Briesemeister, Steven Cheung, Frank Wang, and Dan Boneh. StegoTorus: A Camouflage Proxy for the Tor Anonymity System. In CCS. ACM, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Hooman Mohajeri Moghaddam, Baiyu Li, Mohammad Derakhshani, and Ian Goldberg. SkypeMorph: Protocol Obfuscation for Tor Bridges. In CCS. ACM, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Amir Houmansadr, Thomas Riedl, Nikita Borisov, and Andrew Singer. I want my voice to be heard: IP over Voice-over-IP for unobservable censorship circumvention. In NDSS. The Internet Society, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Wenxuan Zhou, Amir Houmansadr, Matthew Caesar, and Nikita Borisov. SWEET: Serving the Web by Exploiting Email Tunnels. In HotPETS. Springer, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. The Tor Project. obfs2 (The Twobfuscator). URL: https://gitweb.torproject.org/pluggable-transports/obfsproxy.git/blob/HEAD:/doc/obfs2/obfs2-protocol-spec.txt.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. The Tor Project. obfs3 (The Threebfuscator). URL: https://gitweb.torproject.org/pluggable-transports/obfsproxy.git/blob/HEAD:/doc/obfs3/obfs3-protocol-spec.txt.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Brandon Wiley. Dust: A Blocking-Resistant Internet Transport Protocol. Technical report, University of Texas at Austin, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Viewing cable 09MUSCAT1039, SKYPE CRACKDOWN IN OMAN, 2009. URL: http://wikileaks.org/cable/2009/11/09MUSCAT1039.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Russian "Clean Internet" experiment gets green light, 2013. URL: http://rt.com/politics/anti-pedophile-safe-internet-russian-169/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Small Media. Iranian Internet Infrastructure and Policy Report: Election Edition 2013 (April - June), 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Alberto Dainotti, Claudio Squarcella, Emile Aben, Kimberly C. Claffy, Marco Chiesa, Michele Russo, and Antonio Pescapé. Analysis of Country-wide Internet Outages Caused by Censorship. In IMC. ACM, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Eva Galperin and Jillian C. York. Syria goes dark, 2012. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/11/syria-goes-dark.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Erik Hjelmvik and Wolfgang John. Breaking and Improving Protocol Obfuscation. Technical report, Chalmers University of Technology, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Brandon Wiley. Blocking-Resistant Protocol Classification Using Bayesian Model Selection. Technical report, University of Texas at Austin, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. The Tor Project. obfsproxy. URL: https://www.torproject.org/projects/obfsproxy.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Qiyan Wang, Xun Gong, Giang T. K. Nguyen, Amir Houmansadr, and Nikita Borisov. CensorSpoofer: Asymmetric Communication using IP Spoofing for Censorship-Resistant Web Browsing. In CCS. ACM, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Amir Houmansadr, Chad Brubaker, and Vitaly Shmatikov. The Parrot is Dead: Observing Unobservable Network Communications. In Security & Privacy. IEEE, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Patrick Lincoln, Ian Mason, Phillip Porras, Vinod Yegneswaran, Zachary Weinberg, Jeroen Massar, William Simpson, Paul Vixie, and Dan Boneh. Bootstrapping Communications into an Anti-Censorship System. In FOCI. USENIX Association, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Eugene Y. Vasserman, Nicholas Hopper, John Laxson, and James Tyra. SilentKnock: Practical, Provably Undetectable Authentication. In ESORICS. Springer, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Rob Smits, Divam Jain, Sarah Pidcock, Ian Goldberg, and Urs Hengartner. BridgeSPA: Improving Tor Bridges with Single Packet Authorization. In WPES. ACM, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Martin Johnson. China, GitHub and the man-in-the-middle, 2013. URL: https://en.greatfire.org/blog/2013/jan/china-github-and-man-middle.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Ronald L. Rivest, Adi Shamir, and David A. Wagner. Time-lock Puzzles and Timed-release Crypto. Technical report, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Ben Laurie and Richard Clayton. "Proof-of-Work" Proves Not to Work. In WEIS, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Joseph Salowey, Hao Zhou, Pasi Eronen, and Hannes Tschofenig. RFC 5077: Transport Layer Security (TLS) Session Resumption without Server-Side State, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Hugo Krawczyk, Mihir Bellare, and Ran Canetti. RFC 2104: HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Zhen Ling, Xinwen Fu, Wei Yu, Junzhou Luo, and Ming Yang. Extensive Analysis and Large-Scale Empirical Evaluation of Tor Bridge Discovery. In INFOCOM. IEEE, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Tero Kivinen and Mika Kojo. RFC 3526: More Modular Exponential (MODP) Diffie-Hellman groups for Internet Key Exchange (IKE), 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Hugo Krawczyk and Pasi Eronen. RFC 5869: HMAC-based Extract-and-Expand Key Derivation Function (HKDF), 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Manuel Crotti, Maurizio Dusi, Francesco Gringoli, and Luca Salgarelli. Traffic Classification through Simple Statistical Fingerprinting. SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 37(1), 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Kevin P. Dyer, Scott E. Coull, Thomas Ristenpart, and Thomas Shrimpton. Peek-a-Boo, I Still See You: Why Efficient Traffic Analysis Countermeasures Fail. In Security & Privacy. IEEE, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Xiang Cai, Xin Cheng Zhang, Brijesh Joshi, and Rob Johnson. Touching from a Distance: Website Fingerprinting Attacks and Defenses. In CCS. ACM, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Andriy Panchenko, Lukas Niessen, Andreas Zinnen, and Thomas Engel. Website Fingerprinting in Onion Routing Based Anonymization Networks. In WPES. ACM, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. CAIDA. Packet size distribution comparison between Internet links in 1998 and 2008, 2010. URL: http://www.caida.org/research/traffic-analysis/pkt sizedistribution/graphs.xml.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Mohamad Jaber, Roberto G. Cascella, and Chadi Barakat. Can we trust the inter-packet time for traffic classification? In ICC. IEEE, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. ECRYPT II Yearly Report on Algorithms and Keysizes, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Dwayne C. Litzenberger. PyCrypto - The Python Cryptography Toolkit. URL: https://www.dlitz.net/software/pycrypto/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Andrew M. White, Srinivas Krishnan, Michael Bailey, Fabian Monrose, and Phillip Porras. Clear and Present Data: Opaque Traffic and its Security Implications for the Future. In NDSS. The Internet Society, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. ScrambleSuit: a polymorphic network protocol to circumvent censorship

      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
        WPES '13: Proceedings of the 12th ACM workshop on Workshop on privacy in the electronic society
        November 2013
        306 pages
        ISBN:9781450324854
        DOI:10.1145/2517840
        • General Chair:
        • Ahmad-Reza Sadeghi,
        • Program Chair:
        • Sara Foresti

        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 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: 4 November 2013

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        WPES '13 Paper Acceptance Rate30of103submissions,29%Overall Acceptance Rate106of355submissions,30%

        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