skip to main content
10.1145/3081333.3081342acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmobisysConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Trust but Verify: Auditing the Secure Internet of Things

Published:16 June 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

Internet-of-Things devices often collect and transmit sensitive information like camera footage, health monitoring data, or whether someone is home. These devices protect data in transit with end-to-end encryption, typically using TLS connections between devices and associated cloud services. But these TLS connections also prevent device owners from observing what their own devices are saying about them. Unlike in traditional Internet applications, where the end user controls one end of a connection (e.g., their web browser) and can observe its communication, Internet-of-Things vendors typically control the software in both the device and the cloud. As a result, owners have no way to audit the behavior of their own devices, leaving them little choice but to hope that these devices are transmitting only what they should.

This paper presents TLS--Rotate and Release (TLS-RaR), a system that allows device owners (e.g., consumers, security researchers, and consumer watchdogs) to authorize devices, called auditors, to decrypt and verify recent TLS traffic without compromising future traffic. Unlike prior work, TLS-RaR requires no changes to TLS's wire format or cipher suites, and it allows the device's owner to conduct a surprise inspection of recent traffic, without prior notice to the device that its communications will be audited.

References

  1. Alexa and Alexa device FAQs. Amazon.com. https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201602230. Accessed: 2017-04--25.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Top 1,000,000 sites (updated daily). Alexa Internet Inc., 2009--2016. http://s3.amazonaws.com/alexa-static/top-1m.csv.zip. Accessed: 2016-01--18.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Keeping data safe at Nest. Nest Labs, Dec. 2016. https://nest.com/security/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. M. Abdalla, M. Bellare, D. Catalano, E. Kiltz, T. Kohno, T. Lange, J. Malone-Lee, G. Neven, P. Paillier, and H. Shi. Searchable encryption revisited: Consistency properties, relation to anonymous IBE, and extensions. In Advances in Cryptology -- CRYPTO 2005: 25th Annual International Cryptology Conference, Santa Barbara, California, USA, August 14--18, 2005. Proceedings, pages 205--222, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2005. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. J. Angwin and J. Valentino-Devries. Google's iPhone tracking: Web giant, others bypassed Apple browser settings for guarding privacy. The Wall Street Journal, Feb. 17, 2012. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204880404577225380456599176.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. M. Bellare, A. Boldyreva, and A. O'Neill. Deterministic and efficiently searchable encryption. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual International Cryptology Conference on Advances in Cryptology, CRYPTO'07, pages 535--552. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. B. Beurdouche, K. Bhargavan, A. Delignat-Lavaud, C. Fournet, M. Kohlweiss, A. Pironti, P.-Y. Strub, and J. K. Zinzindohoue. A messy state of the union: Taming the composite state machines of TLS. In IEEE Symposium on Security & Privacy 2015, San Jose, United States, May 2015. IEEE. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. K. Bhargavan, A. D. Lavaud, C. Fournet, A. Pironti, and P. Y. Strub. Triple handshakes and cookie cutters: Breaking and fixing authentication over TLS. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, SP '14, pages 98--113, Washington, DC, USA, 2014. IEEE Computer Society. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. K. Bhargavan and G. Leurent. Transcript collision attacks: Breaking authentication in TLS, IKE, and SSH. In 23nd Annual Network and Distributed System Security Symposium 2016, NDSS 2016, Feb. 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. D. Boneh, G. Di Crescenzo, R. Ostrovsky, and G. Persiano. Public key encryption with keyword search. In Advances in Cryptology - EUROCRYPT 2004: International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 2--6, 2004. Proceedings, pages 506--522, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2004. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. S. Cabuk, C. E. Brodley, and C. Shields. IP covert timing channels: design and detection. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS '04, pages 178--187, New York, NY, USA, 2004. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. R. Canetti, C. Dwork, M. Naor, and R. Ostrovsky. Deniable encryption. In Annual International Cryptology Conference, CRYPTO '97, Aug. 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. L. Cauley. NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls; 3 telecoms help government collect billions of domestic records. USA Today, May 11, 2006. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05--10-nsa_x.htm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. E. Chiel. Here are the sites you can't access because someone took the internet down. Fusion, October 20 2016. http://fusion.net/story/360952/which-sites-affected-ddos-attack/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. R. Chirgwin. Internet of Things 'smart' devices are dumb by design. The Register, Jan. 19, 2016. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/01/19/iot_smart_devices_are_dumb/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Cicero. Ad Pontifices, XLI., 109, translated by Harbottle, Dictionary of Quotations (Classical) (Sonnenschein 1906).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. R. Curtmola, J. Garay, S. Kamara, and R. Ostrovsky. Searchable symmetric encryption: Improved definitions and efficient constructions. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS '06, pages 79--88, New York, NY, USA, 2006. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. CVE-2012--3372: Vulnerability in Cyberoam DPI devices. Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures List, June 30, 2012. https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2012--3372.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. CVE-2014-0160: OpenSSL 'Heartbleed' Vulnerability. Common Vulnerabilites and Exposures List, Apr. 2014. https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2014-0160.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. CVE-2016--1280: Self-signed certificate with spoofed trusted issuer cn accepted as valid. Common Vulnerabilites and Exposures List, July 2016. https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2016--1280.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. X. d. C. de Carnavalet and M. Mannan. Killed by proxy: Analyzing client-end tls interception software. In 23nd Annual Network and Distributed System Security Symposium 2016, NDSS 2016, Feb. 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. T. Dierks and C. Allen. The TLS protocol version 1.0. IETF, 1999. RFC 2246. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. T. Dierks and E. Rescorla. The transport-layer security (TLS) protocol, version 1.1. IETF, 2006. RFC 4346.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. T. Dierks and E. Rescorla. The transport layer security (TLS) protocol version 1.2. IETF, 2008. RFC 5246.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. B. Donohue. Dozens of popular Android apps leak sensitive user data. Kaspersky Lab official blog, Sept. 18, 2016. https://blog.kaspersky.com/privacy_holes_in_popular_android_apps/6047/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. R. Ensafi, D. Fifield, P. Winter, N. Feamster, N. Weaver, and V. Paxson. Examining how the Great Firewall discovers hidden circumvention servers. In Proceedings of the 2015 Internet Measurement Conference, IMC '15, pages 445--458, New York, NY, USA, 2015. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. S. Fahl, M. Harbach, H. Perl, M. Koetter, and M. Smith. Rethinking SSL development in an appified world. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS '13, pages 49--60, New York, NY, USA, 2013. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. R. Fielding, J. Gettys, J. Mogul, H. Frystyk, L. Masinter, P. Leach, and T. Berners-Lee. Hypertext transfer protocol--HTTP/1.1. IETF, 1999. RFC 2616. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. R. Fielding and J. Reschke. Hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message syntax and routing. IETF, 2014. RFC 7230.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. J. Follorou and F. Johannès. Révélations sur le Big Brother français {revelations about the French Big Brother}. Le Monde, July 4, 2013. http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2013/07/04/revelations-sur-le-big-brother-francais_3441973_3224.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. S. Gianvecchio and H. Wang. Detecting covert timing channels: An entropy-based approach. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS '07, pages 307--316, New York, NY, USA, 2007. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. M. Godbe. Google deceptively tracks students' internet browsing, EFF says in FTC complaint. Electronic Frontier Foundation, December 1, 2015. https://www.eff.org/press/releases/google-deceptively-tracks-students-internet-browsing-eff-says-complaint-federal-trade.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. G. Greenwald. No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State. Metropolitan Books, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. S. Grover and N. Feamster. The internet of unpatched things. In PrivacyCon, Jan. 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. J. Hoffman-Andrews. Ad network turn will suspend zombie cookie program. when will verizon? Electronic Frontier Foundation, January 16, 2015. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/01/ad-network-turn-will-suspend-zombie-cookie-program-when-will-verizon.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. A. Houmansadr and N. Borisov. CoCo: Coding-based covert timing channels for network flows. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Information Hiding, IH'11, pages 314--328, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2011. Springer-Verlag. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. L. S. Huang, A. Rice, E. Ellingsen, and C. Jackson. Analyzing forged SSL certificates in the wild. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, SP '14, pages 83--97, Washington, DC, USA, 2014. IEEE Computer Society. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Internet of things research study, 2015 report. Hewlett Packard. http://www8.hp.com/h20195/V2/GetPDF.aspx/4AA5--4759ENW.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. H. Krawczyk. Perfect forward secrecy. In Encyclopedia of Cryptography and Security, pages 457--458. Springer, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Y. Liu, D. Ghosal, F. Armknecht, A.-R. Sadeghi, S. Schulz, and S. Katzenbeisser. Hide and seek in time: Robust covert timing channels. In Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Research in Computer Security, ESORICS'09, pages 120--135, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2009. Springer-Verlag. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. S. Loreto, J. Mattsson, R. Skog, H. Spaak, G. Gus, D. Druta, and M. Hafeez. Explicit trusted proxy in HTTP/2.0. IETF HTTPBis Working Group Internet-Draft draft-loreto-httpbis-trusted-proxy20-01, February 14, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. D. McGrew, D. Wing, Y. Nir, and P. Gladstone. TLS proxy server extension. IETF TLS Internet-Draft draft-mcgrew-tls-proxy-server-01, July 16, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. D. A. McGrew and J. Viega. The Galois/counter mode of operation (GCM), May 31, 2005. http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/toolkit/BCM/documents/proposedmodes/gcm/gcm-spec.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. E. Nakashima. Chinese hackers who breached Google gained access to sensitive data, U.S. officials say. The Washington Post, May 20, 2013. https://www.washingtonpost.com/51330428-be34--11e2--89c9--3be8095fe767_story.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. D. Naylor, K. Schomp, M. Varvello, I. Leontiadis, J. Blackburn, D. R. López, K. Papagiannaki, P. Rodriguez Rodriguez, and P. Steenkiste. Multi-context TLS (mcTLS): Enabling secure in-network functionality in TLS. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Conference on Special Interest Group on Data Communication, SIGCOMM '15, pages 199--212, New York, NY, USA, 2015. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Y. Nir. A method for sharing record protocol keys with a middlebox in TLS. IETF TLS Working Group Internet-Draft draft-nir-tls-keyshare-02, March 26, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. V. Paxson, M. Christodorescu, M. Javed, J. R. Rao, R. Sailer, D. L. Schales, M. P. Stoecklin, K. Thomas, W. Venema, and N. Weaver. Practical comprehensive bounds on surreptitious communication over DNS. In Proceedings of the 22nd USENIX Security Symposium, USENIX-SS'17, pages 17--32. USENIX Association, Aug. 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. R. Peon. Explicit proxies for HTTP/2.0. IETF Network Working Group Internet-Draft draft-rpeon-httpbis-exproxy-00, June 8, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. A. Peterson. How the NSA may be using games to encourage digital snooping. The Washington Post, June 18, 2014. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/06/18/how-the-nsa-may-have-used-games-to-encourage-digital-snooping/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. R. A. Popa, C. M. S. Redfield, N. Zeldovich, and H. Balakrishnan. CryptDB: Protecting confidentiality with encrypted query processing. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Third ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, SOSP '11, pages 85--100, New York, NY, USA, 2011. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. R. A. Popa, E. Stark, J. Helfer, S. Valdez, N. Zeldovich, M. F. Kaashoek, and H. Balakrishnan. Building web applications on top of encrypted data using Mylar. In Proceedings of the 11th USENIX Conference on Networked Systems Design and Implementation, NSDI'14, pages 157--172, Berkeley, CA, USA, 2014. USENIX Association. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. M. W. R. Seggelmann, M. Tuexen. Transport layer security (TLS) and datagram transport layer security (DTLS) heartbeat extension. IETF, 2012. RFC 6520.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. E. Rescorla. The transport layer security (TLS) protocol version 1.3. IETF, 2017. draft-ietf-tls-tls13--19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. J. Risen and E. Lichtblau. Bush lets U.S. spy on callers without courts. The New York Times, December 16, 2005. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/bush-lets-us-spy-on-callers-without-courts.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. P. Rogaway. The moral character of cryptographic work. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2015/1162, 2015. http://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1162.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. E. Ronen, C. O'Flynn, A. Shamir, and A. Weingarten. IoT Goes Nuclear: Creating a ZigBee Chain Reaction, Preliminary Draft Version 0.93, Nov. 2016. http://iotworm.eyalro.net/iotworm.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. J. Salowey, H. Zhou, P. Eronen, and H. Tschofenig. Transport layer security (TLS) session resumption without server-side state. IETF, 2008. RFC 5077.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. D. E. Sanger and J. H. Davis. Hacking linked to China exposes millions of U.S. workers. The New York Times, June 4, 2015. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/05/us/breach-in-a-federal-computer-system-exposes-personnel-data.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. S. Schultze. How the Nokia browser decrypts SSL traffic: A "man in the client". Freedom To Tinker Blog, January 11, 2013. https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/sjs/how-the-nokia-browser-decrypts-ssl-traffic-a-man-in-the-client/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. G. Shah, A. Molina, and M. Blaze. Keyboards and covert channels. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference on USENIX Security Symposium - Volume 15, USENIX-SS'06, Berkeley, CA, USA, 2006. USENIX Association. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. J. Sherry, C. Lan, R. A. Popa, and S. Ratnasamy. BlindBox: Deep packet inspection over encrypted traffic. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Conference on Special Interest Group on Data Communication, SIGCOMM '15, pages 213--226, New York, NY, USA, 2015. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. G. R. Simpson. Treasury tracks financial data in secret program. The Wall Street Journal, June 23, 2006. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB115101988281688182.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. R. Singel. Whistle-blower outs NSA spy room. Wired, April 7, 2006. https://archive.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/04/70619.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. D. X. Song, D. Wagner, and A. Perrig. Practical techniques for searches on encrypted data. In Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, SP '00, pages 44--55, Washington, DC, USA, 2000. IEEE Computer Society. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  65. Vulnerability note VU\#792004. CERT Vulnerability Notes Database. https://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/792004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. F. Wang, J. Mickens, N. Zeldovich, and V. Vaikuntanathan. Sieve: Cryptographically enforced access control for user data in untrusted clouds. In Proceedings of the 13th Usenix Conference on Networked Systems Design and Implementation, NSDI'16, pages 611--626, Berkeley, CA, USA, 2016. USENIX Association. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  67. C. Wisniewski. Smart meter hacking can disclose which TV shows and movies you watch. naked security by SOPHOS, Jan. 8, 2012. https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/01/08/28c3-smart-meter-hacking-can-disclose-which-tv-shows-and-movies-you-watch/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. Z. Zhou and T. Benson. Towards a safe playground for HTTPS and middle boxes with QoS2. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Hot Topics in Middleboxes and Network Function Virtualization, HotMiddlebox '15, pages 7--12, New York, NY, USA, 2015. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Trust but Verify: Auditing the Secure Internet of Things

            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
              MobiSys '17: Proceedings of the 15th Annual International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services
              June 2017
              520 pages
              ISBN:9781450349284
              DOI:10.1145/3081333

              Copyright © 2017 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: 16 June 2017

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • research-article

              Acceptance Rates

              MobiSys '17 Paper Acceptance Rate34of188submissions,18%Overall Acceptance Rate274of1,679submissions,16%

              Upcoming Conference

              MOBISYS '24

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader