skip to main content
10.1145/3278532.3278551acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesimcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

How to Catch when Proxies Lie: Verifying the Physical Locations of Network Proxies with Active Geolocation

Published:31 October 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Internet users worldwide rely on commercial network proxies both to conceal their true location and identity, and to control their apparent location. Their reasons range from mundane to security-critical. Proxy operators offer no proof that their advertised server locations are accurate. IP-to-location databases tend to agree with the advertised locations, but there have been many reports of serious errors in such databases.

In this study we estimate the locations of 2269 proxy servers from ping-time measurements to hosts in known locations, combined with AS and network information. These servers are operated by seven proxy services, and, according to the operators, spread over 222 countries and territories. Our measurements show that one-third of them are definitely not located in the advertised countries, and another third might not be. Instead, they are concentrated in countries where server hosting is cheap and reliable (e.g. Czech Republic, Germany, Netherlands, UK, USA).

In the process, we address a number of technical challenges with applying active geolocation to proxy servers, which may not be directly pingable, and may restrict the types of packets that can be sent through them, e.g. forbidding traceroute. We also test three geolocation algorithms from previous literature, plus two variations of our own design, at the scale of the whole world.

References

  1. 2012. Navigation Timing. W3C Recommendation. http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-navigation-timing-20121217/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. AbdelRahman M. Abdou, Ashraf Matrawy, and Paul C. Van Oorschot. 2015. CPV: Delay-based Location Verification for the Internet. Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing 14, 2 (2015), 130--144. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. AbdelRahman M. Abdou, Ashraf Matrawy, and Paul C. Van Oorschot. 2017. Accurate Manipulation of Delay-based Internet Geolocation. In Asia Conference on Computer and Communications Security. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 887--898. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Mohammed Jubaer Arif, Shanika Karunasekera, and Santosh Kulkarni. 2010. GeoWeight: Internet Host Geolocation Based on a Probability Model for Latency Measurements. In Australasian Computer Science Conference, Vol. 102. ACS, Sydney, 89--98. http://crpit.com/confpapers/crpitv102arif.pdf Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Claude Castelluccia, Mohamed Ali Kaafar, Pere Manils, and Daniele Perito. 2009. Geolocalization of Proxied Services and its Application to Fast-Flux Hidden Servers. In Internet Measurement Conference. ACM, New York. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Center for Applied Internet Data Analysis. 2006. Archipelago (Ark) Measurement Infrastructure. http://www.caida.org/projects/ark/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Balakrishnan Chandrasekaran, Mingru Bai, Michael Schoenfield, Arthur Berger, Nicole Caruso, George Economou, Stephen Gilliss, Bruce Maggs, Kyle Moses, David Duff, Keung-Chi Ng, Emin Gün Sirer, Richard Weber, and Bernard Wong. 2015. Alidade: IP Geolocation without Active Probing. Technical Report CS-TR-2015.001. Department of Computer Science, Duke University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Jingning Chen, Fenlin Liu, Xiangyang Luo, Fan Zhao, and Guang Zhu. 2016. A landmark calibration-based IP geolocation approach. EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2016, Article 4 (2016), 11 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Frank Dabek, Russ Cox, Frans Kaashoek, and Robert Morris. 2004. Vivaldi: A Decentralized Network Coordinate System. In SIGCOMM. ACM, New York, 15--26. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Jasper den Hertog and Massimo Candela. 2018. OpenIPMap: A Collaborative Approach to Mapping Internet Infrastructure. https://labs.ripe.net/Members/jasper_den_hertog/openipmap-a-collaborative-approach-to-mapping-internet-infrastructureGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Shichang Ding, Xiangyang Luo, Meijuan Yin, Yan Liu, and Fenlin Liu. 2015. An IP Geolocation Method Based on Rich-Connected Sub-networks. In International Conference on Advanced Communication Technology. IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 176--181.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Ziqian Dong, Rohan D. W. Perera, Rajarathnam Chandramouli, and K. P. Subbalakshmi. 2012. Network measurement based modeling and optimization for IP geolocation. Computer Networks 56, 1 (2012), 85--98. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Benjamin Dowling, Douglas Stebila, and Greg Zaverucha. 2016. Authenticated Network Time Synchronization. In USENIX Security Symposium. USENIX Association, 823--840. https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity16/technical-sessions/presentation/dowling Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Brian Eriksson, Paul Barford, Bruce Maggs, and Robert Nowak. 2012. Posit: A Lightweight Approach for IP Geolocation. SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review 40, 2 (2012), 2--11. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Brian Eriksson, Paul Barford, Joel Sommers, and Robert Nowak. 2010. A Learning-Based Approach for IP Geolocation. In Passive and Active Measurement, Arvind Krishnamurthy and Bernhard Plattner (Eds.). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 171--180. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Brian Eriksson and Mark Crovella. 2013. Understanding Geolocation Accuracy using Network Geometry. In INFOCOM. IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 75--79.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Michael Gargiulo. 2018. List of VPN Locations by Provider. In VPN Reviews & Free Comparison Charts. https://www.vpn.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Manaf Gharaibeh, Anant Shah, Bradley Huffaker, Han Zhang, Roya Ensafi, and Christos Papadopoulos. 2017. A Look at Router Geolocation in Public and Commercial Databases. In Internet Measurement Conference. ACM, New York. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Phillipa Gill, Yashar Ganjali, Bernard Wong, and David Lie. 2010. Dude, where's that IP?: Circumventing measurement-based IP geolocation. In USENIX Security. USENIX, Berkeley, CA, Article 16, 16 pages. http://static.usenix.org/legacy/events/sec10/tech/full_papers/Gill.pdf Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Bamba Gueye, Artur Ziviani, Mark Crovella, and Serge Fdida. 2004. Constraint-based Geolocation of Internet Hosts. In Internet Measurement Conference. ACM, New York, 288--293. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Kashmir Hill. 2016. How an internet mapping glitch turned a random Kansas farm into a digital hell. FUSION (2016). http://fusion.net/story/287592/internet-mapping-glitch-kansas-farm/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Thomas Holterbach, Cristel Pelsser, Randy Bush, and Laurent Vanbever. 2015. Quantifying Interference Between Measurements on the RIPE Atlas Platform. In Internet Measurement Conference. ACM, New York, 437--443. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Zi Hu, John Heidemann, and Yuri Pradkin. 2012. Towards Geolocation of Millions of IP Addresses. In Internet Measurement Conference. ACM, New York, 123--130. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Collin Jackson, Andrew Bortz, Dan Boneh, and John C Mitchell. 2006. Protecting Browser State from Web Privacy Attacks. In World Wide Web. ACM, New York, 737--744. http://www.stanford.edu/people/jcm/papers/sameorigin.pdf Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Ethan Katz-Bassett, John P. John, Arvind Krishnamurthy, David Wetherall, Thomas Anderson, and Yatin Chawathe. 2006. Towards IP Geolocation Using Delay and Topology Measurements. In Internet Measurement Conference. ACM, New York, 71--84. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Raja A. A. Khan, Anjum Naveed, and R. Les Cottrell. 2016. Adaptive Geolocation of Internet Hosts. Technical Report SLAC-PUB-16463. SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Dan Komosny, Milan Simek, and Ganeshan Kathiravelu. 2013. Can Vivaldi Help in IP Geolocation? Przegląd Elektrotechniczny 2013, 5 (2013), 100--106. http://www.pe.org.pl/articles/2013/5/20.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Dan Komosny, Miroslav Voznak, Ganeshan Kathiravelu, and Hira Sathu. 2015. Estimation of Internet Node Location by Latency Measurements---The Underestimation Problem. Information Technology and Control 44, 3 (2015), 279--286. http://hdl.handle.net/10084/110524Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Rupa Krishnan, Harsha V. Madhyastha, Sridhar Srinivasan, Sushant Jain, Arvind Krishnamurthy, Thomas Anderson, and Jie Gao. 2009. Moving Beyond End-to-End Path Information to Optimize CDN Performance. In Internet Measurement Conference. ACM, New York, 190--201. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Sándor Laki, Péter Mátray, Péter Hága, Tamás Sebők, István Csabai, and Gábor Vattay. 2011. Spotter: A Model Based Active Geolocation Service. In INFOCOM. IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 3173--3181.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Raul Landa, Richard G. Clegg, João Taviera Araújo, Eleni Mykoniati, David Griffin, and Miguel Rio. 2013. Measuring the Relationships between Internet Geography and RTT. In International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks. IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 1--7.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Dan Li, Jiong Chen, Chuanxiong Guo, Yunxin Liu, Jinyu Zhang, Zhili Zhang, and Yongguang Zhang. 2013. IP-Geolocation Mapping for Moderately Connected Internet Regions. Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems 24, 2 (2013), 381--391. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. James A. Muir and Paul C. Van Oorschot. 2009. Internet Geolocation: Evasion and Counterevasion. Comput. Surveys 42, 1 (2009), 4:1--4:23. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Péter Mátray, Péter Hága, Sándor Laki, Gábor Vattay, and István Csabai. 2012. On the spatial properties of internet routes. Computer Networks 56, 9 (2012), 2237--2248. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Venkata N. Padmanabhan and Lakshminarayanan Subramanian. 2001. An Investigation of Geographic Mapping Techniques for Internet Hosts. In SIGCOMM. ACM, New York, 173--185. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Tom Patterson, Nathaniel Vaughn Kelso, et al. 2012. Natural Earth. Free vector and raster map data. http://www.naturalearthdata.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. PlanetLab 2007. PlanetLab: an open platform for developing, deploying, and accessing planetary-scale services. http://www.planet-lab.org/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Ingmar Poese, Steve Uhlig, Mohamed Ali Kaafar, Benoit Donnet, and Bamba Gueye. 2011. IP Geolocation Databases: Unreliable? SIGCOMM Computer Communications Review 41, 2 (2011), 53--56. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Abbas Razaghpanah, Anke Li, Arturo Filastò, Rishab Nithyanand, Vasilis Ververis, Will Scott, and Phillipa0 Gill. 2016. Exploring the Design Space of Longitudinal Censorship Measurement Platforms. (2016). arXiv:cs.NI71606.01979 arXiv preprint.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. RIPE NCC Staff. 2015. RIPE Atlas: A Global Internet Measurement Network. The Internet Protocol Journal 18, 3 (2015), 2--26. http://ipj.dreamhosters.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/ipj18.3.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. RIPE Network Coordination Centre. 2014. RIPE Atlas: a global network of Internet probes. https://atlas.ripe.netGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Yuval Shavitt and Noa Zilberman. 2011. A Geolocation Databases Study. Selected Areas in Communications 29, 10 (2011), 2044--2056.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. University of Wisconsin. 2011. Internet Atlas (DS-468). Continuously updated data set.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Yong Wang, Daniel Burgener, Marcel Flires, Aleksandar Kuzmanovic, and Cheng Huang. 2011. Towards Street-Level Client-Independent IP Geolocation. In Networked Systems Design and Implementation. USENIX, Berkeley, CA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Bernard Wong, Ivan Stoyanov, and Emin Gün Sirer. 2007. Octant: A Comprehensive Framework for the Geolocalization of Internet Hosts. In Networked Systems Design and Implementation. USENIX, Berkeley, CA, Article 23, 14 pages. http://static.usenix.org/legacy/events/nsdi07/tech/full_papers/wong/wong.pdf Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Artur Ziviani, Serge Fdida, José F. de Rezende, and Otto Carlos M. B. Duarte. 2005. Improving the accuracy of measurement-based geographic location of Internet hosts. Computer Networks 47, 4(2005), 503--523. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. How to Catch when Proxies Lie: Verifying the Physical Locations of Network Proxies with Active Geolocation

      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
        IMC '18: Proceedings of the Internet Measurement Conference 2018
        October 2018
        507 pages
        ISBN:9781450356190
        DOI:10.1145/3278532

        Copyright © 2018 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: 31 October 2018

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate277of1,083submissions,26%

        Upcoming Conference

        IMC '24
        ACM Internet Measurement Conference
        November 4 - 6, 2024
        Madrid , AA , Spain

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader