skip to main content
research-article

IoT Inspector: Crowdsourcing Labeled Network Traffic from Smart Home Devices at Scale

Published:15 June 2020Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The proliferation of smart home devices has created new opportunities for empirical research in ubiquitous computing, ranging from security and privacy to personal health. Yet, data from smart home deployments are hard to come by, and existing empirical studies of smart home devices typically involve only a small number of devices in lab settings. To contribute to data-driven smart home research, we crowdsource the largest known dataset of labeled network traffic from smart home devices from within real-world home networks. To do so, we developed and released IoT Inspector, an open-source tool that allows users to observe the traffic from smart home devices on their own home networks. Between April 10, 2019 and January 21, 2020, 5,404 users have installed IoT Inspector, allowing us to collect labeled network traffic from 54,094 smart home devices. At the time of publication, IoT Inspector is still gaining users and collecting data from more devices. We demonstrate how this data enables new research into smart homes through two case studies focused on security and privacy. First, we find that many device vendors, including Amazon and Google, use outdated TLS versions and send unencrypted traffic, sometimes to advertising and tracking services. Second, we discover that smart TVs from at least 10 vendors communicated with advertising and tracking services. Finally, we find widespread cross-border communications, sometimes unencrypted, between devices and Internet services that are located in countries with potentially poor privacy practices. To facilitate future reproducible research in smart homes, we will release the IoT Inspector data to the public.

References

  1. M. Antonakakis, T. April, M. Bailey, M. Bernhard, E. Bursztein, J. Cochran, Z. Durumeric, J. A. Halderman, L. Invernizzi, M. Kallitsis, D. Kumar, C. Lever, Z. Ma, J. Mason, D. Menscher, C. Seaman, N. Sullivan, K. Thomas, and Y. Zhou, "Understanding the Mirai Botnet," in USENIX Security Symposium, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. G. Chu, N. Apthorpe, and N. Feamster, "Security and Privacy Analyses of Internet of Things Children's Toys," IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 978--985, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. J. Ortiz, C. Crawford, and F. Le, "Devicemien: Network device behavior modeling for identifying unknown iot devices," in Proceedings of the International Conference on Internet of Things Design and Implementation, ser. IoTDI '19. New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2019, pp. 106--117. [Online]. Available: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/3302505.3310073Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Rob van der Meulen. (2017) Gartner Says 8.4 Billion Connected "Things" Will Be in Use in 2017, Up 31 Percent From 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2017-02-07-gartner-says-8-billion-connected-things-will-be-in-use-in-2017-up-31-percent-from-2016Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. D. Kumar, K. Shen, B. Case, D. Garg, G. Alperovich, D. Kuznetsov, R. Gupta, and Z. Durumeric, "All Things Considered: An Analysis of IoT Devices on Home Networks," in USENIX Security Symposium, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. N. Apthorpe, D. Y. Huang, D. Reisman, A. Narayanan, and N. Feamster, "Keeping the smart home private with smart (er) iot traffic shaping," arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.00955, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. D. Wood, N. Apthorpe, and N. Feamster, "Cleartext Data Transmissions in Consumer IoT Medical Devices," in Proceedings of the 2017 Workshop on Internet of Things Security and Privacy. ACM, 2017, pp. 7--12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. S. Sundaresan, S. Burnett, N. Feamster, and W. De Donato, "BISmark: A Testbed for Deploying Measurements and Applications in Broadband Access Networks," in USENIX Annual Technical Conference (ATC), 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. P. Schmitt, F. Bronzino, R. Teixeira, T. Chattopadhyay, and N. Feamster, "Enhancing transparency: Internet video quality inference from network traffic," Research Conference on Communications, Information and Internet Policy, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. X. Feng, Q. Li, H. Wang, and L. Sun, "Acquisitional rule-based engine for discovering internet-of-things devices," in USENIX Security Symposium, 2018, pp. 327--341.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Y. Mirsky, T. Doitshman, Y. Elovici, and A. Shabtai, "Kitsune: an ensemble of autoencoders for online network intrusion detection," Network and Distributed Systems Security Symposium (NDSS), 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. M. Miettinen, S. Marchal, I. Hafeez, N. Asokan, A. Sadeghi, and S. Tarkoma, "Iot sentinel: Automated device-type identification for security enforcement in iot," in 2017 IEEE 37th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS), June 2017, pp. 2177--2184.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Y. Meidan, M. Bohadana, A. Shabtai, J. D. Guarnizo, M. Ochoa, N. O. Tippenhauer, and Y. Elovici, "Profiliot: A machine learning approach for iot device identification based on network traffic analysis," in Proceedings of the Symposium on Applied Computing, ser. SAC '17. New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2017, pp. 506--509. [Online]. Available: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/3019612.3019878Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. J. Deng, W. Dong, R. Socher, L.-J. Li, K. Li, and L. Fei-Fei, "Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database," in 2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. Ieee, 2009, pp. 248--255.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. M. Chetty, D. Haslem, A. Baird, U. Ofoha, B. Sumner, and R. Grinter, "Why is My Internet Slow?: Making Network Speeds Visible," in SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI), 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. S. Grover, M. S. Park, S. Sundaresan, S. Burnett, H. Kim, B. Ravi, and N. Feamster, "Peeking Behind the NAT: An Empirical Study of Home Networks," in Internet Measurement Conference (IMC), 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. C. Kreibich, N. Weaver, B. Nechaev, and V. Paxson, "Netalyzr: Illuminating the Edge Network," in ACM Internet Measurement Conference (IMC), 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. L. DiCioccio, R. Teixeira, M. May, and C. Kreibich, "Probe and Pray: Using UPnP for Home Network Measurements," in International Conference on Passive and Active Measurement (PAM), 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. L. DiCioccio, R. Teixeira, and C. Rosenberg, "Measuring Home Networks with HomeNet Profiler," in International Conference on Passive and Active Measurement (PAM), 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. S. Shasha, M. Mahmoud, M. Mannan, and A. Youssef, "Playing With Danger: A Taxonomy and Evaluation of Threats to Smart Toys," IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. G. Acar, D. Huang, F. Li, A. Narayanan, and N. Feamster, "Web-based Attacks to Discover and Control Local IoT Devices," in ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on IoT Security and Privacy (IoT S&P), 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. IEEE. Organizationally unique identifier. [Online]. Available: http://standards-oui.ieee.org/oui.txtGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Netdisco. Netdisco. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/home-assistant/netdiscoGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Debian. Arpspoof - intercept packets on a switched lan. [Online]. Available: https://manpages.debian.org/jessie/dsniff/arpspoof.8.en.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. inverse.ca. Fingerbank. [Online]. Available: https://fingerbank.org/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. C. Kreibich, N. Weaver, G. Maier, B. Nechaev, and V. Paxson, "Experiences from netalyzr with engaging users in end-system measurement," in Proceedings of the First ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Measurements Up the Stack, ser. W-MUST '11. New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2011, pp. 25--30. [Online]. Available: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2018602.2018609Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. F. Security. Farsight security passive dns faq. [Online]. Available: https://www.farsightsecurity.com/technical/passive-dns/passive-dns-faq/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. T. Libert, "Exposing the invisible web: An analysis of third-party http requests on 1 million websites," International Journal of Communication, vol. 9, no. 0, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/3646Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. DisconnectMe. (2019) Disconnect tracking protection. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/disconnectme/disconnect-tracking-protection/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. N. Lomas. (2019) Spy on your smart home with this open source research tool. [Online]. Available: https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/13/spy-on-your-smart-home-with-this-open-source-research-tool/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. G. A. Fowler. (2019) You watch tv. your tv watches back. [Online]. Available: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/09/18/you-watch-tv-your-tv-watches-back/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. K. Hill. (2019) This simple tool will reveal the secret life of your smart home. [Online]. Available: https://gizmodo.com/this-simple-tool-will-reveal-the-secret-life-of-your-sm-1832264323Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. R. Pringle. (2019) 'it's time for us to watch them': App lets you spy on alexa and the rest of your smart devices. [Online]. Available: https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/pringle-smart-home-privacy-1.5109347Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. I. Flatow. (2019) Your smart tv is watching you. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/smart-tv-roku-spying/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. MQTT. (2019) Message Queuing Telemetry Transport. [Online]. Available: http://mqtt.org/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Seth Schoen. (2019) ESNI: A Privacy-Protecting Upgrade to HTTPS. [Online]. Available: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/09/esni-privacy-protecting-upgrade-httpsGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Emily Schechter. (2018) A milestone for Chrome security: marking HTTP as "not secure". [Online]. Available: https://www.blog.google/products/chrome/milestone-chrome-security-marking-http-not-secure/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Marissa Wood. (2019) Today's Firefox Blocks Third-Party Tracking Cookies and Cryptomining by Default - The Mozilla Blog. [Online]. Available: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2019/09/03/todays-firefox-blocks-third-party-tracking-cookies-and-cryptomining-by-defaultGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. H. Mohajeri Moghaddam, G. Acar, B. Burgess, A. Mathur, D. Y. Huang, N. Feamster, E. W. Felten, P. Mittal, and A. Narayanan, "Watching you watch: The tracking ecosystem of over-the-top tv streaming devices," in Proceedings of the 2019 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, ser. CCS '19. ACM, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Z. Durumeric, Z. Ma, D. Springall, R. Barnes, N. Sullivan, E. Bursztein, M. Bailey, J. A. Halderman, and V. Paxson, "The security impact of https interception." in NDSS, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. A. Razaghpanah, A. A. Niaki, N. Vallina-Rodriguez, S. Sundaresan, J. Amann, and P. Gill, "Studying TLS Usage in Android Apps," in Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Emerging Networking EXperiments and Technologies, ser. CoNEXT '17. New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2017, pp. 350--362. [Online]. Available: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/3143361.3143400Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. O. Alrawi, C. Lever, M. Antonakakis, and F. Monrose, "SoK: Security Evaluation of Home-Based IoT Deployments," in IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P), 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. K. McKay and D. Cooper. (2019, Aug) Guidelines for the Selection, Configuration, and Use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) Implementations.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Chromium Bugs. (2014) Issue 436391: Add info on end of life of SSLVersionFallbackMin & SSLVersionMin policy in documentation. [Online]. Available: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=436391Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. B. Möller, T. Duong, and K. Kotowicz, "This poodle bites: exploiting the ssl 3.0 fallback," Security Advisory, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. S. Englehardt and A. Narayanan, "Online tracking: A 1-million-site measurement and analysis," in Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. ACM, 2016, pp. 1388--1401.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. A. Razaghpanah, R. Nithyanand, N. Vallina-Rodriguez, S. Sundaresan, M. Allman, C. Kreibich, and P. Gill, "Apps, trackers, privacy, and regulators: A global study of the mobile tracking ecosystem," 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. N. Apthorpe, D. Y. Huang, D. Reisman, A. Narayanan, and N. Feamster, "Keeping the Smart Home Private with Smart(er) IoT Traffic Shaping," in Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies Symposium (PETS), 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Y. Meidan, M. Bohadana, A. Shabtai, J. D. Guarnizo, M. Ochoa, N. O. Tippenhauer, and Y. Elovici, "Profiliot: a machine learning approach for iot device identification based on network traffic analysis," in Proceedings of the symposium on applied computing. ACM, 2017, pp. 506--509.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. J. Ortiz, C. Crawford, and F. Le, "DeviceMien: network device behavior modeling for identifying unknown IoT devices," in Proceedings of the International Conference on Internet of Things Design and Implementation. ACM, 2019, pp. 106--117.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. M. Miettinen, S. Marchal, I. Hafeez, N. Asokan, A.-R. Sadeghi, and S. Tarkoma, "Iot sentinel: Automated device-type identification for security enforcement in iot," in 2017 IEEE 37th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS). IEEE, 2017, pp. 2177--2184.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. IoT Inspector: Crowdsourcing Labeled Network Traffic from Smart Home Devices at Scale

    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 Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies
      Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies  Volume 4, Issue 2
      June 2020
      771 pages
      EISSN:2474-9567
      DOI:10.1145/3406789
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2020 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: 15 June 2020
      Published in imwut Volume 4, 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