skip to main content
10.1145/3139550.3139564acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesccsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Analysis of Fingerprinting Techniques for Tor Hidden Services

Published:30 October 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

The website fingerprinting attack aims to infer the content of encrypted and anonymized connections by analyzing traffic patterns such as packet sizes, their order, and direction. Although it has been shown that no existing fingerprinting method scales in Tor when applied in realistic settings, the case of Tor hidden (onion) services has not yet been considered in such scenarios. Recent works claim the feasibility of the attack in the context of hidden services using limited datasets.

In this work, we propose a novel two-phase approach for fingerprinting hidden services that does not rely on malicious Tor nodes. In our attack, the adversary merely needs to be on the link between the client and the first anonymization node. In the first phase, we detect a connection to a hidden service. Once a hidden service communication is detected, we determine the visited hidden service (phase two) within the hidden service universe. To estimate the scalability of our and other existing methods, we constructed the most extensive and realistic dataset of existing hidden services. Using this dataset, we show the feasibility of phase one of the attack and establish that phase two does not scale using existing classifiers. We present a comprehensive comparison of the performance and limits of the state-of-the-art website fingerprinting attacks with respect to Tor hidden services.

References

  1. 2014. Better, fairer circuit OOM handling. https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/9093. (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. 2014. Thoughts and Concerns about Operation Onymous. https://blog.torproject.org/blog/thoughts-and-concerns-about-operation-onymous. (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. 2015. Getting the HSDir flag should require the Stable flag. https://github.com/DonnchaC/torspec/blob/master/proposals/243-hsdir-flag-need-stable.txt. (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. 2015. Load Balancing/High Availability Hidden Services. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/Mar-2015/msg00218.html. (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. 2015. Possible Solutions for Increasing the Capacity of a Hidden Service. https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/2015-March/037173.html. (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. 2017. Tor Rendezvous Specification. https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git?a=blob_plain;hb=HEAD;f=rend-spec.txt. (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Alex Biryukov, Ivan Pustogarov, Fabrice Thill, and Ralf-Philipp Weinmann. 2014. Content and Popularity Analysis of Tor Hidden Services. In 34th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems Workshops. IEEE, Madrid, Spain, 188--193. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Alex Biryukov, Ivan Pustogarov, and Ralf-Philipp Weinmann. 2013. Trawling for Tor Hidden Services: Detection, Measurement, Deanonymization. In Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P). IEEE, Berkeley, CA, USA, 80--94.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Xiang Cai, Xin Cheng Zhang, Brijesh Joshi, and Rob Johnson. 2012. Touching from a distance: website fingerprinting attacks and defenses. In ACM conference on Computer and communications security (CCS). ACM, Raleigh, NC, USA, 605--616. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Chih-Chung Chang and Chih-Jen Lin. 2011. LIBSVM: A library for support vector machines. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology 2 (April 2011). Issue 3. Available: http://www.csie.ntu.edu.tw/~cjlin/libsvm.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Roger Dingledine and Nick Mathewson. 2017. Tor directory protocol, Version 3. https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/dir-spec.txt. (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Roger Dingledine and Nick Mathewson. 2017. Tor Protocol Specification. https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git?a=blob_plain;hb=HEAD;f=tor-spec.txt. (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Roger Dingledine, Nick Mathewson, and Paul Syverson. 2004. Tor: The Second-generation Onion Router. In 13th conference on USENIX Security Symposium. USENIX Association.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Kevin P. Dyer, Scott E. Coull, Thomas Ristenpart, and Thomas Shrimpton. 2012. Peek-a-Boo, I Still See You: Why Efficient Traffic Analysis Countermeasures Fail. In Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P). IEEE, San Francisco, CA, USA, 332--346.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Rafael Gálvez, Marc Juarez, and Claudia Diaz. 2016. Profiling Tor Users with Unsupervised Learning Techniques. In International Workshop on Inference and Privacy in a Hyperconnected World (INFER). DE GRUYTER, Darmstadt, Germany.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Jamie Hayes and George Danezis. 2016. k-fingerprinting: a Robust Scalable Website Fingerprinting Technique. In 25th USENIX Security Symposium. USENIX Association, Austin, TX, 1187--1204.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Dominik Herrmann, Rolf Wendolsky, and Hannes Federrath. 2009. Website Fingerprinting: Attacking Popular Privacy Enhancing Technologies with the Multinomial Naïve-Bayes Classifier. In ACM workshop on Cloud computing security. ACM, Chicago, IL, USA, 31--42. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Rob Jansen, Florian Tschorsch, Aaron Johnson, and Bjorn Scheuermann. 2014. The Sniper Attack: Anonymously Deanonymizing and Disabling the Tor Network. In 21st Internet Society (ISOC) Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS). Internet Society, San Diego, CA, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Marc Juarez, Sadia Afroz, Gunes Acar, Claudia Diaz, and Rachel Greenstadt. 2014. A Critical Evaluation of Website Fingerprinting Attacks. In 21st ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS). ACM, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA, 263--274. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Albert Kwon, Mashael AlSabah, David Lazar, Marc Dacier, and Srinivas Devadas. 2015. Circuit Fingerprinting Attacks: Passive Deanonymization of Tor Hidden Services. In 24th USENIX Security Symposium. USENIX Association, Washington, D.C., 287--302.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Nick Mathewson. 2015. Next-Generation Hidden Services in Tor. https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/proposals/224-rend-spec-ng.txt. (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Srdjan Matic, Platon Kotzias, and Juan Caballero. 2015. Caronte: Detecting Location Leaks for Deanonymizing Tor Hidden Services. In 22nd ACM SIGSAC conference on Computer and communications security (CCS). ACM, Denver, Colorado, USA, 1455--1466. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Asya Mitseva, Andriy Panchenko, Fabian Lanze, Martin Henze, Klaus Wehrle, and Thomas Engel. 2016. POSTER: Fingerprinting Tor Hidden Services. In ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS). ACM, Vienna, Austria, 1766--1768. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Steven Murdoch. 2006. Hot or not: Revealing hidden services by their clock skew. In ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS). ACM, Alexandria, VA, USA, 27--36. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Juha Nurmi. 2015. Warning: 255 fake and booby trapped onion sites. (2015). https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/2015-July/038318.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Donncha O'Cearbhaill. 2017. OnionBalance. https://onionbalance.readthedocs.org/en/latest/. (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Lasse Øverlier and Paul Syverson. 2006. Locating Hidden Servers. In Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P). IEEE, Oakland, CA, USA, 99--114. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Andriy Panchenko, Fabian Lanze, Andreas Zinnen, Martin Henze, Jan Pennekamp, Klaus Wehrle, and Thomas Engel. 2016. Website Fingerprinting at Internet Scale. In the 23rd Internet Society (ISOC) Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS). Internet Society, San Diego, CA, USA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Andriy Panchenko, Lukas Niessen, Andreas Zinnen, and Thomas Engel. 2011. Website Fingerprinting in Onion Routing Based Anonymization Networks. In 10th ACM Computer and Communications Security Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society. ACM, Chicago, Illinois, USA, 103--114. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Mike Perry. 2015. Notes and Action Items from Hidden Service Fingerprinting Session. https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-dev/2015-October/009632.html. (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Sandeep Tata and Jignesh M. Patel. 2007. Estimating the Selectivity of tf-idf Based Cosine Similarity Predicates. Newsletter ACM SIGMOD Record 36 (June 2007), 7--12. Issue 2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Tao Wang, Xiang Cai, Rishab Nithyanand, Rob Johnson, and Ian Goldberg. 2014. Effective Attacks and Provable Defenses for Website Fingerprinting. In 23rd USENIX conference on Security Symposium. USENIX Association, 1--15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Tao Wang and Ian Goldberg. 2013. Improved website fingerprinting on Tor. In 12th ACM Computer and Communications Security Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society. ACM, Berlin, Germany, 201--212. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Tao Wang and Ian Goldberg. 2016. On Realistically Attacking Tor with Website Fingerprinting. In Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PETS). DE GRUYTER, Darmstadt, Germany, 21--36. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Chih wei Hsu, Chih-Chung Chang, and Chih-Jen Lin. 2010. A Practical Guide to Support Vector Classification. http://www.csie.ntu.edu.tw/~cjlin/papers/guide/guide.pdf. (2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Matthew Wright, Micah Adler, Brian Levine, and Clay Shields. 2003. Defending Anonymous Communication Against Passive Logging Attacks. In Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P). IEEE, Oakland, CA, USA, 28--43. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Sebastian Zander and Steven Murdoch. 2008. An Improved Clock-skew Measurement Technique for Revealing Hidden Services. In 17th conference on USENIX Security symposium. USENIX Association, Berkeley, CA, USA, 211--225.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Analysis of Fingerprinting Techniques for Tor Hidden Services

          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 '17: Proceedings of the 2017 on Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society
            October 2017
            184 pages
            ISBN:9781450351751
            DOI:10.1145/3139550

            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: 30 October 2017

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article

            Acceptance Rates

            WPES '17 Paper Acceptance Rate14of56submissions,25%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