A First Look at Zoombombing

Chen Ling, Utkucan Balci, Jeremy Blackburn, G. Stringhini
{"title":"A First Look at Zoombombing","authors":"Chen Ling, Utkucan Balci, Jeremy Blackburn, G. Stringhini","doi":"10.1109/SP40001.2021.00061","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Online meeting tools like Zoom and Google Meet have become central to our professional, educational, and personal lives. This has opened up new opportunities for large scale harassment. In particular, a phenomenon known as zoombombing has emerged, in which aggressors join online meetings with the goal of disrupting them and harassing their participants. In this paper, we conduct the first data-driven analysis of calls for zoombombing attacks on social media. We identify ten popular online meeting tools and extract posts containing meeting invitations to these platforms on a mainstream social network, Twitter, and on a fringe community known for organizing coordinated attacks against online users, 4chan. We then perform manual annotation to identify posts that are calling for zoombombing attacks, and apply thematic analysis to develop a codebook to better characterize the discussion surrounding calls for zoombombing. During the first seven months of 2020, we identify over 200 calls for zoombombing between Twitter and 4chan, and analyze these calls both quantitatively and qualitatively. Our findings indicate that the vast majority of calls for zoombombing are not made by attackers stumbling upon meeting invitations or bruteforcing their meeting ID, but rather by insiders who have legitimate access to these meetings, particularly students in high school and college classes. This has important security implications because it makes common protections against zoombombing, e.g., password protection, ineffective. We also find instances of insiders instructing attackers to adopt the names of legitimate participants in the class to avoid detection, making countermeasures like setting up a waiting room and vetting participants less effective. Based on these observations, we argue that the only effective defense against zoombombing is creating unique join links for each participant.","PeriodicalId":6786,"journal":{"name":"2021 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP)","volume":"11 1","pages":"1452-1467"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"40","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2021 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/SP40001.2021.00061","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 40

Abstract

Online meeting tools like Zoom and Google Meet have become central to our professional, educational, and personal lives. This has opened up new opportunities for large scale harassment. In particular, a phenomenon known as zoombombing has emerged, in which aggressors join online meetings with the goal of disrupting them and harassing their participants. In this paper, we conduct the first data-driven analysis of calls for zoombombing attacks on social media. We identify ten popular online meeting tools and extract posts containing meeting invitations to these platforms on a mainstream social network, Twitter, and on a fringe community known for organizing coordinated attacks against online users, 4chan. We then perform manual annotation to identify posts that are calling for zoombombing attacks, and apply thematic analysis to develop a codebook to better characterize the discussion surrounding calls for zoombombing. During the first seven months of 2020, we identify over 200 calls for zoombombing between Twitter and 4chan, and analyze these calls both quantitatively and qualitatively. Our findings indicate that the vast majority of calls for zoombombing are not made by attackers stumbling upon meeting invitations or bruteforcing their meeting ID, but rather by insiders who have legitimate access to these meetings, particularly students in high school and college classes. This has important security implications because it makes common protections against zoombombing, e.g., password protection, ineffective. We also find instances of insiders instructing attackers to adopt the names of legitimate participants in the class to avoid detection, making countermeasures like setting up a waiting room and vetting participants less effective. Based on these observations, we argue that the only effective defense against zoombombing is creating unique join links for each participant.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
《缩放轰炸》的第一眼
像Zoom和Google Meet这样的在线会议工具已经成为我们职业、教育和个人生活的核心。这为大规模骚扰开辟了新的机会。特别是,一种被称为“缩放轰炸”(zoombombing)的现象已经出现,在这种现象中,攻击者加入在线会议,目的是扰乱会议,骚扰参与者。在本文中,我们对社交媒体上的缩放轰炸攻击进行了首次数据驱动分析。我们确定了十种流行的在线会议工具,并在主流社交网络Twitter和以组织针对在线用户的协调攻击而闻名的边缘社区4chan上提取了包含会议邀请的帖子。然后,我们执行手动注释来识别呼吁进行缩放轰炸的帖子,并应用主题分析来开发一个代码本,以更好地描述围绕缩放轰炸呼吁的讨论。在2020年的前7个月,我们在Twitter和4chan之间识别了200多个缩放轰炸的电话,并对这些电话进行了定量和定性分析。我们的研究结果表明,绝大多数“缩放轰炸”的呼吁并不是由攻击者偶然发现会议邀请或强行使用会议ID发出的,而是由有权访问这些会议的内部人士发出的,尤其是高中和大学班级的学生。这具有重要的安全含义,因为它使常见的防止缩放攻击的保护(例如密码保护)失效。我们还发现了内部人员指示攻击者采用班级合法参与者的名字以避免被发现的例子,这使得设置等候室和审查参与者等对策的效果降低。基于这些观察,我们认为对抗zoombombing的唯一有效防御是为每个参与者创建唯一的连接链接。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A2L: Anonymous Atomic Locks for Scalability in Payment Channel Hubs High-Assurance Cryptography in the Spectre Era An I/O Separation Model for Formal Verification of Kernel Implementations Trust, But Verify: A Longitudinal Analysis Of Android OEM Compliance and Customization HackEd: A Pedagogical Analysis of Online Vulnerability Discovery Exercises
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1