分毛和网络痕迹:改进攻击流量分裂作为网站指纹防御

Matthias Beckerle, Jonathan Magnusson, T. Pulls
{"title":"分毛和网络痕迹:改进攻击流量分裂作为网站指纹防御","authors":"Matthias Beckerle, Jonathan Magnusson, T. Pulls","doi":"10.1145/3559613.3563199","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The widespread use of encryption and anonymization technologies---e.g., HTTPS, VPNs, Tor, and iCloud Private Relay---makes network attackers likely to resort to traffic analysis to learn of client activity. For web traffic, such analysis of encrypted traffic is referred to as Website Fingerprinting (WF). WF attacks have improved greatly in large parts thanks to advancements in Deep Learning (DL). In 2019, a new category of defenses was proposed: traffic splitting, where traffic from the client is split over two or more network paths with the assumption that some paths are unobservable by the attacker. In this paper, we take a look at three recently proposed defenses based on traffic splitting: HyWF, CoMPS, and TrafficSliver BWR5. We analyze real-world and simulated datasets for all three defenses to better understand their splitting strategies and effectiveness as defenses. Using our improved DL attack Maturesc on real-world datasets, we improve the classification accuracy wrt. state-of-the-art from 49.2% to 66.7% for HyWF, the F1 score from 32.9% to 72.4% for CoMPS, and the accuracy from 8.07% to 53.8% for TrafficSliver BWR5. We find that a majority of wrongly classified traces contain less than a couple hundred of packets/cells: e.g., in every dataset 25% of traces contain less than 155 packets. What cannot be observed cannot be classified. Our results show that the proposed traffic splitting defenses on average provide less protection against WF attacks than simply randomly selecting one path and sending all traffic over that path.","PeriodicalId":416548,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 21st Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Splitting Hairs and Network Traces: Improved Attacks Against Traffic Splitting as a Website Fingerprinting Defense\",\"authors\":\"Matthias Beckerle, Jonathan Magnusson, T. Pulls\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3559613.3563199\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The widespread use of encryption and anonymization technologies---e.g., HTTPS, VPNs, Tor, and iCloud Private Relay---makes network attackers likely to resort to traffic analysis to learn of client activity. For web traffic, such analysis of encrypted traffic is referred to as Website Fingerprinting (WF). WF attacks have improved greatly in large parts thanks to advancements in Deep Learning (DL). In 2019, a new category of defenses was proposed: traffic splitting, where traffic from the client is split over two or more network paths with the assumption that some paths are unobservable by the attacker. In this paper, we take a look at three recently proposed defenses based on traffic splitting: HyWF, CoMPS, and TrafficSliver BWR5. We analyze real-world and simulated datasets for all three defenses to better understand their splitting strategies and effectiveness as defenses. Using our improved DL attack Maturesc on real-world datasets, we improve the classification accuracy wrt. state-of-the-art from 49.2% to 66.7% for HyWF, the F1 score from 32.9% to 72.4% for CoMPS, and the accuracy from 8.07% to 53.8% for TrafficSliver BWR5. We find that a majority of wrongly classified traces contain less than a couple hundred of packets/cells: e.g., in every dataset 25% of traces contain less than 155 packets. What cannot be observed cannot be classified. Our results show that the proposed traffic splitting defenses on average provide less protection against WF attacks than simply randomly selecting one path and sending all traffic over that path.\",\"PeriodicalId\":416548,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 21st Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 21st Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3559613.3563199\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 21st Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3559613.3563199","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

加密和匿名化技术的广泛使用——例如。、HTTPS、vpn、Tor和iCloud私有中继——使得网络攻击者可能会求助于流量分析来了解客户端的活动。对于网络流量,这种加密流量的分析被称为网站指纹(WF)。WF攻击在很大程度上得益于深度学习(DL)的进步。2019年,提出了一种新的防御类别:流量分割,即来自客户端的流量在两条或多条网络路径上分割,假设攻击者无法观察到某些路径。在本文中,我们研究了最近提出的三种基于流量分割的防御:HyWF、CoMPS和trafficsilver BWR5。我们分析了所有三种防御的真实世界和模拟数据集,以更好地理解它们的分裂策略和作为防御的有效性。使用我们改进的深度学习攻击Maturesc对真实数据集,我们提高了分类精度wrt。HyWF的准确率从49.2%提高到66.7%,CoMPS的F1分数从32.9%提高到72.4%,TrafficSliver BWR5的准确率从8.07%提高到53.8%。我们发现,大多数错误分类的痕迹包含不到几百个数据包/单元:例如,在每个数据集中,25%的痕迹包含少于155个数据包。不能被观察到的东西不能被分类。我们的结果表明,与简单地随机选择一条路径并通过该路径发送所有流量相比,所提出的流量分割防御平均提供的针对WF攻击的保护更少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Splitting Hairs and Network Traces: Improved Attacks Against Traffic Splitting as a Website Fingerprinting Defense
The widespread use of encryption and anonymization technologies---e.g., HTTPS, VPNs, Tor, and iCloud Private Relay---makes network attackers likely to resort to traffic analysis to learn of client activity. For web traffic, such analysis of encrypted traffic is referred to as Website Fingerprinting (WF). WF attacks have improved greatly in large parts thanks to advancements in Deep Learning (DL). In 2019, a new category of defenses was proposed: traffic splitting, where traffic from the client is split over two or more network paths with the assumption that some paths are unobservable by the attacker. In this paper, we take a look at three recently proposed defenses based on traffic splitting: HyWF, CoMPS, and TrafficSliver BWR5. We analyze real-world and simulated datasets for all three defenses to better understand their splitting strategies and effectiveness as defenses. Using our improved DL attack Maturesc on real-world datasets, we improve the classification accuracy wrt. state-of-the-art from 49.2% to 66.7% for HyWF, the F1 score from 32.9% to 72.4% for CoMPS, and the accuracy from 8.07% to 53.8% for TrafficSliver BWR5. We find that a majority of wrongly classified traces contain less than a couple hundred of packets/cells: e.g., in every dataset 25% of traces contain less than 155 packets. What cannot be observed cannot be classified. Our results show that the proposed traffic splitting defenses on average provide less protection against WF attacks than simply randomly selecting one path and sending all traffic over that path.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Darwin's Theory of Censorship: Analysing the Evolution of Censored Topics with Dynamic Topic Models PRSONA Tracking the Evolution of Cookie-based Tracking on Facebook Fingerprinting and Personal Information Leakage from Touchscreen Interactions Privacy and Security Evaluation of Mobile Payment Applications Through User-Generated Reviews
×
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