Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/2810103.2813716acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesccsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

UCognito: Private Browsing without Tears

Published: 12 October 2015 Publication History
  • Get Citation Alerts
  • Abstract

    While private browsing is a standard feature, its implementation has been inconsistent among the major browsers. More seriously, it often fails to provide the adequate or even the intended privacy protection. For example, as shown in prior research, browser extensions and add-ons often undermine the goals of private browsing. In this paper, we first present our systematic study of private browsing. We developed a technical approach to identify browser traces left behind by a private browsing session, and showed that Chrome and Firefox do not correctly clear some of these traces. We analyzed the source code of these browsers and discovered that the current implementation approach is to decide the behaviors of a browser based on the current browsing mode (i.e., private or public); but such decision points are scattered throughout the code base. This implementation approach is very problematic because developers are prone to make mistakes given the complexities of browser components (including extensions and add-ons). Based on this observation, we propose a new and general approach to implement private browsing. The main idea is to overlay the actual filesystem with a sandbox filesystem when the browser is in private browsing mode, so that no unintended leakage is allowed and no persistent modification is stored. This approach requires no change to browsers and the OS kernel because the layered sandbox filesystem is implemented by interposing system calls. We have implemented a prototype system called Ucognito on Linux. Our evaluations show that Ucognito, when applied to Chrome and Firefox, stops all known privacy leaks identified by prior work and our current study. More importantly, Ucognito incurs only negligible performance overhead: e.g., 0%-2.5% in benchmarks for standard JavaScript and webpage loading.

    References

    [1]
    G. Aggarwal, E. Bursztein, C. Jackson, and D. Boneh. An analysis of private browsing modes in modern browsers. In Proceedings of the 19th USENIX Security Symposium (Security), Washington, DC, Aug. 2010.
    [2]
    E. Akhgari and M. Connor. Firefox3.1 / PrivateBrowsing / FunctionalSpec, Sept. 2008. https://wiki.mozilla.org/PrivateBrowsing.
    [3]
    P. Battre. Chrome / Preferences / Incognito-Profile, May 2015. https://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/preferences#TOC-Incognito-Profile.
    [4]
    K. Borders, E. Vander Weele, B. Lau, and A. Prakash. Protecting confidential data on personal computers with storage capsules. Aug. 2009.
    [5]
    J. Bremer. Intercepting System Calls on x86_64 Windows, May 2012. http://jbremer.org/intercepting-system-calls-on-x86_64-windows/.
    [6]
    X. Chen, T. Garfinkel, E. C. Lewis, P. Subrahmanyam, C. A. Waldspurger, D. Boneh, J. Dwoskin, and D. R. Ports. Overshadow: a virtualization-based approach to retrofitting protection in commodity operating systems. In ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, volume 42, pages 2--13. ACM, 2008.
    [7]
    Chrome Web Store. Page Load Time. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/page-load-time/fploionmjgeclbkemipmkogoaohcdbig, July 2014. Accessed: 2015-05--16.
    [8]
    M. Davidov. The Double-edged Sword of HSTS Persistence and Privacy, Apr. 2012. https://www.leviathansecurity.com/blog/the-double-edged-sword-of-hsts-persistence-and-privacy/.
    [9]
    W. Drewry. SECure COMPuting with filters, Jan. 2012. http://lwn.net/Articles/498231/.
    [10]
    M. Fredrikson and B. Livshits. RePriv: Re-imagining Content Personalization and In-browser Privacy. In Proceedings of the 32nd IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (Oakland), pages 131--146, Oakland, CA, May 2011.
    [11]
    X. Gao, Y. Yang, H. Fu, J. Lindqvist, and Y. Wang. Private browsing: An inquiry on usability and privacy protection. In Proceedings of the 13th Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society (WPES), Nov. 2014.
    [12]
    Google Inc. Let others browse Chrome as a guest. https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/6130773?p=ui_guest&rd=1, May 2015. Accessed: 2015-05--16.
    [13]
    Google, Inc. Octane 2.0 JavaScript Benchmark. http://octane-benchmark.googlecode.com/svn/latest/index.html, May 2015. Accessed: 2015-05--15.
    [14]
    S. Heule, D. Rifkin, A. Russo, and D. Stefan. The most dangerous code in the browser. In ph15th Workshop on Hot Topics in Operating Systems (HotOS XV)., May 2015.
    [15]
    I. Hickson. Web storage. W3C recommendation, W3C, July 2013. http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-webstorage-20130730/.
    [16]
    S. Kamkar. evercookie -- never forget. http://samy.pl/evercookie/, Sept. 2010. Accessed: 2015-05-02.
    [17]
    T. Kim and N. Zeldovich. Practical and effective sandboxing for non-root users. In Proceedings of the 2013 USENIX Annual Technical Conference (ATC), San Jose, CA, June 2013.
    [18]
    B. S. Lerner, L. Elberty, N. Poole, and S. Krishnamurthi. Verifying web browser extensions' compliance with private-browsing mode. In European Symposium on Research in Computer Security (ESORICS), Sept. 2013.
    [19]
    Z. Liang, W. Sun, V. N. Venkatakrishnan, and R. Sekar. Alcatraz: An isolated environment for experimenting with untrusted software. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security (TISSEC), 12 (3): 14:1--14:37, Jan. 2009. ISSN 1094--9224.
    [20]
    D. Libenzi. FL-COW 0.10. http://xmailserver.org/flcow.html. January 2013.
    [21]
    N. Mor, O. Riva, S. Nath, and J. Kubiatowicz. Bloom Cookies: Web search personalization without user tracking. In Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS), San Diego, CA, Feb. 2015.
    [22]
    Mozilla. app.telemetry page speed monitor. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/apptelemetry/, Dec. 2013. Accessed: 2015-05--16.
    [23]
    Mozilla. Private browsing mode warning doesn't mention that newly-installed client certificates are not cleared when exiting private browsing mode. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=475881, 2015. Accessed: 2015-05-02.
    [24]
    Mozilla. Kraken JavaScript Benchmark (version 1.1). http://krakenbenchmark.mozilla.org/, May 2015. Accessed: 2015-05--15.
    [25]
    M. Mulazzani, P. Reschl, M. Huber, M. Leithner, S. Schrittwieser, E. Weippl, and F. Wien. Fast and reliable browser identification with javascript engine fingerprinting. In Web 2.0 Workshop on Security and Privacy (W2SP), volume 5, 2013.
    [26]
    N. Nikiforakis, A. Kapravelos, W. Joosen, C. Kruegel, F. Piessens, and G. Vigna. Cookieless monster: Exploring the ecosystem of web-based device fingerprinting. In Proceedings of the 34th IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (Oakland), San Francisco, CA, May 2013.
    [27]
    K. Onarlioglu, C. Mulliner, W. Robertson, and E. Kirda. Privexec: Private execution as an operating system service. In Proceedings of the 34th IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (Oakland), San Francisco, CA, May 2013.
    [28]
    X. Pan, Y. Cao, and Y. Chen. I do not know what you visited last summer: Protecting users from third-party web tracking with TrackingFree browser. In Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS), San Diego, CA, Feb. 2015.
    [29]
    A. Popescu. Geolocation API specification. W3C recommendation, W3C, Oct. 2013. http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-geolocation-API-20131024/.
    [30]
    F. Roesner, T. Kohno, and D. Wetherall. Detecting and Defending Against Third-party Tracking on the Web. In Proceedings of the 9th Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI), San Jose, CA, Apr. 2012.
    [31]
    J. Rutkowska. Qubes OS. http://qubes-os.org. January 2013.
    [32]
    J. Uekawa. Cowdancer: copy-on-write data access completely in userland. http://www.netfort.gr.jp/dancer/software/cowdancer.html.en. January 2013.
    [33]
    H. Ulmer. Understanding private browsing, Aug. 2010.URLhttps://blog.mozilla.org/metrics/2010/08/23/understanding-private-browsing/.
    [34]
    A. van Kesteren and J. Gregg. Web notifications. Last call WD, W3C, Sept. 2013. http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-notifications-20130912/.
    [35]
    J. Villalobos and K. Maglione. AMO review policies, Apr. 2015. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/AMO/Policy/Reviews.
    [36]
    J. Voung. PNaCl Translation Caching: In Javascript or In Browser, Apr. 2011. https://code.google.com/p/nativeclient/wiki/PNaClTranslationCache.
    [37]
    T. Warren. Chrome for iOS' incognito mode isn't private, bug reveals, Oct. 2013. http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/3/4797968/chrome-for-ios-incognito-mode-not-private-bug.
    [38]
    WebKit.org. SunSpider 1.0.2 JavaScript Benchmark. https://www.webkit.org/perf/sunspider/sunspider.html, May 2015. Accessed: 2015-05--15.

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)A comprehensive survey on mobile browser security issues, challenges and solutionsInformation Security Journal: A Global Perspective10.1080/19393555.2024.2347256(1-20)Online publication date: 29-Apr-2024
    • (2024)Defending novice user privacy: An evaluation of default web browser configurationsComputers & Security10.1016/j.cose.2024.103784(103784)Online publication date: Mar-2024
    • (2020)Improving cybersecurity hygiene through JIT patchingProceedings of the 28th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering10.1145/3368089.3417056(1421-1432)Online publication date: 8-Nov-2020
    • Show More Cited By

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    CCS '15: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security
    October 2015
    1750 pages
    ISBN:9781450338325
    DOI:10.1145/2810103
    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]

    Sponsors

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 12 October 2015

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. browser implementation
    2. filesystem sandbox
    3. private browsing

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Funding Sources

    • DHS
    • United States Air Force
    • ETRI
    • DARPA
    • NSF
    • ONR

    Conference

    CCS'15
    Sponsor:

    Acceptance Rates

    CCS '15 Paper Acceptance Rate 128 of 660 submissions, 19%;
    Overall Acceptance Rate 1,261 of 6,999 submissions, 18%

    Upcoming Conference

    CCS '24
    ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security
    October 14 - 18, 2024
    Salt Lake City , UT , USA

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)78
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)13
    Reflects downloads up to 27 Jul 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)A comprehensive survey on mobile browser security issues, challenges and solutionsInformation Security Journal: A Global Perspective10.1080/19393555.2024.2347256(1-20)Online publication date: 29-Apr-2024
    • (2024)Defending novice user privacy: An evaluation of default web browser configurationsComputers & Security10.1016/j.cose.2024.103784(103784)Online publication date: Mar-2024
    • (2020)Improving cybersecurity hygiene through JIT patchingProceedings of the 28th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering10.1145/3368089.3417056(1421-1432)Online publication date: 8-Nov-2020
    • (2018)Your Secrets Are SafeProceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference10.1145/3178876.3186088(217-226)Online publication date: 10-Apr-2018
    • (2018)Burn After Reading: Expunging Execution Footprints of Android AppsNetwork and System Security10.1007/978-3-030-02744-5_4(46-63)Online publication date: 18-Dec-2018
    • (2017)Most Websites Don't Need to VibrateProceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security10.1145/3133956.3133966(179-194)Online publication date: 30-Oct-2017
    • (2017)Exploring the protection of private browsing in desktop browsersComputers and Security10.1016/j.cose.2017.03.00667:C(181-197)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2017
    • (2016)TPRIVEXECProceedings of the Sixth ACM Conference on Data and Application Security and Privacy10.1145/2857705.2857724(285-294)Online publication date: 9-Mar-2016

    View Options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Get Access

    Login options

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media