Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3548606.3560576acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesccsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Escaping the Confines of Time: Continuous Browser Extension Fingerprinting Through Ephemeral Modifications

Published: 07 November 2022 Publication History

Abstract

Browser fingerprinting continues to proliferate across the web. Critically, popular fingerprinting libraries have started incorporating extension-fingerprinting capabilities, thus exacerbating the privacy loss they can induce. In this paper we propose continuous fingerprinting, a novel extension fingerprinting technique that captures a critical dimension of extensions' functionality that allowed them to elude all prior behavior-based techniques. Specifically, we find that ephemeral modifications are prevalent in the extension ecosystem, effectively rendering such extensions invisible to prior approaches that are confined to analyzing snapshots that capture a single moment in time. Accordingly, we develop Chronos, a system that captures the modifications that occur throughout an extension's life cycle, enabling it to fingerprint extensions that make transient modifications that leave no visible traces at the end of execution. Specifically, our system creates behavioral signatures that capture nodes being added to or removed from the DOM, as well as changes being made to node attributes. Our extensive experimental evaluation highlights the inherent limits of prior snapshot-based approaches, as Chronos is able to identify 11,219 unique extensions, increasing coverage by 66.9% over the state of the art. Additionally, we find that our system captures a unique modification event (i.e., mutation) for 94% of the extensions, while also being able to resolve 97% of the signature collisions across extensions that affect existing snapshot-based approaches. Our study more accurately captures the extent of the privacy threat presented by extension fingerprinting, which warrants more attention by privacy-oriented browser vendors that, up to this point, have focused on deploying countermeasures against other browser fingerprinting vectors.

References

[1]
GunesAcar, Christian Eubank, Steven Englehardt, Marc Juarez, Arvind Narayanan, and Claudia Diaz. 2014. TheWeb Never Forgets: Persistent Tracking Mechanisms in the Wild. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS '14). 674--689.
[2]
Gunes Acar, Marc Juarez, Nick Nikiforakis, Claudia Diaz, Seda Gürses, Frank Piessens, and Bart Preneel. 2013. FPDetective: dusting the web for fingerprinters. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGSAC conference on Computer & communications security. 1129--1140.
[3]
Furkan Alaca and P. C. van Oorschot. 2016. Device Fingerprinting for Augmenting WebAuthentication: Classification and Analysis of Methods (ACSAC'16). 289--301.
[4]
Ben Smith. 2019. Google Blog - Update on Project Strobe: Newpolicies for Chrome and Drive. (2019). https://blog.google/technology/safety-security/updateproject-strobe-new-policies-chrome-and-drive/.
[5]
Brave. 2021. Brave Fingerprinting Protections. (2021). https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/Fingerprinting-Protections.
[6]
Yinzhi Cao, Song Li, and Erik Wijmans. 2017. (Cross-)Browser Fingerprinting via OS and Hardware Level Features. In 24th Annual Network and Distributed System Security Symposium, NDSS 2017, San Diego, California, USA, February 26 - March 1, 2017.
[7]
Chrome. 2022. ChromeDriver - WebDriver for Chrome. (2022). https://chromedriver.chromium.org/downloads.
[8]
Anupam Das, Gunes Acar, Nikita Borisov, and Amogh Pradeep. 2018. TheWeb's Sixth Sense: A Study of Scripts Accessing Smartphone Sensors. In Proceedings of ACM CCS, October 2018.
[9]
Docker. 2022. Accelerate how you build, share, and run modern applications. (2022). https://www.docker.com/.
[10]
MDN Web Docs. 2021. MutationObserver. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/MutationObserver. (2021).
[11]
Antonin Durey, Pierre Laperdrix,Walter Rudametkin, and Romain Rouvoy. 2021. FP-Redemption: Studying Browser Fingerprinting Adoption for the Sake ofWeb Security. In Detection of Intrusions and Malware, and Vulnerability Assessment (DIMVA).
[12]
Peter Eckersley. 2010. How Unique is YourWeb Browser". In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PETS'10).
[13]
Emre Erkoca. 2020. MutationObserver and Event Usage. (2020). https://dev.to/emreerkoca/mutationobserver-and-event-usage-35k6.
[14]
Steven Englehardt and Arvind Narayanan. 2016. Online tracking: A 1-million-site measurement and analysis. In Proceedings of ACM CCS 2016.
[15]
Amin FaizKhademi, Mohammad Zulkernine, and Komminist Weldemariam. 2015. FPGuard: Detection and Prevention of Browser Fingerprinting. In 29th IFIP Annual Conference on Data and Applications Security and Privacy (DBSEC) (Data and Applications Security and Privacy XXIX), Vol. LNCS-9149. 293--308.
[16]
firefox 2022. Firefox's protection against fingerprinting. (2022). https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-protection-against-fingerprinting.
[17]
Alejandro Gómez-Boix, Pierre Laperdrix, and Benoit Baudry. 2018. Hiding in the crowd: an analysis of the effectiveness of browser fingerprinting at large scale. In Proceedings of the 2018 world wide web conference. 309--318.
[18]
Google 2022. Chrome Developers: The Privacy Sandbox. (2022). https://developer.chrome.com/docs/privacy-sandbox/.
[19]
Gabor Gyorgy Gulyas, Doliere Francis Somé, Nataliia Bielova, and Claude Castelluccia. 2018. To extend or not to extend: on the uniqueness of browser extensions and web logins. In Proceedings of the 2018Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society. ACM, 14--27.
[20]
Karl Hughes. 2021. Bot Detection: Identifying Bot Traffic with Open-source Browser Fingerprinting Techniques. (2021). https://fingerprintjs.com/blog/botdetection/.
[21]
Umar Iqbal, Steven Englehardt, and Zubair Shafiq. 2021. Fingerprinting the Fingerprinters: Learning to Detect Browser Fingerprinting Behaviors. In 2021 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). 1143--1161.
[22]
Soroush Karami, Panagiotis Ilia, Konstantinos Solomos, and Jason Polakis. 2020. Carnus: Exploring the privacy threats of browser extension fingerprinting. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Network and Distributed System Security (NDSS).
[23]
Soroush Karami, Faezeh Kalantari, Mehrnoosh Zaeifi, Xavier J Maso, Erik Trickel, Panagiotis Ilia, Yan Shoshitaishvili,Adam Doupé, and Jason Polakis. 2022. Unleash the Simulacrum: Shifting Browser Realities for Robust Extension-Fingerprinting Prevention. In 31th {USENIX} Security Symposium ({USENIX} Security 22).
[24]
Karl Hughes. 2021. FingerprintJS - Empowering developers to solve fraud at the source. (2021). https://fingerprintjs.com/blog/browser-fingerprinting-privacy/.
[25]
Pierre Laperdrix, Gildas Avoine, Benoit Baudry, and Nick Nikiforakis. 2019. Morellian Analysis for Browsers: Making Web Authentication Stronger with Canvas Fingerprinting. In Detection of Intrusions and Malware, and Vulnerability Assessment (DIMVA). 43--66.
[26]
Pierre Laperdrix, Nataliia Bielova, Benoit Baudry, and GildasAvoine. 2020. Browser fingerprinting: A survey. ACM Transactions on theWeb (TWEB) 14, 2 (2020), 1--33.
[27]
Pierre Laperdrix,Walter Rudametkin, and Benoit Baudry. 2016. Beauty and the beast: Diverting modern web browsers to build unique browser fingerprints. In 2016 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). IEEE, 878--894.
[28]
Pierre Laperdrix, Oleksii Starov,QuanChen, AlexandrosKapravelos, and Nick Nikiforakis. 2021. Fingerprinting in Style: Detecting Browser Extensions via Injected Style Sheets. In 30th {USENIX} Security Symposium ({USENIX} Security 21).
[29]
Xu Lin, Panagiotis Ilia, Saumya Solanki, and Jason Polakis. 2022. Phish in Sheep's Clothing: Exploring the Authentication Pitfalls of Browser Fingerprinting. In 31st USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 22). 1651--1668.
[30]
Keaton Mowery and Hovav Shacham. 2012. Pixel Perfect: Fingerprinting Canvas in HTML5. In Proceedings of W2SP 2012.
[31]
Martin Mulazzani, Philipp Reschl, Markus Huber, Manuel Leithner, Sebastian Schrittwieser, Edgar Weippl, and FC Wien. 2013. Fast and reliable browser identification with javascript engine fingerprinting. In Web 2.0 Workshop on Security and Privacy (W2SP), Vol. 5.
[32]
Neeraj Singh. 2010. How jQuery selects elements using Sizzle. (2010). https://www.bigbinary.com/blog/how-jquery-selects-elements-using-sizzle.
[33]
NPM JS. 2021. Pako in JS. (2021). https://www.npmjs.com/package/pako.
[34]
NPM JS. 2021. Sizzle. A pure-JavaScript CSS selector engine designed to be easily dropped in to a host library. (2021). https://www.npmjs.com/package/sizzle.
[35]
Pablo Picazo-Sanchez, Juan Tapiador, and Gerardo Schneider. 2020. After you, please: browser extensions order attacks and countermeasures. International Journal of Information Security 19, 6 (2020), 623--638.
[36]
CoreyProphitt. 2017. Nefarious LinkedIn. https://github.com/dandrews/nefariouslinkedin. (2017).
[37]
Valentino Rizzo, Stefano Traverso, and Marco Mellia. 2021. Unveiling Web Fingerprinting in the Wild Via Code Mining and Machine Learning. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies 2021, 1 (2021), 43--63.
[38]
Iskander Sanchez-Rola, Igor Santos, and Davide Balzarotti. 2017. Extension Breakdown: Security Analysis of Browsers Extension Resources Control Policies. In Proceedings of the 26rd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security).
[39]
Selenium. 2022. Selenium is a suite of tools for automating web browsers. (2022). https://www.selenium.dev/.
[40]
Sergey Mostsevenko. 2021. Howad blockers can be used for browser fingerprinting. (2021). https://fingerprintjs.com/blog/ad-blocker-fingerprinting/.
[41]
Alexander Sjösten, Steven Van Acker, Pablo Picazo-Sanchez, and Andrei Sabelfeld. 2019. LATEX GLOVES: Protecting Browser Extensions from Probing and Revelation Attacks. In 26th Annual Network and Distributed System Security Symposium. The Internet Society.
[42]
Alexander Sjösten, Steven Van Acker, and Andrei Sabelfeld. 2017. Discovering browser extensions via web accessible resources. In Proceedings of the Seventh ACM on Conference on Data and Application Security and Privacy. 329--336.
[43]
Alexander Sjösten, Daniel Hedin, and Andrei Sabelfeld. 2021. EssentialFP: Exposing the Essence of Browser Fingerprinting. In 2021 IEEE European Symposium on Security and PrivacyWorkshops (EuroS PW). 32--48.
[44]
Konstantinos Solomos, Panagiotis Ilia, Soroush Karami, Nick Nikiforakis, and Jason Polakis. 2022. The Dangers of Human Touch: Fingerprinting Browser Extensions through User Actions. In 31th {USENIX} Security Symposium ({USENIX} Security 22).
[45]
Oleksii Starov, Pierre Laperdrix, Alexandros Kapravelos, and Nick Nikiforakis. 2019. Unnecessarily Identifiable: Quantifying the fingerprintability of browser extensions due to bloat. In TheWorld WideWeb Conference. 3244--3250.
[46]
Oleksii Starov and Nick Nikiforakis. 2017. Xhound: Quantifying the fingerprintability of browser extensions. In 2017 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). IEEE, 941--956.
[47]
Jorma Tarhio and Esko Ukkonen. 1993. Approximate boyer--moore string matching. SIAM J. Comput. 22, 2 (1993), 243--260.
[48]
Erik Trickel, Oleksii Starov, Alexandros Kapravelos, Nick Nikiforakis, and Adam Doupé. 2019. Everyone is Different: Client-side Diversification for Defending Against Extension Fingerprinting. In 28th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 19). USENIX Association, Santa Clara, CA, 1679--1696. https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity19/presentation/trickel
[49]
Tom Van Goethem and Wouter Joosen. 2017. One side-channel to bring them all and in the darkness bind them: Associating isolated browsing sessions. In 11th {USENIX} Workshop on Offensive Technologies (WOOT 17).
[50]
Antoine Vastel, Pierre Laperdrix,Walter Rudametkin, and Romain Rouvoy. 2018. Fp-Scanner: The Privacy Implications of Browser Fingerprint Inconsistencies. In 27th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 18). 135--150.
[51]
Antoine Vastel, Pierre Laperdrix,Walter Rudametkin, and Romain Rouvoy. 2018. FP-STALKER: Tracking browser fingerprint evolutions. In 2018 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). IEEE, 728--741.
[52]
Antoine Vastel,Walter Rudametkin, Romain Rouvoy, and Xavier Blanc. 2020. FPCrawlers: Studying the Resilience of Browser Fingerprinting to Block Crawlers. In MADWeb'20 - NDSSWorkshop on Measurements, Attacks, and Defenses for theWeb.
[53]
W3C. 2000. Mutation event types. (2000). https://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-2-Events/events.html#Events-eventgroupings-mutationevents.

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)Fashion Faux Pas: Implicit Stylistic Fingerprints for Bypassing Browsers' Anti-Fingerprinting Defenses2023 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP)10.1109/SP46215.2023.10179437(987-1004)Online publication date: May-2023

Index Terms

  1. Escaping the Confines of Time: Continuous Browser Extension Fingerprinting Through Ephemeral Modifications

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    CCS '22: Proceedings of the 2022 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security
    November 2022
    3598 pages
    ISBN:9781450394505
    DOI:10.1145/3548606
    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: 07 November 2022

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. browser fingerprinting
    2. extension fingerprinting
    3. online tracking

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Funding Sources

    Conference

    CCS '22
    Sponsor:

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate 1,261 of 6,999 submissions, 18%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)331
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)40
    Reflects downloads up to 22 Jan 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2023)Fashion Faux Pas: Implicit Stylistic Fingerprints for Bypassing Browsers' Anti-Fingerprinting Defenses2023 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP)10.1109/SP46215.2023.10179437(987-1004)Online publication date: May-2023

    View Options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Login options

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media