Re: [Wikitech-l] Hardening WP/WM against traffic analysis (take two)
Hi Zack, Thanks for bringing this up again, this is a very useful discussion to have. On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 12:45:11PM -0400, Zack Weinberg wrote: > * what page is the target reading? > * what _sequence of pages_ is the target reading? (This is actually > easier, assuming the attacker knows the internal link graph.) The former should be pretty easy too, due to the ancillary requests that you already briefly mentioned. Because of our domain sharding strategy that places media under a separate domain (upload.wikimedia.org), an adversary would know for a given page (1) the size of the encrypted text response, (2) the count and size of responses to media that were requested immediately after the main text response. This combination would create a pretty unique fingerprint for a lot of pages, especially well-curated pages that would have a fair amount of media embeded into them. Combine this with the fact that we provide XML dumps of our content and images, plus a live feed of changes in realtime and it should be easy enough for a couple of researchers (let alone state agencies with unlimited resources) to devise an algorithm that calculates these with great accuracy and exposes (at least) reads. > What I would like to do, in the short term, is perform a large-scale > crawl of one or more of the encyclopedias and measure what the above > eavesdropper would observe. I would do this over regular HTTPS, from > a documented IP address, both as a logged-in user and an anonymous > user. I doubt you can create enough traffic to make a difference, so yes, with my operations hat on, sure, you can go ahead. Note that all of our software, production stack/config management and dumps of our content are publically available and free (as in speech) to use, so you or anyone else could even create a replica environment and do this kind of analysis without us ever noticing. > With that data in hand, the next phase would be to develop some sort > of algorithm for automatically padding HTTP responses to maximize > eavesdropper confusion while minimizing overhead. I don't yet know > exactly how this would work. I imagine that it would be based on > clustering the database into sets of pages with similar length but > radically different contents. I don't think it'd make sense to involve the database in this at all. It'd make much more sense to postprocess the content (still within MediaWiki, most likely) and pad it to fit in buckets of predefined sizes. You'd also have to take care of padding images as well, as the combination of count/size alone leaks too many bits of information. However, as others mentioned already, this kind of attack is partially addressed with the introduction of SPDY / HTTP/2.0, which is on our roadmap. A full production deployment, including undoing optimizations such as domain sharding (and SSL+SPDY by default, for everyone) is many months ahead, however it does make me wonder if it makes much sense to spend time focusing on plain HTTPS attacks right now. Regards, Faidon ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Hardening WP/WM against traffic analysis (take two)
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 4:50 PM, David Gerard wrote: > Or, indeed, MediaWiki tarball version itself. MediaWiki is a web application. As amazing as it would be for Wikipedia to be secure against traffic analysis, we are not going to introduce presentation-layer logic into an application-layer product. *-- * *Tyler Romeo* Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2016 Major in Computer Science ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Hardening WP/WM against traffic analysis (take two)
On 5 June 2014 17:45, Zack Weinberg wrote: > I'd like to restart the conversation about hardening Wikipedia (or > possibly Wikimedia in general) against traffic analysis. Or, indeed, MediaWiki tarball version itself. - d. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Hardening WP/WM against traffic analysis (take two)
On 06/05/2014 11:53 AM, Nick White wrote: > As was mentioned, external resources like variously sized images > would probably be the trickiest thing to figure out good ways > around. IIRC SPDY has some inlining multiple resources in the same > packet sort of stuff, which we might be able to take advantage of to > help here (it's been ages since I read about it, though). When using SPDY browsers multiplex and interleave all requests over a single TCP connection, while with HTTP they typically open around six parallel connections for HTTPS. HTTP pipelining also tends to be disabled in desktop browsers, which makes it relatively easy to figure out the size of individual requests & thus potentially the page viewed or edited. With Apple finally adding SPDY support in the latest Safari release (after IE ;) support should soon grow beyond the 67% of global equests claimed currently [1], which is good for performance, security and architectural simplicity. Ops has a draft goal of experimental SPDY support in Q2, so it seems that it's going to happen soon. Also see bug 33890 [2]. Gabriel [1]: http://caniuse.com/spdy [2]: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33890 ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Hardening WP/WM against traffic analysis (take two)
Introducting my own working theory here, ignore if you wish. I'd think that the *first* thing that would have to happen is that the page and the images it contains would have to be delivered in one stream. There are both HTML5 (resource bundling) and protocol (SPDY) mechanisms for doing this. Some URL rearrangement to consolidate hosts might be required as well. But in the interest of being forward-looking I'd suggest taking some implementation of resource bundling as a given. Similarly, I wouldn't waste time profiling both compressed and uncompressed data; assume the bundle is compressed. That leaves a simpler question: if the contents of a page (including images) are delivered as a compressed bundle over a single host connection, how easy is it to tell the what page I'm looking at from the size of the response? How much padding would need to be added to bundles to foil the analysis? Some extensions: 1) Assume that it's not just a single page at a time, but a sequence of N linked pages. How does the required padding depend on N? 2) Can correlations be made? For example, once I've visited page A which contained image X, visiting page B which also has image X will not require X to be re-downloaded. So can I distinguish certain pairs of "long request/short request"? 3) What if the attacker is not interested in specific pages, but instead in enumerating users looking at a *specific* page (or set of pages). That is, instead of looking at averages across all pages, look at the "unusual" outliers. 4) Active targetted attack: assume that the attacker can modify pages or images referenced by pages. This makes it easier to tell when specific pages are accessed. How can this be prevented/discouraged? 5) As you mentioned, disclosing user identity from read-only traffic patterns is also a concern. I'm afraid the answers will be that traffic analysis is still very easy. But it still be useful to know *how* easy. --scott ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Hardening WP/WM against traffic analysis (take two)
Hi Zack, On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 12:45:11PM -0400, Zack Weinberg wrote: > I'd like to restart the conversation about hardening Wikipedia (or > possibly Wikimedia in general) against traffic analysis. I brought > this up ... last November, I think, give or take a month? but it got > lost in a larger discussion about HTTPS. This sounds like a great idea to me, thanks for thinking about it and sharing it. Privacy of peoples' reading habits is critical, and the more we can do to ensure it the better. > With that data in hand, the next phase would be to develop some sort > of algorithm for automatically padding HTTP responses to maximize > eavesdropper confusion while minimizing overhead. I don't yet know > exactly how this would work. I imagine that it would be based on > clustering the database into sets of pages with similar length but > radically different contents. The output of this would be some > combination of changes to MediaWiki core (for instance, to ensure that > the overall length of the HTTP response headers does not change when > one logs in) and an extension module that actually performs the bulk > of the padding. I am not at all a PHP developer, so I would need help > from someone who is with this part. I'm not a big PHP developer, but given the right project I can be enticed into doing some, and I'd be very happy to help out with this. Ensuring any changes didn't add complexity would be very important, but that should be do-able. As was mentioned, external resources like variously sized images would probably be the trickiest thing to figure out good ways around. IIRC SPDY has some inlining multiple resources in the same packet sort of stuff, which we might be able to take advantage of to help here (it's been ages since I read about it, though). Nick ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Hardening WP/WM against traffic analysis (take two)
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Zack Weinberg wrote: > I'd like to restart the conversation about hardening Wikipedia (or > possibly Wikimedia in general) against traffic analysis. I brought > this up ... last November, I think, give or take a month? but it got > lost in a larger discussion about HTTPS. > Thanks Zack, I think this is research that needs to happen, but the WMF doesn't have the resources to do itself right now. I'm very interested in seeing the results you come up with. > > For background, the type of attack that it would be nice to be able to > prevent is described in this paper: > > http://sysseclab.informatics.indiana.edu/projects/sidebuster/sidebuster-final.pdf > Someone is eavesdropping on an encrypted connection to > LANG.wikipedia.org. (It's not possible to prevent the attacker from > learning the DNS name and therefore the language the target reads, > short of Tor or similar. It's also not possible to prevent them from > noticing accesses to ancillary servers, e.g. Commons for media.) The > attacker's goal is to figure out things like > > * what page is the target reading? > * what _sequence of pages_ is the target reading? (This is actually > easier, assuming the attacker knows the internal link graph.) > * is the target a logged-in user, and if so, which user? > * did the target just edit a page, and if so, which page? > * (... y'all are probably better at thinking up these hypotheticals than > me ...) > Anything in the logs-- Account creation is probably an easy target. > > Wikipedia is different from a tax-preparation website (the case study > in the above paper) in that all of the content is public, and edit > actions are also public. The attacker can therefore correlate their > eavesdropping data with observations of Special:RecentChanges and the > like. This may mean it is impossible to prevent the attacker from > detecting edits. I think it's worth the experiment, though. > > What I would like to do, in the short term, is perform a large-scale > crawl of one or more of the encyclopedias and measure what the above > eavesdropper would observe. I would do this over regular HTTPS, from > a documented IP address, both as a logged-in user and an anonymous > user. This would capture only the reading experience; I would also > like to work with prolific editors to take measurements of the traffic > patterns generated by that activity. (Bot edits go via the API, as I > understand it, and so are not reflective of "naturalistic" editing by > human users.) > Make sure to respect typical bot rate limits. Anonymous crawling should be fine, although logged in crawling could cause issues. But if you're doing this from a single machine, I don't think there's too much harm you can do. Thanks for warning us in advance! Also, mobile looks very different from desktop. May be worth analyzing it as well. > > With that data in hand, the next phase would be to develop some sort > of algorithm for automatically padding HTTP responses to maximize > eavesdropper confusion while minimizing overhead. I don't yet know > exactly how this would work. I imagine that it would be based on > clustering the database into sets of pages with similar length but > radically different contents. The output of this would be some > combination of changes to MediaWiki core (for instance, to ensure that > the overall length of the HTTP response headers does not change when > one logs in) and an extension module that actually performs the bulk > of the padding. I am not at all a PHP developer, so I would need help > from someone who is with this part. > Padding the page in output page would be a pretty simple extension, although ensuring the page size after the web server is gzips it is a specific size would be more difficult to do efficiently. However, iirc the most obvious fingerprinting technique was just looking at the number and sizes of images loaded from commons. Making sure those are consistent sizes is likely going to be hard. > > What do you think? I know some of this is vague and handwavey but I > hope it is at least a place to start a discussion. > One more thing to take into account is that the WMF is likely going to switch to spdy, which will completely change the characteristics of the traffic. So developing a solid process that you can repeat next year would be time well spent. > > zw > > ___ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
[Wikitech-l] Hardening WP/WM against traffic analysis (take two)
I'd like to restart the conversation about hardening Wikipedia (or possibly Wikimedia in general) against traffic analysis. I brought this up ... last November, I think, give or take a month? but it got lost in a larger discussion about HTTPS. For background, the type of attack that it would be nice to be able to prevent is described in this paper: http://sysseclab.informatics.indiana.edu/projects/sidebuster/sidebuster-final.pdf Someone is eavesdropping on an encrypted connection to LANG.wikipedia.org. (It's not possible to prevent the attacker from learning the DNS name and therefore the language the target reads, short of Tor or similar. It's also not possible to prevent them from noticing accesses to ancillary servers, e.g. Commons for media.) The attacker's goal is to figure out things like * what page is the target reading? * what _sequence of pages_ is the target reading? (This is actually easier, assuming the attacker knows the internal link graph.) * is the target a logged-in user, and if so, which user? * did the target just edit a page, and if so, which page? * (... y'all are probably better at thinking up these hypotheticals than me ...) Wikipedia is different from a tax-preparation website (the case study in the above paper) in that all of the content is public, and edit actions are also public. The attacker can therefore correlate their eavesdropping data with observations of Special:RecentChanges and the like. This may mean it is impossible to prevent the attacker from detecting edits. I think it's worth the experiment, though. What I would like to do, in the short term, is perform a large-scale crawl of one or more of the encyclopedias and measure what the above eavesdropper would observe. I would do this over regular HTTPS, from a documented IP address, both as a logged-in user and an anonymous user. This would capture only the reading experience; I would also like to work with prolific editors to take measurements of the traffic patterns generated by that activity. (Bot edits go via the API, as I understand it, and so are not reflective of "naturalistic" editing by human users.) With that data in hand, the next phase would be to develop some sort of algorithm for automatically padding HTTP responses to maximize eavesdropper confusion while minimizing overhead. I don't yet know exactly how this would work. I imagine that it would be based on clustering the database into sets of pages with similar length but radically different contents. The output of this would be some combination of changes to MediaWiki core (for instance, to ensure that the overall length of the HTTP response headers does not change when one logs in) and an extension module that actually performs the bulk of the padding. I am not at all a PHP developer, so I would need help from someone who is with this part. What do you think? I know some of this is vague and handwavey but I hope it is at least a place to start a discussion. zw ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
