skip to main content
10.1145/3038912.3052709acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswwwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Some Recipes Can Do More Than Spoil Your Appetite: Analyzing the Security and Privacy Risks of IFTTT Recipes

Published:03 April 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

The use of end-user programming, such as if-this-then-that (IFTTT), is becoming increasingly common. Services like IFTTT allow users to easily create new functionality by connecting arbitrary Internet-of-Things (IoT) devices and online services using simple if-then rules, commonly known as recipes. However, such convenience at times comes at the cost of security and privacy risks for end users. To gain an in-depth understanding of the potential security and privacy risks, we build an information-flow model to analyze how often IFTTT recipes involve potential integrity or secrecy violations. Our analysis finds that around 50% of the 19,323 unique recipes we examined are potentially unsafe, as they contain a secrecy violation, an integrity violation, or both. We next categorize the types of harm that these potentially unsafe recipes can cause to users. After manually examining a random selection of potentially unsafe recipes, we find that recipes can not only lead to harms such as personal embarrassment but can also be exploited by an attacker, e.g., to distribute malware or carry out denial-of-service attacks. The use of IoT devices and services like IFTTT is expected only to grow in the near future; our analysis suggests users need to be both informed about and protected from these emerging threats to which they could be unwittingly exposing themselves.

References

  1. 2016 on IFTTT. https://ifttt.com/blog/2017/01/year-in-review, Accessed Jan. 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. The future is this one-click remote for everything in your life. http://qz.com/346767/ifttt-pares-down-its-automation-service-to-prepare-for-the-one-click-smartwatch-future/ Accessed Oct. 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Gartner says the Internet of Things will transform the data center.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. How IFTTT is taking a big swing at being a connective tissue for IoT. http://www.techrepublic.com/article/how-fttt-is-taking-a-big-swing-at-bringing-connectedness-to-a-connected-world/ Accessed Oct. 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. How IoT and smart home automation will change the way we live. http://www.businessinsider.com/internet-of-things-smart-home-automation-2016-8 Accessed Feb. 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. IFTTT. https://ifttt.com, Accessed Oct. 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. IFTTT launches 3 "Do" apps to automate photo sharing, tasks, notes; rebrands main app "IF". https://techcrunch.com/2015/02/19/ifttt-launches-3-do-apps-to-automate-photo-sharing-tasks-notes-rebrands-main-app-if/ Accessed Oct. 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. IFTTT services. https://ifttt.com/search/services, Accessed Feb. 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Prolog. http://www.swi-prolog.org/, Accessed Oct. 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. K. J. Biba. Integrity considerations for secure computer systems. Technical report, MITRE Corp., 04 1977.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. F. Cabitza, D. Fogli, R. Lanzilotti, and A. Piccinno. End-user development in ambient intelligence: A user study. In Proceedings of the 11th Biannual Conference on Italian SIGCHI Chapter, CHI taly 2015, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. X. Chen, C. Lu, R. Shin, M. Chen, and D. Song. An end-to-end approach for natural language to IFTTT program translation. In Proceedings of the 2016 Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), NIPS '16, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. L. De Russis and F. Corno. HomeRules: A tangible end-user programming interface for smart homes. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA '15, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. D. E. Denning. A lattice model of secure information flow. Commun. ACM, 19(5):236--243, May 1976. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. A. K. Dey, T. Sohn, S. Streng, and J. Kodama. iCAP: Interactive prototyping of context-aware applications. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Pervasive Computing, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. M. Egele, C. Kruegel, E. Kirda, and G. Vigna. PiOS: Detecting privacy leaks in iOS applications. In Proceedings of Network and Distributed System Security Symposium, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. W. Enck, P. Gilbert, S. Han, V. Tendulkar, B.-G. Chun, L. P. Cox, J. Jung, P. McDaniel, and A. N. Sheth. TaintDroid: an information-flow tracking system for realtime privacy monitoring on smartphones. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems (TOCS), 32(2):5, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. E. Fernandes, J. Jung, and A. Prakash. Security analysis of emerging smart home applications. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. E. Fernandes, J. Paupore, A. Rahmati, D. Simionato, M. Conti, and A. Prakash. FlowFence: Practical data protection for emerging IoT application frameworks. In Proceedings of the 25th USENIX Security Symposium, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. J. A. Goguen and J. Meseguer. Security policies and security models. In Proceedings of the 1982 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 1982.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. J. Huang and M. Cakmak. Supporting mental model accuracy in trigger-action programming. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing, UbiComp '15, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. C.-J. M. Liang, B. F. Karlsson, N. D. Lane, F. Zhao, J. Zhang, Z. Pan, Z. Li, and Y. Yu. SIFT: Building an internet of safe things. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Information Processing in Sensor Networks, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. M. Ma, S. M. Preum, W. Tarneberg, M. Ahmed, M. Ruiters, and J. Stankovic. Detection of runtime conflicts among services in smart cities. In Proceedings of 2016 IEEE International Conference on Smart Computing, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. S. Munir and J. A. Stankovic. DepSys: Dependency aware integration of cyber-physical systems for smart homes. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. A. C. Myers, A. Sabelfeld, and S. Zdancewic. Enforcing robust declassification. In Proceedings of the 17th IEEE Computer Security Foundations Workshop, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. A. A. Nacci, B. Balaji, P. Spoletini, R. Gupta, D. Sciuto, and Y. Agarwal. BuildingRules: A trigger-action based system to manage complex commercial buildings. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. C. Quirk, R. J. Mooney, and M. Galley. Language to code: Learning semantic parsers for If-This-Then-That recipes. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. A. Sabelfeld and A. C. Myers. Language-based information-flow security. IEEE Journal on selected areas in communications, 21(1):5--19, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. K. Tada, S. Takahashi, and B. Shizuki. Smart home cards: Tangible programming with paper cards. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing: Adjunct, UbiComp '16, 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. B. Ur, E. McManus, M. Pak Yong Ho, and M. L. Littman. Practical trigger-action programming in the smart home. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '14, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. B. Ur, M. Pak Yong Ho, S. Brawner, J. Lee, S. Mennicken, N. Picard, D. Schulze, and M. L. Littman. Trigger-action programming in the wild: An analysis of 200,000 IFTTT recipes. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '16, 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. J.-b. Woo and Y.-k. Lim. User experience in Do-it-yourself-style smart homes. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing, UbiComp '15, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. S. A. Zdancewic. Programming Languages for Information Security. PhD thesis, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Some Recipes Can Do More Than Spoil Your Appetite: Analyzing the Security and Privacy Risks of IFTTT Recipes

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        WWW '17: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web
        April 2017
        1678 pages
        ISBN:9781450349130

        Copyright © 2017 Copyright is held by the International World Wide Web Conference Committee (IW3C2).

        Publisher

        International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee

        Republic and Canton of Geneva, Switzerland

        Publication History

        • Published: 3 April 2017

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        WWW '17 Paper Acceptance Rate164of966submissions,17%Overall Acceptance Rate1,899of8,196submissions,23%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader