skip to main content
10.1145/3314058.3314062acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageshotsosConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Browser fingerprinting using combinatorial sequence testing

Published:01 April 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

In this paper, we report on the applicability of combinatorial sequence testing methods to the problem of fingerprinting browsers based on their behavior during a TLS handshake. We created an appropriate abstract model of the TLS handshake protocol and used it to map browser behavior to a feature vector and use them to derive a distinguisher. Using combinatorial methods, we created test sets consisting of TLS server-side messages as sequences that are sent to the client as server responses during the TLS handshake. Further, we evaluate our approach with a case study showing that combinatorial properties have an impact on browsers' behavior.

References

  1. Gunes Acar, Marc Juarez, Nick Nikiforakis, Claudia Diaz, Seda Gürses, Frank Piessens, and Bart Preneel. 2013. FPDetective: Dusting the Web for Finger-printers. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer & Communications Security (CCS '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1129--1140. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Y. Chee, C. Colbourn, D. Horsley, and J. Zhou. 2013. Sequence Covering Arrays. SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics 27, 4 (2013), 1844--1861.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. G. Dhadyalla, N. Kumari, and T. Snell. 2014. Combinatorial Testing for an Automotive Hybrid Electric Vehicle Control System: A Case Study. In 2014 IEEE Seventh International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation Workshops. 51--57. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Tim Dierks and Eric Rescorla. 2008. RFC 5246 - The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5246. (2008). Accessed: 2019-01-07.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Peter Eckersley. 2010. How Unique Is Your Web Browser?. In Privacy Enhancing Technologies, Mikhail J. Atallah and Nicholas J. Hopper (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1--18. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Esra Erdem, Katsumi Inoue, Johannes Oetsch, Jörg Pührer, Hans Tompits, and Cemal Yilmaz. 2011. Answer-set programming as a new approach to event-sequence testing. (2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. David Fifield and Serge Egelman. 2015. Fingerprinting Web Users Through Font Metrics. In Financial Cryptography and Data Security, Rainer Böhme and Tatsuaki Okamoto (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 107--124.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. M. Z. Mohd Hazli, Z. Kamal Z., and O. Rozmie R. 2012. Sequence-based interaction testing implementation using Bees Algorithm. In 2012 IEEE Symposium on Computers Informatics (ISCI). 81--85.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. D. R. Kuhn, J. M. Higdon, J. F. Lawrence, R. N. Kacker, and Y. Lei. 2012. Combinatorial Methods for Event Sequence Testing. In 2012 IEEE Fifth International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation. 601--609. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. H. Mercan and C. Yilmaz. 2014. Pinpointing Failure Inducing Event Orderings. In 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering Workshops. 232--237. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. N. Mouha, M. S. Raunak, D. R. Kuhn, and R. Kacker. 2018. Finding Bugs in Cryptographic Hash Function Implementations. IEEE Transactions on Reliability 67, 3 (Sep. 2018), 870--884.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Keaton Mowery and Hovav Shacham. 2012. Pixel perfect: Fingerprinting canvas in HTML5. Proceedings of W2SP (2012), 1--12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. 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. Citeseer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. SQLite project. 2019. SQLite. https://www.sqlite.org/index.html. (2019). Accessed: 2019-01-07.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Python Software Foundation. 2019. Python. https://www.python.org/. (2019). Accessed: 2019-01-07.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Research project of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. 2019. Panopticlick. https://panopticlick.eff.org/. (2019). Accessed: 2019-01-07.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Dimitris E Simos, Josip Bozic, Bernhard Garn, Manuel Leithner, Feng Duan, Kristoffer Kleine, Yu Lei, and Franz Wotawa. 2018. Testing TLS using planning-based combinatorial methods and execution framework. Software Quality Journal (2018), 1--27.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. D. E. Simos, R. Kuhn, A. G. Voyiatzis, and R. Kacker. 2016. Combinatorial methods in security testing. IEEE Computer 49 (2016), 40--43.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Juraj Somorovsky. 2016. Systematic Fuzzing and Testing of TLS Libraries. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1492--1504. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Kazuhisa Tanabe, Ryohei Hosoya, and Takamichi Saito. 2019. Combining Features in Browser Fingerprinting. In Advances on Broadband and Wireless Computing, Communication and Applications, Leonard Barolli, Fang-Yie Leu, Tomoya Enokido, and Hsing-Chung Chen (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 671--681.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. The Perl Foundation. 2019. Perl. https://www.perl.org/. (2019). Accessed: 2019-01-07.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Thomas Unger, Martin Mulazzani, Dominik Fruhwirt, Markus Huber, Sebastian Schrittwieser, and Edgar Weippl. 2013. Shpf: Enhancing http (s) session security with browser fingerprinting. In Availability, Reliability and Security (ARES), 2013 Eighth International Conference on. IEEE, 255--261.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Z. B. Ratliff. 2018. Black-box Testing Mobile Applications Using Sequence Covering Arrays. (2018). undergraduate thesis, Texas A&M University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Zachary Ratliff. 2019. CSCM-Tool. https://github.com/zachratliff22/CSCM-Tool. (2019). Accessed: 2019-01-07.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  1. Browser fingerprinting using combinatorial sequence testing

    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
      HotSoS '19: Proceedings of the 6th Annual Symposium on Hot Topics in the Science of Security
      April 2019
      149 pages
      ISBN:9781450371476
      DOI:10.1145/3314058

      Copyright © 2019 ACM

      © 2019 Association for Computing Machinery. ACM acknowledges that this contribution was authored or co-authored by an employee, contractor or affiliate of the United States government. As such, the United States Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free right to publish or reproduce this article, or to allow others to do so, for Government purposes only.

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 1 April 2019

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate34of60submissions,57%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader