DOCSLIB.ORG

A QUIC Look at Web Tracking

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A QUIC Look at Web Tracking Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies ; 2019 (3):255–266 Erik Sy*, Christian Burkert, Hannes Federrath, and Mathias Fischer A QUIC Look at Web Tracking Abstract: QUIC has been developed by Google to im- exception of a few early handshake messages. Further- prove the transport performance of HTTPS traffic. It more, QUIC switches potential client identifiers such as currently accounts for approx. 7% of the global Inter- the source-address token frequently to limit the possi- net traffic. In this work, we investigate the feasibil- bility for network-based attackers, e.g., internet service ity of user tracking via QUIC from the perspective of providers or intelligence services, to track users across an online service. Our analysis reveals that the proto- several connections. col design contains violations of privacy best practices In the light of mass surveillance, network-based at- through which a tracker can passively and uniquely tackers represent a legitimate concern. However, online identify clients across several connections. This track- tracking for advertising or web analytics poses a sim- ing mechanisms can achieve reduced delays and band- ilar threat to users’ privacy. Therefore, browsers are width requirements compared to conventional browser required to protect their users’ privacy against track- fingerprinting or HTTP cookies. This allows them to ing through web servers that is not conducted in mu- be applied in resource- or time-constrained scenarios tual agreement. Nonetheless, there is a trade-off between such as real-time biddings in online advertising. To vali- performance and privacy for browsers, in which reduced date this finding, we investigated browsers which enable user privacy can yield a higher browser performance. For QUIC by default, e.g., Google Chrome. Our results sug- example, the usage of TLS session resumption mecha- gest that the analyzed browsers do not provide protec- nisms accelerates connection establishment, but can be tive measures against tracking via QUIC. However, the used for user tracking at the same time [34]. Browsers introduced mechanisms reset during a browser restart, such as Google Chrome or Opera balance this privacy which clears the cached connection data and thus limits versus performance trade-off by limiting the time frame achievable tracking periods. To mitigate the identified of TLS session resumption [34]. QUIC allows to estab- privacy issues, we propose changes to QUIC’s protocol lish secure connections with a zero round-trip time (0- design, the operation of QUIC-enabled web servers, and RTT) handshake. The widespread TCP/TLS 1.2 alter- browser implementations. native requires at least three round-trips [18]. In this work we investigate the impact of QUIC’s Keywords: QUIC Transport Protocol, Network Security, performance enhancements on user privacy. We find Protocol Design, Privacy Protections, Browser Measure- that QUIC’s source-address token and QUIC’s server ments config can be used by a server to identify a user across DOI 10.2478/popets-2019-0046 several connections. These tracking approaches exploit Received 2018-11-30; revised 2019-03-15; accepted 2019-03-16. that a client stores data from the server for reuse in a subsequent connection. Both mechanisms allow a user identification based on the first message that a client 1 Introduction sends to establish a connection with 0-RTT. Compared to common online tracking practices such The QUIC protocol is designed with the aim to provide as HTTP cookies [10] or browser fingerprinting [1], privacy assurances comparable to TLS [35]. To achieve the presented tracking mechanisms can provide per- this goal, QUIC traffic is mostly encrypted with the formance advantages. They do not require an tracker to actively request information from a user’s browser. This saves additional delays and bandwidth consump- *Corresponding Author: Erik Sy: University of Hamburg, tion, which otherwise restricts the practical applicabil- E-mail: [email protected] ity of such tracking methods [2]. For example, a third- Christian Burkert: University of Hamburg, E-mail: party tracker hosting popular web fonts would directly [email protected] affect the page load time of a website by performing Hannes Federrath: University of Hamburg, E-mail: browser fingerprinting and consequently impair the user [email protected] Mathias Fischer: University of Hamburg, E-mail: experience [15]. Furthermore, the additional delay is a mfi[email protected] disadvantage for the highly time-constrained practice of A QUIC Look at Web Tracking 256 real-time bidding in online advertising [22]. QUIC-based describe the cryptographic handshake of the QUIC pro- tracking does not come with these drawbacks. tocol. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to re- QUIC provides two modes for the connection setup: port on user tracking via the QUIC protocol. The main The zero round-trip time (0-RTT) and the one round- contributions of our paper are: trip time (1-RTT) full handshake, as shown in Figure 1. – We describe tracking via QUIC’s source-address to- The full handshake is required for the initial connection ken, which allows online services to link several web- between the client and the server. Subsequent hand- site visits to the same user. Furthermore, we present shakes can use the abbreviated 0-RTT mode utilizing tracking via QUIC’s server config, which enables cached information from previous connections between online services and also network-based attackers to the respective client-server pair. This behavior is in- track users across multiple sessions. dicated by reusing the server config identifier SCID_1 – We investigate the configuration of browsers that and source-address token Token_2 from the connection support QUIC connections by default. Our results shown in Figure 1 a) in the subsequent handshake (see indicate that the investigated browser configura- Figure 1 b). The SCID describes a 16-byte identifier that tions do not restrict the presented tracking mech- allows the peers to reference a specific server config, anism. Furthermore, the tested browsers do not whereas the token describes an encrypted and authen- prevent third-parties from exploiting the presented ticated block which is opaque to the client. The token mechanisms to track users across different visited contains the client’s publicly visible IP address and a websites. timestamp as seen by the server. – We propose countermeasures that mitigate the pre- The initial handshake starts with the client sending sented tracking mechanisms. We address tracking an inchoate client hello (CHLO) message, as shown in via the server config by ensuring that users at- Figure 1 a). This message contains a randomly gener- tempt 0-RTT handshakes only if they observe the ated connection identifier (ConnID), which is used by same server config during a website visit. To miti- both parties to refer to this connection. The ConnID is gate tracking via the source-address token we pro- an optional part of the public header of a QUIC packet. vide an action list for browser vendors to improve Furthermore, the ConnID allows migrating a connec- user privacy. Subsequently, we review an alternative tion to an endpoint’s new IP address and/or port. This design for QUIC’s connection establishment aiming becomes necessary after NAT rebinding [31] or when a for better privacy protections. new IP address gets assigned to an endpoint. Next, the server responds with a reject (REJ) mes- The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: Sec- sage. This message contains among others: (i) the server tion 2 describes the background on the QUIC protocol config including the server’s long-term Diffie-Hellmann handshake. Section 3 reviews QUIC’s tracking mecha- public value (PUBS), (ii) a certificate chain authenticat- nisms and their resulting privacy problems. Section 4 ing the server (CRT), (iii) a signature from the server’s summarizes our major results on tracking via the QUIC private key, (iv) a server config identifier (SCID) and protocol, before we discuss the practical impact of our (v) a source-address token (token). While (i)-(iii) are re- results and possible countermeasures in Section 5. Re- quired to authenticate the server’s identity and to estab- lated work is reviewed in Section 6, and Section 7 con- lish the secure channel, the token is used to authenticate cludes the paper. the client’s publicly visible IP address. Subsequently, the client responds with a complete CHLO. Now, the client can compute the initial keys as a shared value of 2 Background on QUIC’s the server’s PUBS and its own ephemeral Diffie-Hellman private key. The initial keys can be used to send en- handshake crypted requests to the server before the server responds to the complete CHLO. Note, that data encrypted with To set up a secure transport connection, the QUIC pro- the initial keys do not provide forward-secrecy [17]. tocol incorporates some functionality of TCP, TLS, and The server can compute the final and forward- HTTP/2. QUIC’s design allows to concurrently conduct secure key based on the client’s ephemeral Diffie- the cryptographic and the transport handshake, which Hellman public value (KeyShare) contained in the com- provides performance improvements. In this section, we plete CHLO. Therefore, the server hello (SHLO) and all consecutive messages are forward-securely encrypted. A QUIC Look at Web Tracking 257 a) 1-RTT full handshake b) 0-RTT handshake c) Rejected 0-RTT handshake Fig. 1. Handshakes in QUIC transport protocol. The SHLO message contains amongst others a new to- 3.1 QUIC’s identifiers suitable for user ken, the server’s KeyShare, and the ConnID. tracking For a 0-RTT handshake as shown in Figure 1 b), the client follows the same protocol starting from the The QUIC protocol includes identifiers which are bound complete CHLO. Thus, the client needs to cache the to a single user session such as the ConnID.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ipv6-Ipsec And
    IPSec and SSL Virtual Private Networks ITU/APNIC/MICT IPv6 Security Workshop 23rd – 27th May 2016 Bangkok Last updated 29 June 2014 1 Acknowledgment p Content sourced from n Merike Kaeo of Double Shot Security n Contact: [email protected] Virtual Private Networks p Creates a secure tunnel over a public network p Any VPN is not automagically secure n You need to add security functionality to create secure VPNs n That means using firewalls for access control n And probably IPsec or SSL/TLS for confidentiality and data origin authentication 3 VPN Protocols p IPsec (Internet Protocol Security) n Open standard for VPN implementation n Operates on the network layer Other VPN Implementations p MPLS VPN n Used for large and small enterprises n Pseudowire, VPLS, VPRN p GRE Tunnel n Packet encapsulation protocol developed by Cisco n Not encrypted n Implemented with IPsec p L2TP IPsec n Uses L2TP protocol n Usually implemented along with IPsec n IPsec provides the secure channel, while L2TP provides the tunnel What is IPSec? Internet IPSec p IETF standard that enables encrypted communication between peers: n Consists of open standards for securing private communications n Network layer encryption ensuring data confidentiality, integrity, and authentication n Scales from small to very large networks What Does IPsec Provide ? p Confidentiality….many algorithms to choose from p Data integrity and source authentication n Data “signed” by sender and “signature” verified by the recipient n Modification of data can be detected by signature “verification”
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Ipv4 Sites Reaching Global Ipv4 Internet
    1. IPv4 Sites Reaching Global IPv4 Internet Private IPv4 Internet IPv4 NAT • Keep IPv4 service as unchanged as possible, even without enough addresses • Single global IPv4 address shared across more than one subscriber SP IPv6 Network Private Tunnel for IPv4 (public, private, port-limited, etc....) IPv4 Internet IPv4 • Scenario #2 - Service Providers Running out of Private IPv4 space • IPv4 / IPv6 encapsulations/tunnels • Tunnels setup by DHCP, Routing, etc. between a GW and Router • Wherever the NAT lands, it is important that the user keeps control of it • Provides a path to delivering IPv6 SP IPv6 Network Tunnel for IPv4 (public, private, port-limited, etc....) IPv4 Internet • Scenario #3a “Wireless Greenfield” • IPv4 / IPv6 encapsulations/tunnels • Tunnels setup between a host and a Router • IPv4 binding for host applications, transport over IPv6 • Wherever the NAT lands, it is important that the user keeps control of it 3 - 5 Translation Options IPv6 Internet IPv4 Internet IPv6 IPv4 My IPv6 Network IPv6 Internet IPv4 Internet • “Scenario #3” • NAT64/DNS64.... - Stateful, DNSSEC Challenges, DNS64 location, etc. My IPv6 Network IPv6 Internet IPv4 Internet • “Scenario #5” • IVI - NAT-PT..... Expose only certain IPv6 servers, etc. MY IPv4 Network IPv6 Internet IPv4 Internet • “Scenario #4” • NAT64 - 1:1, Stateless, DNSSEC OK, no DNS64 MY IPv4 Network IPv6 Internet IPv4 Internet • Already solved by existing transition mechanisms?? (teredo, etc). Scenarios 1 - 5 1. IPv4 Sites Reaching Global IPv4 Internet Private IPv4 Internet IPv4 NAT • Keep IPv4 service as unchanged as possible, even without enough addresses • Single global IPv4 address shared across more than one subscriber 2. Service Providers Running out of Private IPv4 space ISP Private IPv4 Private Network IPv4 IPv4 Internet • Service Providers with large, privately addressed, IPv4 networks • Organic growth plus pressure to free global addresses for customer use contribute to the problem • The SP Private networks in question generally do not need to reach the Internet at large 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Is QUIC a Better Choice Than TCP in the 5G Core Network Service Based Architecture?
    DEGREE PROJECT IN INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY, SECOND CYCLE, 30 CREDITS STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN 2020 Is QUIC a Better Choice than TCP in the 5G Core Network Service Based Architecture? PETHRUS GÄRDBORN KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SCHOOL OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING AND COMPUTER SCIENCE Is QUIC a Better Choice than TCP in the 5G Core Network Service Based Architecture? PETHRUS GÄRDBORN Master in Communication Systems Date: November 22, 2020 Supervisor at KTH: Marco Chiesa Supervisor at Ericsson: Zaheduzzaman Sarker Examiner: Peter Sjödin School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Host company: Ericsson AB Swedish title: Är QUIC ett bättre val än TCP i 5G Core Network Service Based Architecture? iii Abstract The development of the 5G Cellular Network required a new 5G Core Network and has put higher requirements on its protocol stack. For decades, TCP has been the transport protocol of choice on the Internet. In recent years, major Internet players such as Google, Facebook and CloudFlare have opted to use the new QUIC transport protocol. The design assumptions of the Internet (best-effort delivery) differs from those of the Core Network. The aim of this study is to investigate whether QUIC’s benefits on the Internet will translate to the 5G Core Network Service Based Architecture. A testbed was set up to emulate traffic patterns between Network Functions. The results show that QUIC reduces average request latency to half of that of TCP, for a majority of cases, and doubles the throughput even under optimal network conditions with no packet loss and low (20 ms) RTT. Additionally, by measuring request start and end times “on the wire”, without taking into account QUIC’s shorter connection establishment, we believe the results indicate QUIC’s suitability also under the long-lived (standing) connection model.
    [Show full text]
  • Internet Protocol Suite
    InternetInternet ProtocolProtocol SuiteSuite Srinidhi Varadarajan InternetInternet ProtocolProtocol Suite:Suite: TransportTransport • TCP: Transmission Control Protocol • Byte stream transfer • Reliable, connection-oriented service • Point-to-point (one-to-one) service only • UDP: User Datagram Protocol • Unreliable (“best effort”) datagram service • Point-to-point, multicast (one-to-many), and • broadcast (one-to-all) InternetInternet ProtocolProtocol Suite:Suite: NetworkNetwork z IP: Internet Protocol – Unreliable service – Performs routing – Supported by routing protocols, • e.g. RIP, IS-IS, • OSPF, IGP, and BGP z ICMP: Internet Control Message Protocol – Used by IP (primarily) to exchange error and control messages with other nodes z IGMP: Internet Group Management Protocol – Used for controlling multicast (one-to-many transmission) for UDP datagrams InternetInternet ProtocolProtocol Suite:Suite: DataData LinkLink z ARP: Address Resolution Protocol – Translates from an IP (network) address to a network interface (hardware) address, e.g. IP address-to-Ethernet address or IP address-to- FDDI address z RARP: Reverse Address Resolution Protocol – Translates from a network interface (hardware) address to an IP (network) address AddressAddress ResolutionResolution ProtocolProtocol (ARP)(ARP) ARP Query What is the Ethernet Address of 130.245.20.2 Ethernet ARP Response IP Source 0A:03:23:65:09:FB IP Destination IP: 130.245.20.1 IP: 130.245.20.2 Ethernet: 0A:03:21:60:09:FA Ethernet: 0A:03:23:65:09:FB z Maps IP addresses to Ethernet Addresses
    [Show full text]
  • The Internet Protocol, Version 4 (Ipv4)
    Today’s Lecture I. IPv4 Overview The Internet Protocol, II. IP Fragmentation and Reassembly Version 4 (IPv4) III. IP and Routing IV. IPv4 Options Internet Protocols CSC / ECE 573 Fall, 2005 N.C. State University copyright 2005 Douglas S. Reeves 1 copyright 2005 Douglas S. Reeves 2 Internet Protocol v4 (RFC791) Functions • A universal intermediate layer • Routing IPv4 Overview • Fragmentation and reassembly copyright 2005 Douglas S. Reeves 3 copyright 2005 Douglas S. Reeves 4 “IP over Everything, Everything Over IP” IP = Basic Delivery Service • Everything over IP • IP over everything • Connectionless delivery simplifies router design – TCP, UDP – Dialup and operation – Appletalk – ISDN – Netbios • Unreliable, best-effort delivery. Packets may be… – SCSI – X.25 – ATM – Ethernet – lost (discarded) – X.25 – Wi-Fi – duplicated – SNA – FDDI – reordered – Sonet – ATM – Fibre Channel – Sonet – and/or corrupted – Frame Relay… – … – Remote Direct Memory Access – Ethernet • Even IP over IP! copyright 2005 Douglas S. Reeves 5 copyright 2005 Douglas S. Reeves 6 1 IPv4 Datagram Format IPv4 Header Contents 0 4 8 16 31 •Version (4 bits) header type of service • Functions version total length (in bytes) length (x4) prec | D T R C 0 •Header Length x4 (4) flags identification fragment offset (x8) 1. universal 0 DF MF s •Type of Service (8) e time-to-live (next) protocol t intermediate layer header checksum y b (hop count) identifier •Total Length (16) 0 2 2. routing source IP address •Identification (16) 3. fragmentation and destination IP address reassembly •Flags (3) s •Fragment Offset ×8 (13) e t 4. Options y IP options (if any) b •Time-to-Live (8) 0 4 ≤ •Protocol Identifier (8) s e t •Header Checksum (16) y b payload 5 •Source IP Address (32) 1 5 5 6 •Destination IP Address (32) ≤ •IP Options (≤ 320) copyright 2005 Douglas S.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of QUIC Session Establishment and Its Implementations Eva Gagliardi, Olivier Levillain
    Analysis of QUIC session establishment and its implementations Eva Gagliardi, Olivier Levillain To cite this version: Eva Gagliardi, Olivier Levillain. Analysis of QUIC session establishment and its implementations. 13th IFIP International Conference on Information Security Theory and Practice (WISTP), Dec 2019, Paris, France. pp.169-184, 10.1007/978-3-030-41702-4_11. hal-02468596 HAL Id: hal-02468596 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02468596 Submitted on 5 Feb 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Analysis of QUIC Session Establishment and its Implementations Eva Gagliardi1 and Olivier Levillain2 1 French Ministry of the Armies, 2 T´el´ecomSudParis, Institut Polytechnique de Paris Abstract. In the recent years, the major web companies have been working to improve the user experience and to secure the communica- tions between their users and the services they provide. QUIC is such an initiative, and it is currently being designed by the IETF. In a nutshell, QUIC originally intended to merge features from TCP/SCTP, TLS 1.3 and HTTP/2 into one big protocol. The current specification proposes a more modular definition, where each feature (transport, cryptography, application, packet reemission) are defined in separate internet drafts.
    [Show full text]
  • SOCKS Protocol Version 6
    SOCKS Protocol Version 6 draft-olteanu-intarea-socks-6-08 Vladimir Olteanu IETF 106 What’s new ● DNS provided by SOCKS ● Options for Happy Eyeballs at the proxy Clients need DNS-like features ● A and AAAA – LD_PRELOAD for non-SOCKS-aware apps: gedaddrinfo() separate from connect() – Happy Eyeballs: need to do queries separately ● TXT – ESNI ● MX, Service Binding, etc. – <Insert future use case here> Providing DNS-like features ● Individual SOCKS options (removed in -08) – Have to keep up with use cases – Duplicate DNS functionality – Until -07: A, AAAA, PTR ● Having the client use DNS – Hard to convey policies: resolver IPs, plaintext / over TLS / over HTTPS etc., maybe credentials, etc. – Provide a DNS proxy Why not separate DNS from SOCKS? Client Proxy Server HTTP/SOCKS :1080 HTTP :80 DNS :53 Why not separate DNS from SOCKS? Client Proxy Server HTTP/SOCKS :1080 HTTP :80 DNS :53 WHICH TOR CIRCUIT? ● Need context for DNS query – Otherwise: privacy leaks, suboptimal CDN use DNS provided by SOCKS ● Clients make CONNECT request to 0.0.0.0:53 – Proxy needn’t provide a valid bind address ● Plaintext DNS over SOCKS (opt. over TLS) – TCP by default: SOCKS + UDP more cumbersome to use ● Implementation in Sixtysocks – Run separate DNS proxy locally – Translate 0.0.0.0:53 to 127.0.0.1:53 Happy Eyeballs ● RFC 8305: resolve and connect to a server using both IPv4 and IPv6, keep only one connection – Failover from IPv6 to IPv4 – Better responsiveness if one is faster ● Clients can implement Happy Eyeballs locally – Have DNS + CONNECT Happy Eyeballs:
    [Show full text]
  • 61A Lecture 35 Distributed Computing Internet Protocol Transmission
    Announcements • Homework 9 (6 pts) due Wednesday 11/26 @ 11:59pm ! Homework Party Monday 6pm-8pm in 2050 VLSB • Guest in live lecture, TA Soumya Basu, on Monday 11/24 • Optional Scheme recursive art contest due Monday 12/1 @ 11:59pm 61A Lecture 35 • No lecture on Wednesday 11/26 (turkey) • No lab on Tuesday 11/25 & Wednesday 11/26 • The week of 12/1: Homework 10 due Wednesday 12/3 & Quiz 3 due Thursday 12/4 on SQL Monday, November 24 ! The lab on SQL (12/2 & 12/3) will be an excellent place to get homework help 2 Distributed Computing A distributed computing application consists of multiple programs running on multiple computers that together coordinate to perform some task. • Computation is performed in parallel by many computers. • Information can be restricted to certain computers. • Redundancy and geographic diversity improve reliability. Distributed Computing Characteristics of distributed computing: • Computers are independent — they do not share memory. • Coordination is enabled by messages passed across a network. • Individual programs have differentiating roles. Distributed computing for large-scale data processing: • Databases respond to queries over a network. • Data sets can be partitioned across multiple machines (next lecture). 4 Network Messages Computers communicate via messages: sequences of bytes transmitted over a network. Messages can serve many purposes: • Send data to another computer • Request data from another computer • Instruct a program to call a function on some arguments. Internet Protocol • Transfer a program to be executed by another computer. Messages conform to a message protocol adopted by both the sender (to encode the message) & receiver (to interpret the message).
    [Show full text]
  • Domain Name System 1 Domain Name System
    Domain Name System 1 Domain Name System The Domain Name System (DNS) is a hierarchical distributed naming system for computers, services, or any resource connected to the Internet or a private network. It associates various information with domain names assigned to each of the participating entities. A Domain Name Service translates queries for domain names (which are easier to understand and utilize when accessing the internet) into IP addresses for the purpose of locating computer services and devices worldwide. An often-used analogy to explain the Domain Name System is that it serves as the phone book for the Internet by translating human-friendly computer hostnames into IP addresses. For example, the domain name www.example.com translates to the addresses 192.0.43.10 (IPv4) and 2620:0:2d0:200::10 (IPv6). The Domain Name System makes it possible to assign domain names to groups of Internet resources and users in a meaningful way, independent of each entity's physical location. Because of this, World Wide Web (WWW) hyperlinks and Internet contact information can remain consistent and constant even if the current Internet routing arrangements change or the participant uses a mobile device. Internet domain names are easier to remember than IP addresses such as 208.77.188.166 (IPv4) or 2001:db8:1f70::999:de8:7648:6e8 (IPv6). Users take advantage of this when they recite meaningful Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) and e-mail addresses without having to know how the computer actually locates them. The Domain Name System distributes the responsibility of assigning domain names and mapping those names to IP addresses by designating authoritative name servers for each domain.
    [Show full text]
  • Nist Sp 800-77 Rev. 1 Guide to Ipsec Vpns
    NIST Special Publication 800-77 Revision 1 Guide to IPsec VPNs Elaine Barker Quynh Dang Sheila Frankel Karen Scarfone Paul Wouters This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-77r1 C O M P U T E R S E C U R I T Y NIST Special Publication 800-77 Revision 1 Guide to IPsec VPNs Elaine Barker Quynh Dang Sheila Frankel* Computer Security Division Information Technology Laboratory Karen Scarfone Scarfone Cybersecurity Clifton, VA Paul Wouters Red Hat Toronto, ON, Canada *Former employee; all work for this publication was done while at NIST This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-77r1 June 2020 U.S. Department of Commerce Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., Secretary National Institute of Standards and Technology Walter Copan, NIST Director and Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology Authority This publication has been developed by NIST in accordance with its statutory responsibilities under the Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA) of 2014, 44 U.S.C. § 3551 et seq., Public Law (P.L.) 113-283. NIST is responsible for developing information security standards and guidelines, including minimum requirements for federal information systems, but such standards and guidelines shall not apply to national security systems without the express approval of appropriate federal officials exercising policy authority over such systems. This guideline is consistent with the requirements of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-130. Nothing in this publication should be taken to contradict the standards and guidelines made mandatory and binding on federal agencies by the Secretary of Commerce under statutory authority.
    [Show full text]
  • How Can We Protect the Internet Against Surveillance?
    How can we protect the Internet against surveillance? Seven TODO items for users, web developers and protocol engineers Peter Eckersley [email protected] Okay, so everyone is spying on the Internet It's not just the NSA... Lots of governments are in this game! Not to mention the commerical malware industry These guys are fearsome, octopus-like adversaries Does this mean we should just give up? No. Reason 1: some people can't afford to give up Reason 2: there is a line we can hold vs. So, how do we get there? TODO #1 Users should maximise their own security Make sure your OS and browser are patched! Use encryption where you can! In your browser, install HTTPS Everywhere https://eff.org/https-everywhere For instant messaging, use OTR (easiest with Pidgin or Adium, but be aware of the exploit risk tradeoff) For confidential browsing, use the Tor Browser Bundle Other tools to consider: TextSecure for SMS PGP for email (UX is terrible!) SpiderOak etc for cloud storage Lots of new things in the pipeline TODO #2 Run an open wireless network! openwireless.org How to do this securely right now? Chain your WPA2 network on a router below your open one. TODO #3 Site operators... Deploy SSL/TLS/HTTPS DEPLOY IT CORRECTLY! This, miserably, is a lot harder than it should be TLS/SSL Authentication Apparently, ~52 countries These are usually specialist, narrowly targetted attacks (but that's several entire other talks... we're working on making HTTPS more secure, easier and saner!) In the mean time, here's what you need A valid certificate HTTPS by default Secure cookies No “mixed content” Perfect Forward Secrecy A well-tuned configuration How do I make HTTPS the default? Firefox and Chrome: redirect, set the HSTS header Safari and IE: sorry, you can't (!!!) What's a secure cookie? Go and check your site right now..
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for the Secure Deployment of Ipv6
    Special Publication 800-119 Guidelines for the Secure Deployment of IPv6 Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Sheila Frankel Richard Graveman John Pearce Mark Rooks NIST Special Publication 800-119 Guidelines for the Secure Deployment of IPv6 Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Sheila Frankel Richard Graveman John Pearce Mark Rooks C O M P U T E R S E C U R I T Y Computer Security Division Information Technology Laboratory National Institute of Standards and Technology Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930 December 2010 U.S. Department of Commerce Gary Locke, Secretary National Institute of Standards and Technology Dr. Patrick D. Gallagher, Director GUIDELINES FOR THE SECURE DEPLOYMENT OF IPV6 Reports on Computer Systems Technology The Information Technology Laboratory (ITL) at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) promotes the U.S. economy and public welfare by providing technical leadership for the nation’s measurement and standards infrastructure. ITL develops tests, test methods, reference data, proof of concept implementations, and technical analysis to advance the development and productive use of information technology. ITL’s responsibilities include the development of technical, physical, administrative, and management standards and guidelines for the cost-effective security and privacy of sensitive unclassified information in Federal computer systems. This Special Publication 800-series reports on ITL’s research, guidance, and outreach efforts in computer security and its collaborative activities with industry, government, and academic organizations. National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 800-119 Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Spec. Publ. 800-119, 188 pages (Dec. 2010) Certain commercial entities, equipment, or materials may be identified in this document in order to describe an experimental procedure or concept adequately.
    [Show full text]