MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149280729

Effective attacks and provable defenses for website fingerprinting

2014· article· en· W2149280729 on OpenAlexaff
Tao Wang, Xiang Cai, Rishab Nithyanand, Rob Johnson, Ian Goldberg

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInternet Traffic Analysis and Secure E-voting
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceNetwork packetAnonymityFalse positive rateComputer securityOverhead (engineering)Set (abstract data type)Attack modelBandwidth (computing)Computer networkArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Website fingerprinting attacks allow a local, passive eavesdropper to identify a user’s web activity by lever-aging packet sequence information. These attacks break the privacy expected by users of privacy technologies, including low-latency anonymity networks such as Tor. In this paper, we show a new attack that achieves sig-nificantly higher accuracy than previous attacks in the same field, further highlighting website fingerprinting as a genuine threat to web privacy. We test our attack under a large open-world experimental setting, where the client can visit pages that the attacker is not aware of. We found that our new attack is much more accurate than previous attempts, especially for an attacker monitoring a set of sites with low base incidence rate. We can correctly de-termine which of 100 monitored web pages a client is visiting (out of a significantly larger universe) at an 85% true positive rate with a false positive rate of 0.6%, com-pared to the best of 83 % true positive rate with a false positive rate of 6 % in previous work. To defend against such attacks, we need provably ef-fective defenses. We show how simulatable, determinis-tic defenses can be provably private, and we show that bandwidth overhead optimality can be achieved for these defenses by using a supersequence over anonymity sets of packet sequences. We design a new defense by ap-proximating this optimal strategy and demonstrate that this new defense is able to defeat any attack at a lower cost on bandwidth than the previous best. 1

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations273
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInternet Traffic Analysis and Secure E-votingFrench-language works237,207