skip to main content
10.1145/2857705.2857714acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescodaspyConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Best Paper

Neuralyzer: Flexible Expiration Times for the Revocation of Online Data

Published:09 March 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

Once data is released to the Internet, there is little hope to successfully delete it, as it may have been duplicated, reposted, and archived in multiple places. This poses a significant threat to users' privacy and their right to permanently erase their very own data. One approach to control the implications on privacy is to assign a lifetime value to the published data and ensure that the data is no longer accessible after this point in time. However, such an approach suffers from the inability to successfully predict the right time when the data should vanish. Consequently, the author of the data can only estimate the correct time, which unfortunately can cause the premature or belated deletion of data.

This paper tackles the problem of prefixed lifetimes in data deletion from a different angle and argues that alternative approaches are a desideratum for research. In our approach, we consider different criteria when data should be deleted, such as keeping data available as long as there is sufficient interest for it or untimely delete it in cases of excessive accesses. To assist the self-destruction of data, we propose a protocol and develop a prototype, called Neuralyzer, which leverages the caching mechanisms of the Domain Name System (DNS) to ensure the successful deletion of data. Our experimental results demonstrate that our approach can completely delete published data while at the same time achieving flexible expiration times varying from few days to several months depending on the users' interest.

References

  1. O. Ayalon and E. Toch. Retrospective Privacy: Managing Longitudinal Privacy in Online Social Networks. In Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS), 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. J. Backes, M. Backes, M. Dürmuth, S. Gerling, and S. Lorenz. X-Pire!-A Digital Expiration Date for Images in Social Networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1112.2649, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. N. Balani and S. Ruj. Temporal Access Control With User Revocation for Cloud Data. In International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communications (TrustCom), 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. J. Bethencourt, A. Sahai, and B. Waters. Ciphertext-Policy Attribute-Based Encryption. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. M. Bishop, E. R. Butler, K. Butler, C. Gates, and S. Greenspan. Forgive and Forget: Return to Obscurity. In New Security Paradigms Workshop, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. D. Boneh and R. Lipton. A Revocable Backup System. In USENIX Security Symposium, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. C. Castelluccia, E. De Cristofaro, A. Francillon, and M.-A. Kaafar. EphPub: Toward Robust Ephemeral Publishing. In IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP), 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. C. Conley. The Right to Delete. In AAAI Spring Symposium: Intelligent Information Privacy Management, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. J. Daemen and V. Rijmen. The Design of Rijndael: AES -- the Advanced Encryption Standard. Springer Science & Business Media, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. E. De Cristofaro, C. Soriente, G. Tsudik, and A. Williams. Hummingbird: Privacy at the Time of Twitter. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. T. Eissa and G.-H. Cho. A Fine Grained Access Control and Flexible Revocation Scheme for Data Security on Public Cloud Storage Services. In International Conference on Cloud Computing Technologies, Applications and Management (ICCCTAM), 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. European Commission. Factsheet on the "Right to Be Forgotten" Ruling, C-131/12. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/factsheets/factsheet_data_protection_en.pdf, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. R. Geambasu, T. Kohno, A. Krishnamurthy, A. Levy, H. Levy, P. Gardner, and V. Moscaritolo. New Directions for Self-Destructing Data Systems. Technical report, University of Washington, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. R. Geambasu, T. Kohno, A. A. Levy, and H. M. Levy. Vanish: Increasing Data Privacy with Self-Destructing Data. In USENIX Security Symposium, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. R. Gross and A. Acquisti. Information Revelation and Privacy in Online Social Networks. In ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society (WPES), 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Huffington Post. Experts Say Facebook Leak of 6 Million Users' Data Might Be Bigger Than We Thought. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/27/facebook-leak-data_n_3510100.html, Jun 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. J. Hur and D. K. Noh. Attribute-Based Access Control With Efficient Revocation in Data Outsourcing Systems. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 22(7):1214--1221, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Internet Live Stats. Total Mumber of Websites. http://www.internetlivestats.com/total-number-of-websites/, Aug 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. B. Krebs. Online Cheating Site AshleyMadison Hacked. http://krebsonsecurity.com/2015/07/online-cheating-site-ashleymadison-hacked/, Jul 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. M. Kührer, T. Hupperich, J. Bushart, C. Rossow, and T. Holz. Going Wild: Large-Scale Classification of Public DNS Resolvers. In ACM SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Conference (IMC), 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. M. Madejski, M. L. Johnson, and S. M. Bellovin. The Failure of Online Social Network Privacy Settings. Technical report, Columbia University, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. C. D. Marsan. 15 Worst Internet Privacy Scandals of All Time. http://www.networkworld.com/article/2185187/security/15-worst-internet-privacy-scandals-of-all-time.html, Jan 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Mashable. 98,000 Hacked Snapchat Photos and Videos Posted Online. http://mashable.com/2014/10/13/the-snappening-photos-videos-posted, Oct 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. P. V. Mockapetris. RFC 883, Domain Names -- Implementation and Specification. 1983. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. S. K. Nair, M. T. Dashti, B. Crispo, and A. S. Tanenbaum. A Hybrid PKI-IBC Based Ephemerizer System. In New Approaches for Security, Privacy and Trust in Complex Environments, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. P. Papadopoulos, A. Papadogiannakis, M. Polychronakis, A. Zarras, T. Holz, and E. P. Markatos. K-Subscription: Privacy-Preserving Microblogging Browsing Through Obfuscation. In Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (ACSAC), 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. R. Perlman. File System Design With Assured Delete. In IEEE International Security in Storage Workshop (SISW), 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. R. Perlman. The Ephemerizer: Making Data Disappear. Journal of Information System Security (JISSec), 1:51--68, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. C. Pöpper, D. Basin, S.vCapkun, and C. Cremers. Keeping Data Secret Under Full Compromise Using Porter Devices. In Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (ACSAC), 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. S. Reimann and M. Dürmuth. Timed Revocation of User Data: Long Expiration Times From Existing Infrastructure. In ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society (WPES), 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. D. Rosenblum. What Anyone Can Know: The Privacy Risks of Social Networking Sites. IEEE Security & Privacy, (3):40--49, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. The Register. iCloud Fiasco: 100 Famous Women Exposed Nude Online. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/08/31/jlaw_upton_caught_in_celeb_nude_pics_hack, Aug 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Wisemetrics. Your Tweet Half-Life Is 1 Billion Times Shorter Than Carbon 14's. http://blog.wisemetrics.com/tweet-isbillion-time-shorter-than-carbon14/, Mar 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. S. Wolchok, O. S. Hofmann, N. Heninger, E. W. Felten, J. A. Halderman, C. J. Rossbach, B. Waters, and E. Witchel. Defeating Vanish With Low-Cost Sybil Attacks Against Large DHTs. In ISOC Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS), 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. L. Zeng, Z. Shi, S. Xu, and D. Feng. SafeVanish: An Improved Data Self-Destruction for Protecting Data Privacy. In International Conference on Cloud Computing Technology and Science (CloudCom), 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Neuralyzer: Flexible Expiration Times for the Revocation of Online Data

        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 Conferences
          CODASPY '16: Proceedings of the Sixth ACM Conference on Data and Application Security and Privacy
          March 2016
          340 pages
          ISBN:9781450339353
          DOI:10.1145/2857705

          Copyright © 2016 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 9 March 2016

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          CODASPY '16 Paper Acceptance Rate22of115submissions,19%Overall Acceptance Rate149of789submissions,19%

          Upcoming Conference

          CODASPY '24

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader