skip to main content
10.1145/3243734.3243823acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesccsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Mystique: Uncovering Information Leakage from Browser Extensions

Published:15 October 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Browser extensions are small JavaScript, CSS and HTML programs that run inside the browser with special privileges. These programs, often written by third parties, operate on the pages that the browser is visiting, giving the user a programmatic way to configure the browser. The privacy implications that arise by allowing privileged third-party code to execute inside the users' browser are not well understood. In this paper, we develop a taint analysis framework for browser extensions and use it to perform a large scale study of extensions in regard to their privacy practices. We first present a hybrid approach to traditional taint analysis: by leveraging the fact that extension source code is available to the runtime JavaScript engine, we implement as well as enhance traditional taint analysis using information gathered from static data flow and control-flow analysis of the JavaScript source code. Based on this, we further modify the Chromium browser to support taint tracking for extensions. We analyzed 178,893 extensions crawled from the Chrome Web Store between September 2016 and March 2018, as well as a separate set of all available extensions (2,790 in total) for the Opera browser at the time of analysis. From these, our analysis flagged 3,868 (2.13%) extensions as potentially leaking privacy-sensitive information. The top 10 most popular Chrome extensions that we confirmed to be leaking privacy-sensitive information have more than 60 million users combined. We ran the analysis on a local Kubernetes cluster and were able to finish within a month, demonstrating the feasibility of our approach for large-scale analysis of browser extensions. At the same time, our results emphasize the threat browser extensions pose to user privacy, and the need for countermeasures to safeguard against misbehaving extensions that abuse their privileges.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

p1687-chen.mp4

mp4

375.8 MB

References

  1. Sruthi Bandhakavi, Samuel T King, Parthasarathy Madhusudan, and Marianne Winslett. 2010. VEX: Vetting Browser Extensions for Security Vulnerabilities. In USENIX Security Symposium, Vol. 10. 339--354. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Adam Barth, Adrienne Porter Felt, Prateek Saxena, and Aaron Boodman. 2010. Protecting Browsers from Extension Vulnerabilities. In NDSS.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Lujo Bauer, Shaoying Cai, Limin Jia, Timothy Passaro, Michael Stroucken, and Yuan Tian. 2015. Run-time Monitoring and Formal Analysis of Information Flows in Chromium.. In NDSS.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Per Nikolaj D Bukh. 1992. The art of computer systems performance analysis, techniques for experimental design, measurement, simulation and modeling.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Catapult Project. 2018. Web Page Replay. https://github.com/catapult-project/catapult/tree/master/web_page_replay_go.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Chrome Web Store. 2018. Web of Trust. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/wot-web-of-trust-website/bhmmomiinigofkjcapegjjndpbikblnp?hl=en-US.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Andrey Chudnov and David A Naumann. 2015. Inlined information flow monitoring for JavaScript. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. ACM, 629--643. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Jay Conrod. 2018. A tour of V8: Crankshaft, the optimizing compiler. http://www.jayconrod.com/posts/54/a-tour-of-v8-crankshaft-the-optimizing-compiler.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Willem De Groef, Dominique Devriese, Nick Nikiforakis, and Frank Piessens. 2012. FlowFox: a web browser with flexible and precise information flow control. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM conference on Computer and communications security. ACM, 748--759. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Detectify Labs. 2018. Chrome Extensions - AKA Total Absence of Privacy. https://labs.detectify.com/2015/11/19/chrome-extensions-aka-total-absence-of-privacy/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Mohan Dhawan and Vinod Ganapathy. 2009. Analyzing information flow in JavaScript-based browser extensions. In Computer Security Applications Conference, 2009. ACSAC'09. Annual. IEEE, 382--391. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Vladan Djeric and Ashvin Goel. 2010. Securing script-based extensibility in web browsers. In Proceedings of the USENIX Security Symposium. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. William Enck, Peter Gilbert, Seungyeop Han, Vasant Tendulkar, Byung-Gon Chun, Landon P Cox, Jaeyeon Jung, Patrick McDaniel, and Anmol N Sheth. 2010. TaintDroid: an information-flow tracking system for realtime privacy monitoring on smartphones. In Proceedings of the 9th USENIX Conference on Operating Systems Design and Implementation. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Cristiano Giuffrida, Stefano Ortolani, and Bruno Crispo. 2012. Memoirs of a browser: A cross-browser detection model for privacy-breaching extensions. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM Symposium on Information, Computer and Communications Security. ACM, 10--11. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Google. 2018. Chrome V8. https://developers.google.com/v8/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Arjun Guha, Matthew Fredrikson, Benjamin Livshits, and Nikhil Swamy. 2011. Verified security for browser extensions. In Security and Privacy (SP), 2011 IEEE Symposium on. IEEE, 115--130. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. How-to Geek. 2018. Warning: Your Browser Extensions Are Spying On You. https://www.howtogeek.com/180175/warning-your-browser-extensions-are-spying-on-you/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Luca Invernizzi, Kurt Thomas, Alexandros Kapravelos, Oxana Comanescu, Jean-Michel Picod, and Elie Bursztein. 2016. Cloak of visibility: detecting when machines browse a different web. In Security and Privacy (SP), 2016 IEEE Symposium on. IEEE, 743--758.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Dongseok Jang, Ranjit Jhala, Sorin Lerner, and Hovav Shacham. 2010. An Empirical Study of Privacy-Violating Information Flows in JavaScript Web Applications. In Proc of the 17th ACM Conf on Computer and Communications Security CCS, Vol. 10. 43--51. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Alexandros Kapravelos, Chris Grier, Neha Chachra, Christopher Kruegel, Giovanni Vigna, and Vern Paxson. 2014. Hulk: Eliciting malicious behavior in browser extensions. In 23rd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 14). 641--654. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Kubernetes. 2018. Production-Grade Container Orchestration. https://kubernetes.io/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Sebastian Lekies, Ben Stock, and Martin Johns. 2013. 25 Million Flows Later - Large-scale Detection of DOM-based XSS. In 20th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security Berlin 4.11.2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Zhuowei Li, XiaoFeng Wang, and Jong Choi. 2007. SpyShield: Preserving privacy from spy add-ons. In Recent Advances in Intrusion Detection. Springer, 296--316. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. William Melicher, Anupam Das, Mahmood Sharif, Lujo Bauer, and Limin Jia. 2018. Riding out DOMsday: Toward Detecting and Preventing DOM Cross-Site Scripting. (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Mozilla. 2018. Modifying a web page. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/WebExtensions/Modify_a_web_page.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Mozilla. 2018. SpiderMonkey. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Projects/SpiderMonkey.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. PC Magazine. 2018. 'Web Of Trust' Browser Extension Cannot Be Trusted. http://www.pcmag.com/news/349328/web-of-trust-browser-extension-cannot-be-trusted.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Prateek Saxena, Devdatta Akhawe, Steve Hanna, Feng Mao, Stephen McCamant, and Dawn Song. 2010. A symbolic execution framework for JavaScript. In Security and Privacy (SP), 2010 IEEE Symposium on. IEEE, 513--528. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Oleksii Starov and Nick Nikiforakis. 2017. Extended tracking powers: Measuring the privacy diffusion enabled by browser extensions. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, 1481--1490. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. StatCounter. 2018. Browser Market Share Worldwide. http://gs.statcounter.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Ben Stock, Sebastian Lekies, Tobias Mueller, Patrick Spiegel, and Martin Johns. 2014. Precise client-side protection against DOM-based Cross-Site Scripting. In USENIX Security Symposium. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. V8 Project. 2018. Launching Ignition and TurboFan. https://v8project.blogspot.com/2017/05/launching-ignition-and-turbofan.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Philipp Vogt, Florian Nentwich, Nenad Jovanovic, Engin Kirda, Christopher Kruegel, and Giovanni Vigna. 2007. Cross-Site Scripting Prevention with Dynamic Data Tainting and Static Analysis.. In NDSS, Vol. 2007. 12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Jiangang Wang, Xiaohong Li, Xuhui Liu, Xinshu Dong, Junjie Wang, Zhenkai Liang, and Zhiyong Feng. 2012. An empirical study of dangerous behaviors in firefox extensions. Information Security (2012), 188--203. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. WebProNews. 2018. The Chromium-Powered Opera Is Finally Here. https://www.webpronews.com/the-chromium-powered-opera-is-finally-here/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Zachary Weinberg, Eric Y Chen, Pavithra Ramesh Jayaraman, and Collin Jackson. 2011. I still know what you visited last summer: Leaking browsing history via user interaction and side channel attacks. In Security and Privacy (SP), 2011 IEEE Symposium on. IEEE, 147--161. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Michael Weissbacher. 2018. These Chrome extensions spy on 8 million users. http://mweissbacher.com/blog/2016/03/31/these-chrome-extensions-spy-on-8-million-users/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Michael Weissbacher, Enrico Mariconti, Guillermo Suarez-Tangil, Gianluca Stringhini, William Robertson, and Engin Kirda. 2017. Ex-Ray: Detection of History-Leaking Browser Extensions. In Annual Computer Security Applications Conference. ACM publishing. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Mystique: Uncovering Information Leakage from Browser Extensions

      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
        CCS '18: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security
        October 2018
        2359 pages
        ISBN:9781450356930
        DOI:10.1145/3243734

        Copyright © 2018 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 the author(s) 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: 15 October 2018

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        CCS '18 Paper Acceptance Rate134of809submissions,17%Overall Acceptance Rate1,261of6,999submissions,18%

        Upcoming Conference

        CCS '24
        ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security
        October 14 - 18, 2024
        Salt Lake City , UT , USA

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader