Thus spake Georg Koppen (g.koppen@xxxxxxxxx):
> >> That is definitely a good approach. But maybe there is research to be
> >> done here as well. Just a rough (and in part research) idea that I had
> >> in mind while asking you the question above: What about if we first
> >> started looking at different services offered in the web whether they
> >> can be deployed anonymously *at all* (or maybe more precisely (but not
> >> much): that can be deployed in a way that there is either no linkability
> >> at all or the linkability is not strong enough to endanger the user)
> >> (that would be worth some research, I guess)?
> >
> > What technical properties of the web makes such services impossible to
> > use?
>
> The web is not the right object to reason about here. The more
> interesting question would be "What techical properties of a service
> makes it impossible to get used anonymously?" That remains to be
> researched. At the end, maybe there isn't any (though I doubt that).
Sure, anonymity is by definition impossible for things that require a
name. As long as that name can be an ephemeral pseudonym, I think
we're good on the web.
But once you start getting into real personal and/or biometric (even
just a photo) details, you obviously lose your anonymity set. Again, I
think what we're talking about here is "Layer 8".
> > Most of the ones I can think of are problematic because of "Layer
> > 8" issues like users divilging too much information to specific
> > services.
>
> That may hold for most services, yes.
>
> >> The idea of getting more users due to being not too strict here
> >> might be appealing but is not the right decision in the end. I think
> >> one has to realize that there are services in the web that are
> >> *designed* in a way that one EITHER may use them OR use anonymity
> >> services. Sure, the devil is in the details (e.g. there are
> >> probably a lot of services that may be usable anonymously but then
> >> are accompanied with a certain lack of usability. What about them?
> >> Should we decide against usability again or should we loosen our
> >> means to provide unlinkability here?) but that does not mean there
> >> is no way to find a good solution though.
> >
> > At the end of the day, I don't believe we have to sacrifice much in
> > terms of usability if we properly reason through the adversary
> > capabilities.
>
> I would be glad if that would be the case but I doubt that (having e.g.
> Facebook in mind).
Can you provide specific concerns about facebook wrt the properties
from the blog post?
> >> In short (and still roughly): I would like to start thinking from
> >> having all means available to surf the web anonymously and then
> >> downgrade them piece-by-piece to reach a trade-off between anonymity
> >> and usability. Services that may not be used anonymously at all
> >> would not trigger such a painful downgrade ("painful" as one usually
> >> tries first to hack around existing problems encountering
> >> unbelievable design issues and bugs and has to concede finally that
> >> it is in the user's interest to exclude that feature (again)).
> >
> > Downgrading privacy would be a UI nightmare that no one would
> > understand how to use, but assuming we can solve that problem: if we
> > can find a way to apply these downgrade options to specific urlbar
> > domains, this might make sense. Otherwise you introduce too many
> > global fingerprinting issues by providing different privacy options.
>
> No, you got me wrong here. The downgrading occurs while designing the
> anon mode not while using it. There should be just one mode in order to
> avoid fingerprinting issues. It is merely meant as a design principle
> for the dev: starting with all we can get and then downgrading our
> defenses until we reach a good balance between usability and anon features.
Ok. Let's try to do this. Where do we start from? Can we start from
the design I proposed and make it more strict?
> > What do you have in mind in terms of stricter controls?
>
> Hmmm... Dunno what you mean here.
What changes to the design might you propose?
> >>> The need for science especially comes in on the fingerprinting arena.
> >>> Some fingerprinting opportunities may not actually be appealing to
> >>> adversaries. Some may even appear appealing in theory, but in practice
> >>> would be noticeable to the user, too noisy, and/or too error-prone.
> >>> Hence I called for more panopticlick-style studies, especially of
> >>> Javascript features, in the blog post.
> >>
> >> Yes, that is definitely a good idea though I tend to avoid them all even
> >> if currently no adversary is using them (especially if no usability
> >> issue is at stake). First: no one knows whether one did not miss an
> >> attacker using this kind of attack vector and second: Getting rid of
> >> attack vectors is a good thing per se.
> >
> > But going back to your original point, I contend you're not getting
> > rid of any attack vectors by eliminating window.name and referer
> > transmission. The adversary still has plenty of other ways to
> > transmit the same information to 3rd party elements..
>
> Yes, that's true.
Amusing story: I checked to see if Google+ might be using Google
Chrome's privacy-preserving web-send feature
(http://web-send.org/features.html) for their "+1" like button, and I
discovered that sites who source the +1 button were encoding their
URLs as a GET parameter to plus.google.com. So any referer protection
you might expect to gain in the short term is already gone against
Google. I think identifier transmission is really what is important in
this case.
I am also pretty disappointed that Google is not even opting to use
their own privacy-preserving submission system. Google+ seems like a
great opportuity to push the adoption of web-send, so that 3rd-party
identifier isolation can be done without breakage.
Folks who are inclined to making media shitstorms should try to jump
on this one..
> > You're just preventing "accidental" information leakage at the cost of
> > breaking functionality.
> > The ad networks will adapt to this sort of change, and then you're
> > right back where you started in terms of actual tracking, after years
> > of punishing your users with broken sites..
>
> This depends on how one designs the single features. But I got your point.
If you want to suggest how to fine-tune the referer/window.name
policy, let's discuss that.
More broadly, perhaps there is some balance of per-tab isolation and
origin isolation that is easily achievable in Firefox? In my
experience, per-tab isolation is extremely hard. How much of that have
you already implemented?
--
Mike Perry
Mad Computer Scientist
fscked.org evil labs
Attachment:
pgpbDot7nmFzs.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev