skip to main content
10.1145/2524211.2524215acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessospConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

MUTT: a watchdog for OSN applications

Published:03 November 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

Services such as Facebook and Twitter host and disseminate data on behalf of billions of users. Because these services often manage personal data, they allow users to specify access policies controlling how their data is shared with others within the service. However, services also act as programming platforms, exporting users' data to third-party applications via remote APIs. Nearly all of these third-party applications execute on server infrastructure that is not controlled by the service. As a result, a service has no way to guarantee that data shared with a third-party application will be managed according to users' policies. Delegation protocols such as OAuth allow a user and service to confer or deny an application's right to access a data item, but once the item has been released there is no oversight of what the application does with it. In this paper, we present the design and implementation of a Multi-User Taint Tracker (MUTT), which ensures that third-party applications adhere to access policies defined by service users. We motivate MUTT's design by analyzing 170 Facebook apps and several services' Terms of Service, and demonstrate the feasibility of our design through experiments with a prototype implementation.

References

  1. Amazon EC2 Facebook Application Hosting. http://aws.amazon.com/facebook-application-hosting/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Badoo. www.badoo.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Facebook application statistics. http://statistics.allfacebook.com/applications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Facebook Developers Blog: Open Graph Beta. https://developers.facebook.com/docs/beta.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Facebook Developers Blog: Permissions. https://developers.facebook.com/docs/reference/api/permissions.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Facebook in Privacy Breach: Top-Ranked Applications Transmit Personal IDs, a Journal Investigation Finds. Wall Street Journal, October 18, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Facebook statistics. https://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Farmville. www.farmville.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Lessons from FarmVille: How Zynga uses the Cloud. http://www.informationweek.com/news/global-cio/interviews/229402805.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. The Facebook Blog: debunking rumors about advertising and photos. https://www.facebook.com/blog.php?post=110636457130.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Twitter Suspends UberMedia Clients For Privacy And Monetization Violations, Trademark Infringement. http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/18/twitter-suspends-ubermedia-clients-ubertwitter-and-twidroyd-for-violating-policies/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. VKontakte. http://vk.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. W. Chang, B. Streiff, and C. Lin. Efficient and extensible security enforcement using dynamic data flow analysis. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM conference on Computer and communications security, CCS '08, pages 39--50, New York, NY, USA, 2008. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. E. Chin and D. Wagner. Efficient character-level taint tracking for java. In Proceedings of the 2009 ACM workshop on Secure web services, SWS '09, pages 3--12, New York, NY, USA, 2009. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. N. Chohan, C. Bunch, S. Pang, C. Krintz, N. Mostafa, S. Soman, and R. Wolski. Appscale: Scalable and open appengine application development and deployment. In International Conference on Cloud Computing, October 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. S. Chong, K. Vikram, and A. C. Myers. Sif: Enforcing confidentiality and integrity in web applications. In In Proc. 16th USENIX Security, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. D. E. Denning. A lattice model of secure information flow. Commun. ACM, 19(5): 236--243, May 1976. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. W. Enck, P. Gilbert, B.-G. Chun, L. P. Cox, J. Jung, P. McDaniel, and A. N. Sheth. 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, OSDI'10, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. D. B. Giffin, A. Levy, D. Stefan, D. Terei, D. Mazières, J. C. Mitchell, and A. Russo. Hails: protecting data privacy in untrusted web applications. In OSDI '12, October 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. P.-E. Gobry. Huge facebook app loses 75% uniques after facebook threatens it, April 2011. http://www.businessinsider.com/badoo-facebook-2011-4.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. P. Goss. Facebook shuts down application over privacy, July 2008. Tech Radar.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. M. Krohn, A. Yip, M. Brodsky, R. Morris, and M. Walfish. A World Wide Web Without Walls. In HotNets '07, November 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. J. Liu, M. D. George, K. Vikram, X. Qi, L. Waye, and A. C. Myers. Fabric: a platform for secure distributed computation and storage. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGOPS 22nd symposium on Operating systems principles, SOSP '09, pages 321--334, New York, NY, USA, 2009. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. E. Mills. Facebook suspends app that permitted peephole, June 2008. CNET News.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. A. C. Myers and B. Liskov. A decentralized model for information flow control. SIGOPS Oper. Syst. Rev., 31: 129--142, October 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. A. Sabelfeld and A. Myers. Language-based information-flow security. Selected Areas in Communications, IEEE Journal, January 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. F. B. Schneider, K. Walsh, and E. G. Sirer. Nexus authorization logic (nal): Design rationale and applications, September 2009. Cornell Computing and Information Science Technical Report.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. J. Seo and M. S. Lam. Invisitype: Object-oriented security policies. In Network and Distributed System Security Symposium, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. K. Singh, S. Bhola, and W. Lee. xBook: redesigning privacy control in social networking platforms. In Usenix Security Symposium, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. G. E. Suh, J. W. Lee, D. Zhang, and S. Devadas. Secure program execution via dynamic information flow tracking. SIGARCH Comput. Archit. News, 32: 85--96, October 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. O. Tripp, M. Pistoia, S. J. Fink, M. Sridharan, and O. Weisman. Taj: effective taint analysis of web applications. In Proceedings of the 2009 ACM SIGPLAN conference on Programming language design and implementation, PLDI '09, pages 87--97, New York, NY, USA, 2009. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. A. Yip, X. Wang, N. Zeldovich, and M. F. Kaashoek. Improving application security with data flow assertions. In Proceedings of the 22th ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (SOSP '09), Big Sky, Montana, October 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. N. Zeldovich, S. Boyd-Wickizer, E. Kohler, and D. Mazires. Making Information Flow Explicit in HiStar. In Proceedings of the Seventh Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI), November 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. N. Zeldovich, S. Boyd-wickizer, and D. Mazieres. Securing distributed systems with information flow control. In In Proc. of the 5th NSDI, pages 293--308, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. MUTT: a watchdog for OSN applications

              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
                TRIOS '13: Proceedings of the First ACM SIGOPS Conference on Timely Results in Operating Systems
                November 2013
                155 pages
                ISBN:9781450324632
                DOI:10.1145/2524211

                Copyright © 2013 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: 3 November 2013

                Permissions

                Request permissions about this article.

                Request Permissions

                Check for updates

                Qualifiers

                • research-article

                Upcoming Conference

                SOSP '24

              PDF Format

              View or Download as a PDF file.

              PDF

              eReader

              View online with eReader.

              eReader