Risk
8/29/2013
05:33 PM
Dark Reading
Dark Reading
Products and Releases
50%
50%

Social Networks: Can Robots Violate User Privacy?

High-Tech Bridge experimented to verify how the 50 largest social networks, Web services, and free emails systems respect – or abuse - privacy of their users

Recent news in the international media has revealed numerous Internet privacy concerns that definitely deserve attention and further investigation. This is why we, at High-Tech Bridge, decided to conduct a simple technical experiment to verify how the 50 largest social networks, web services and free emails systems respect – or indeed abuse - the privacy of their users. The experiment and its results can be reproduced by anyone, as we tried to be as neutral and objective as possible.

The nature of the experiment was quite simple: we deployed a dedicated web server and created secret and totally unpredictable URLs on it for each tested service, something similar to:

http://www.our-domain-for-test.com/secret/18354832319/sgheAsZaLq/

Then we used various legitimate functionalities (detailed in the table below) of the tested services to transmit the secret URLs, carefully monitoring our web server logs for all incoming HTTP requests (to see which services followed the secret link that was not supposed to be known and accessed by anyone).

During the 10 days of our experiment, we trapped only six services out of the 50. However, among those six were four of the biggest and most used social networks: Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and Formspring. The remaining two were URL shortening services: bit.ly and goo.gl.

If for the URL shortening services such behavior may be part of their legitimate functionalities, it should not also be the case with social networks such as Facebook and Twitter. Taking into consideration that some of the services may have legitimate robots (e.g. to verify and block spam links) crawling every user-transmitted link automatically, we also created a robots.txt file on our web server that restricted bots accessing the server and its content. Only Twitter respected this restriction, all other social networks simply ignored it, accessing the secret URL.

Below, you can find HTTP requests of trapped services that accessed the secret URLs:

Bit.ly: IP: 50.17.69.56 User-Agent: bitlybot

Facebook: IP: 173.252.112.114 User-Agent: facebookexternalhit/1.1 (+http://www.facebook.com/externalhit_uatext.php)

Formspring: IP: 54.226.58.107 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.31 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/26.0.1410.64 Safari/537.31

goo.gl: IP: 66.249.81.112 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.4 (KHTML, like Gecko; Google Web Preview) Chrome/22.0.1229 Safari/537.4

Google+: IP: 66.249.81.112 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110814 Firefox/6.0 Google (+https://developers.google.com/+/web/snippet/)

Twitter: IP: 199.59.148.211 User-Agent: Twitterbot/1.0

Marsel Nizamutdinov, Chief Research Officer at High-Tech Bridge, comments: "The results of this experiment are quite interesting actually. The four trapped social networks justify their activities by “automated verifications”. However, it is technically impossible to verify what is really going on and how the information obtained on the user-transmitted URLs is being used. Today, quite a lot of web applications omit authentication and rely on temporary or unpredictable URLs to hide some content and, when users transfer such URLs via social networks, they cannot be sure that their information will indeed remain confidential. Unfortunately there is no way to keep the URL and its content confidential [if there is no authentication of course] while transferring the URL via social networks."

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Flash Poll
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2014-2130
Published: 2015-03-05
Cisco Secure Access Control Server (ACS) provides an unintentional administration web interface based on Apache Tomcat, which allows remote authenticated users to modify application files and configuration files, and consequently execute arbitrary code, by leveraging administrative privileges, aka B...

CVE-2014-9688
Published: 2015-03-05
Unspecified vulnerability in the Ninja Forms plugin before 2.8.10 for WordPress has unknown impact and remote attack vectors related to admin users.

CVE-2015-0598
Published: 2015-03-05
The RADIUS implementation in Cisco IOS and IOS XE allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (device reload) via crafted IPv6 Attributes in Access-Accept packets, aka Bug IDs CSCur84322 and CSCur27693.

CVE-2015-0607
Published: 2015-03-05
The Authentication Proxy feature in Cisco IOS does not properly handle invalid AAA return codes from RADIUS and TACACS+ servers, which allows remote attackers to bypass authentication in opportunistic circumstances via a connection attempt that triggers an invalid code, as demonstrated by a connecti...

CVE-2015-0657
Published: 2015-03-05
Cisco IOS XR allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (RSVP process reload) via a malformed RSVP packet, aka Bug ID CSCur69192.

Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
How can security professionals better engage with their peers, both in person and online? In this Dark Reading Radio show, we will talk to leaders at some of the security industry’s professional organizations about how security pros can get more involved – with their colleagues in the same industry, with their peers in other industries, and with the IT security community as a whole.