Cited by 95Privacy-Preserving Technologies in DataPrivacy, Security, and Data ProtectionInternet Traffic Analysis and Secure E-voting

De-anonymizing Web Browsing Data with Social Networks

Open access
Su, Jessica, Shukla, Ansh, Goel, Sharad, Narayanan, Arvind·2017·Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web

Abstract

Can online trackers and network adversaries de-anonymize web browsing data readily available to them? We show---theoretically, via simulation, and through experiments on real user data---that de-identified web browsing histories can be linked to social media profiles using only publicly available data. Our approach is based on a simple observation: each person has a distinctive social network, and thus the set of links appearing in one's feed is unique. Assuming users visit links in their feed with higher probability than a random user, browsing histories contain tell-tale marks of identity. We formalize this intuition by specifying a model of web browsing behavior and then deriving the maximum likelihood estimate of a user's social profile. We evaluate this strategy on simulated browsing histories, and show that given a history with 30 links originating from Twitter, we can deduce the corresponding Twitter profile more than 50% of the time.To gauge the real-world effectiveness of this approach, we recruited nearly 400 people to donate their web browsing histories, and we were able to correctly identify more than 70% of them. We further show that several online trackers are embedded on sufficiently many websites to carry out this attack with high accuracy. Our theoretical contribution applies to any type of transactional data and is robust to noisy observations, generalizing a wide range of previous de-anonymization attacks. Finally, since our attack attempts to find the correct Twitter profile out of over 300 million candidates, it is---to our knowledge---the largest-scale demonstrated de-anonymization to date.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3038912.3052714

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Earlier academic work created gold-standard fraud datasets using rule-based heuristics that assume fraudsters post reviews within short intervals, from one IP address, or with skewed rating distributions.

    “academic work has built gold standard fraud datasets using rule-based heuristics, assuming that e.g., fraudsters post reviews in a short period of time [32,33,40,44,87], from the same IP address [40], or have a skewed rating distribution [58,87].”

    From Fraud De-Anonymization for Fun and Profit (2018) · cites this paper as [58]

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 37 · Cited by 95

Authors
Su, J., Shukla, A., Goel, S., & Narayanan, A.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Princeton University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web
Published
2017-04-03
Pages
1261-1269
OpenAlex
W2604609353
Cited by
95
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 7 · 2015: 1
FWCI
6.24
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Science Foundation (CNS 1526353)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Internet Traffic Analysis and Secure E-voting
Keywords
de-anonymization, web browsing data, social network profiles, Twitter, social media, de-identified data, maximum likelihood estimation, privacy attacks, transaction data

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review