De-anonymizing Web Browsing Data with Social Networks
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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