skip to main content
research-article

REDACT: refraction networking from the data center

Published:03 December 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Refraction networking is a promising censorship circumvention technique in which a participating router along the path to an innocuous destination deflects traffic to a covert site that is otherwise blocked by the censor. However, refraction networking faces major practical challenges due to performance issues and various attacks (e.g., routing-around-the-decoy and fingerprinting). Given that many sites are now hosted in the cloud, data centers offer an advantageous setting to implement refraction networking due to the physical proximity and similarity of hosted sites. We propose REDACT, a novel class of refraction networking solutions where the decoy router is a border router of a multi-tenant data center and the decoy and covert sites are tenants within the same data center. We highlight one specific example REDACT protocol, which leverages TLS session resumption to address the performance and implementation challenges in prior refraction networking protocols. REDACT also offers scope for other designs with different realistic use cases and assumptions.

References

  1. Jeff Benson. 2021. Blocked by Iran, Signal App Moves to Decentralize Servers. (February 2021). https://decrypt.co/56665/blocked-by-iran-signal-app-moves-to-decentralize-servers Accessed on: May 28, 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Cecylia Bocovich and Ian Goldberg. 2016. Slitheen: Perfectly Imitated Decoy Routing through Traffic Replacement. In ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS). 1702--1714.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Pat Bosshart, Dan Daly, Glen Gibb, Martin Izzard, Nick McKeown, Jennifer Rexford, Cole Schlesinger, Dan Talayco, Amin Vahdat, George Varghese, et al. 2014. P4: Programming protocol-independent packet processors. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 44, 3 (2014), 87--95.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Tim Dierks and Eric Rescorla. 2008. The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2. RFC 5246. (August 2008). https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5246.txtGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Roger Dingledine, Nick Mathewson, and Paul Syverson. 2004. Tor: The Second-Generation Onion Router. In USENIX Security Symposium.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. D. Ellard, C. Jones, V. Manfredi, W. T. Strayer, B. Thapa, M. Van Welie, and A. Jackson. 2015. Rebound: Decoy Routing on Asymmetric Routes via Error Messages. In Annual IEEE Conference on Local Computer Networks (LCN). 91--99.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Roya Ensafi, David Fifield, Philipp Winter, Nick Feamster, Nicholas Weaver, and Vern Paxson. 2015. Examining How the Great Firewall Discovers Hidden Circumvention Servers. In Internet Measurement Conference. 445--458.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Marwan Fayed, Lorenz Bauer, Vasileios Giotsas, Sami Kerola, Marek Majkowski, Pavel Odintsov, Jakub Sitnicki, Taejoong Chung, Dave Levin, Alan Mislove, Christopher A. Wood, and Nick Sullivan. 2021. The ties that un-bind: decoupling IP from web services and sockets for robust addressing agility at CDN-scale. In ACM SIGCOMM Conference. 433--446.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. David Fifield, Chang Lan, Rod Hynes, Percy Wegmann, and Vern Paxson. 2015. Blocking-resistant communication through domain fronting. In Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies. 46--64.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Sergey Frolov, Jack Wampler, Sze Chuen Tan, J. Alex Halderman, Nikita Borisov, and Eric Wustrow. 2019. Conjure: Summoning Proxies from Unused Address Space. In ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS). 2215--2229.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Nikhil Handigol, Brandon Heller, Vimal Jeyakumar, Bob Lantz, and Nick McKeown. 2012. Reproducible Network Experiments Using Container-Based Emulation. In CoNEXT.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Nguyen Phong Hoang, Arian Akhavan Niaki, Michalis Polychronakis, and Phillipa Gill. 2020. The web is still small after more than a decade. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review (CCR) 50, 2 (April 2020), 24--31.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Amir Houmansadr, Giang Nguyen, Matthew Caesar, and Nikita Borisov. 2011. Cirripede: Circumvention Infrastructure Using Router Redirection with Plausible Deniability. In ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS). 187--200.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Josh Karlin, Daniel Ellard, Alden W. Jackson, Christine E. Jones, Greg Lauer, David P. Mankins, and W. Timothy Strayer. 2011. Decoy Routing: Toward Unblockable Internet Communication. In USENIX Workshop on Free and Open Communications on the Internet (FOCI).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Victoria Manfredi and Pi Songkuntham. 2018. MultiFlow: Cross-Connection Decoy Routing using TLS 1.3 Session Resumption. In USENIX Workshop on Free and Open Communications on the Internet (FOCI).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Hodan M. Musse and Lama A. Alamro. 2016. Cloud Computing: Architecture and Operating System. In Global Summit on Computer Information Technology (GSCIT). 3--8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Milad Nasr, Hadi Zolfaghari, and Amir Houmansadr. 2017. The Waterfall of Liberty: Decoy Routing Circumvention That Resists Routing Attacks. In ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS). 2037--2052.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Hal Roberts, Ethan Zuckerman, Jillian York, Robert Faris, and John Palfrey. 2010. 2010 Circumvention Tool Usage Report. Technical Report. The Berkman Center for Internet & Society.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. James Sanders. 2018. As Google and AWS kill domain fronting, users must find a new way to fight censorship. (May 2018). https://www.techrepublic.com/article/as-google-and-aws-kill-domain-fronting-users-must-find-a-new-way-to-fight-censorship/ Accessed on: October 8, 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Sambhav Satija and Rahul Chatterjee. 2021. BlindTLS: Circumventing TLS-based HTTPS censorship. In ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Free and Open Communications on the Internet (FOCI). 43--49.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Max Schuchard, John Geddes, Christopher Thompson, and Nicholas Hopper. 2012. Routing Around Decoys. In ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Piyush Kumar Sharma, Devashish Gosain, Himanshu Sagar, Chaitanya Kumar, Aneesh Dogra, Vinayak Naik, H B Acharya, and Sambuddho Chakravarty. 2020. SiegeBreaker: An SDN Based Practical Decoy Routing System. In Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies. 243--263.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Ramesh Subramanian. 2011. The Growth of Global Internet Censorship and Circumvention: A Survey. Communications of the International Information Management Association (CIIMA) 11, 2 (October 2011), 33--42.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Erik Sy, Christian Burkert, Hannes Federrath, and Mathias Fischer. 2018. Tracking Users across the Web via TLS Session Resumption. In Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (ACSAC). 289--299.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. uProxy. 2017. uProxy: Your private access to the open internet. (2017). https://www.uproxy.org/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Philipp Winter and Stefan Lindskog. 2012. How the Great Firewall of China is Blocking Tor. In USENIX Workshop on Free and Open Communications on the Internet (FOCI).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Eric Wustrow, Colleen M. Swanson, and J. Alex Halderman. 2014. TapDance: End-to-Middle Anticensorship without Flow Blocking. In USENIX Security Symposium. 159--174.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Eric Wustrow, Scott Wolchok, Ian Goldberg, and J. Alex Halderman. 2011. Telex: Anticensorship in the Network Infrastructure. In USENIX Security Symposium.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. REDACT: refraction networking from the data center

        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

        Full Access

        • Published in

          cover image ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review
          ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review  Volume 51, Issue 4
          October 2021
          49 pages
          ISSN:0146-4833
          DOI:10.1145/3503954
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          Copyright © 2021 Copyright is held by the owner/author(s)

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all 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 third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 3 December 2021

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
        • Article Metrics

          • Downloads (Last 12 months)37
          • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)6

          Other Metrics

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader