In the course of attending the lecture “Secure Systems” I became aware of a blog post by Geoff Huston on how the Domain Name System (DNS) handles “no such domain name” (NXDOMAIN) responses and which possible attack vectors could result from this. His analysis showed how little effort is necessary to perform a Denial of Service (DoS) attack against random authoritative name servers. After a presentation on this subject I decided to delve a little bit deeper into this topic and I came across the fuss about the new DNS over HTTPS (DoH) protocol earlier this year. The juicy findings during my research inspired me to write an own blog post about it. As with any technology, there are two sides to every coin. It always depends on which perspective you take and what hidden agenda you may pursue. For that reason, this blog post is not intended as a critique of the DoH protocol itself, which can be a valued addition to the internet and appears to have helpful uses. Therefore, my focus was on how DoH might currently be implemented having regard to the overall context. Herein, I will not go into technical details of the DoH protocol and thus refer to the corresponding RFC 8484 containing all these information.Continue reading
It is widely known that tech companies, like Apple or Google and their partners collect and analyse an increasing amount of information. This includes information about the person itself, their interaction and their communication. It happens because of seemingly good motives such as:
- Recommendation services: e.g. word suggestions on smartphone keyboard
- Customizing a product or service for the user
- Creation and Targeting in personalised advertising
- Further development of their product or service
- Simply monetary, selling customer data (the customer sometimes doesn’t know)
In the process of data collection like this clients’ or users’ privacy is often at risk. In this case privacy includes confidentiality and secrecy. Confidentiality means that no other party or person than the recipient of sent message can read the message. In the special case of data collection: no third party or even no one else but the individual, not even the analysing company should be able to read its information to achieve proper confidentiality. Secrecy here means that individual information should be kept secret only to the user.
Databases may not be simply accessible for other users or potential attackers, but for the company collecting the data it probably is. Despite anonymization/pseudonymization, information can often be associated to one product, installation, session and/or user. This way conclusions to some degree definite information about one very individual can be drawn, although actually anonymized or not even available. Thus, individual users are identifiable and traceable and their privacy is violated.
The approach of Differential Privacy aims specifically at solving this issue, protecting privacy and making information non-attributable to individuals. It tries to reach an individual deniability of sent/given data as a right for the user. The following article will give an overview of the approach of differential privacy and its effects on data collection.
Metadata is data about data. Thus, it provides information about data. Examples for metadata are file size, time and date of creation, means of creation of data etc. Every day, we deal with it, but no one really cares about it. Sometimes, metadata gives us more information than the data itself.
But which devices generate metadata? How often do we use it? One of the largest producers of metadata are our smartphones. For this article we will check which metadata cameras or smartphones save in each picture we take. Normally, a picture is shot and then there is the look for the next one or it will be shared on a social media platform. Most people want to share the nice side of life with their friends. Continue reading