Talking with Familiar Strangers: An Empirical Study on HTTPS Context Confusion Attacks

Mingming Zhang, Xiaofeng Zheng, Kaiwen Shen, Ziqiao Kong, Chaoyi Lu, Yu Wang, Haixin Duan, S. Hao, Baojun Liu, Min Yang
{"title":"Talking with Familiar Strangers: An Empirical Study on HTTPS Context Confusion Attacks","authors":"Mingming Zhang, Xiaofeng Zheng, Kaiwen Shen, Ziqiao Kong, Chaoyi Lu, Yu Wang, Haixin Duan, S. Hao, Baojun Liu, Min Yang","doi":"10.1145/3372297.3417252","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"HTTPS is principally designed for secure end-to-end communication, which adds confidentiality and integrity to sensitive data transmission. While several man-in-the-middle attacks (e.g., SSL Stripping) are available to break the secured connections, state-of-the-art security policies (e.g., HSTS) have significantly increased the cost of successful attacks. However, the TLS certificates shared by multiple domains make HTTPS hijacking attacks possible again. In this paper, we term the HTTPS MITM attacks based on the shared TLS certificates as HTTPS Context Confusion Attack (SCC Attack). Despite a known threat, it has not yet been studied thoroughly. We aim to fill this gap with an in-depth empirical assessment of SCC Attack. We find the attack can succeed even for servers that have deployed current best practice of security policies. By rerouting encrypted traffic to another flawed server that shares the TLS certificate, attackers can bypass the security practices, hijack the ongoing HTTPS connections, and subsequently launch additional attacks including phishing and payment hijacking. Particularly, vulnerable HTTP headers from a third-party server are exploitable for this attack, and it is possible to hijack an already-established secure connection. Through tests on popular websites, we find vulnerable subdomains under 126 apex domains in Alexa top 500 sites, including large vendors like Alibaba, JD, and Microsoft. Meanwhile, through a large-scale measurement, we find that TLS certificate sharing is prominent, which uncovers the high potential of such attacks, and we summarize the security dependencies among different parties. For responsible disclosure, we have reported the issues to affected vendors and received positive feedback. Our study sheds light on an influential attack surface of the HTTPS ecosystem and calls for proper mitigation against MITM attacks.","PeriodicalId":20481,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3372297.3417252","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

HTTPS is principally designed for secure end-to-end communication, which adds confidentiality and integrity to sensitive data transmission. While several man-in-the-middle attacks (e.g., SSL Stripping) are available to break the secured connections, state-of-the-art security policies (e.g., HSTS) have significantly increased the cost of successful attacks. However, the TLS certificates shared by multiple domains make HTTPS hijacking attacks possible again. In this paper, we term the HTTPS MITM attacks based on the shared TLS certificates as HTTPS Context Confusion Attack (SCC Attack). Despite a known threat, it has not yet been studied thoroughly. We aim to fill this gap with an in-depth empirical assessment of SCC Attack. We find the attack can succeed even for servers that have deployed current best practice of security policies. By rerouting encrypted traffic to another flawed server that shares the TLS certificate, attackers can bypass the security practices, hijack the ongoing HTTPS connections, and subsequently launch additional attacks including phishing and payment hijacking. Particularly, vulnerable HTTP headers from a third-party server are exploitable for this attack, and it is possible to hijack an already-established secure connection. Through tests on popular websites, we find vulnerable subdomains under 126 apex domains in Alexa top 500 sites, including large vendors like Alibaba, JD, and Microsoft. Meanwhile, through a large-scale measurement, we find that TLS certificate sharing is prominent, which uncovers the high potential of such attacks, and we summarize the security dependencies among different parties. For responsible disclosure, we have reported the issues to affected vendors and received positive feedback. Our study sheds light on an influential attack surface of the HTTPS ecosystem and calls for proper mitigation against MITM attacks.
与熟悉的陌生人交谈:HTTPS上下文混淆攻击的实证研究
HTTPS主要是为安全的端到端通信而设计的,它为敏感数据传输增加了保密性和完整性。虽然有几种中间人攻击(例如SSL剥离)可用于破坏受保护的连接,但最先进的安全策略(例如HSTS)大大增加了成功攻击的成本。然而,多个域共享的TLS证书使HTTPS劫持攻击再次成为可能。本文将基于共享TLS证书的HTTPS MITM攻击称为HTTPS上下文混淆攻击(SCC攻击)。尽管存在已知的威胁,但尚未对其进行彻底研究。我们的目标是通过对SCC攻击进行深入的实证评估来填补这一空白。我们发现,即使对于部署了当前最佳安全策略实践的服务器,攻击也可能成功。通过将加密流量重新路由到另一个共享TLS证书的有缺陷的服务器,攻击者可以绕过安全措施,劫持正在进行的HTTPS连接,并随后发起包括网络钓鱼和支付劫持在内的其他攻击。特别是,来自第三方服务器的易受攻击的HTTP头可用于此攻击,并且有可能劫持已经建立的安全连接。通过对热门网站的测试,我们在Alexa 500强网站的126个顶级域名下发现了易受攻击的子域名,包括阿里巴巴、京东和微软等大型供应商。同时,通过大规模的测量,我们发现TLS证书共享是突出的,这揭示了这种攻击的高潜力,并总结了各方之间的安全依赖关系。为了负责任的披露,我们已经向受影响的供应商报告了问题,并收到了积极的反馈。我们的研究揭示了HTTPS生态系统的一个有影响力的攻击面,并呼吁对MITM攻击进行适当的缓解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信