4 ms·

It is not possible to accurately connect an identity with an IP address. Many computers share IP addresses, and many others jump IP addresses frequently.

makeworld 6y ago
Many computers don't share IP addresses too. And there are times when there is only one macOS under an IP. This is not something to just wave away.
- user-the-name 6y ago
  The point is, this information is UNRELIABLE. Apple has access to information that is ACTUALLY RELIABLE. However, they choose to not use the reliable information. Why would you see this, and assume that they, on purpose, decided to NOT use the reliable information, but instead use unreliable information to spy on you? Why would they do something so bone-headedly stupid?
  - LocalH 6y ago
    Do you reject the possibility that they combine the reliable information with the unreliable information to strengthen the latter? I mean, if you have logs stating that a specific Apple ID connected from a specific IP address at a specific time, and they know the identity tied to that Apple ID, it seems reasonable that it would strengthen the claim of "the user at this IP address is most likely this person" quite a bit, especially if the same IP shows up regularly with that Apple ID? I'm not saying they do this currently, but I'm just drawing attention to the fine line between privacy and security. Vigilance isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as it's grounded in the full reality. It's always possible that one day, Apple's focus in this area may change. When it does, it helps if part of that discussion is already being had.
    - user-the-name 6y ago
      I reject that, yes, because they could just collect the reliable information. The unreliable information is no value.
danShumway 6y ago
Shoot, apparently those Tor devs have been completely wasting their time. Somebody in the security industry should let them know that their work on the network level is useless and unnecessary because leaking IP addresses isn't a real privacy threat.
- user-the-name 6y ago
  Accurately. The key word in there was "accurately".
  - danShumway 6y ago
    If IP addresses couldn't in some cases accurately track users, then it wouldn't be a priority to build a network that obscured them.
    - user-the-name 6y ago
      If they can only do it "in some cases", then they can't do it accurately, is the entire point. It can do it SOMETIMES. Apple has more accurate information. They are not sending it. Why?
      - danShumway 6y ago
        I think you might be confusing accuracy and reliability. But I'm not here to argue about semantics, you can use whatever definition of accuracy you want. IP addresses are large attack vector for deanonymization/tracking, and people should be thinking more about how IP addresses get leaked and in what contexts. Whatever definition of "accuracy" you want to use, I don't think that changes the overall point that IP addresses matter. To your earlier comment: > Why would you not interpret this charitably as them not actually trying to spy on you? I fully agree with this. I think Apple's intention is not to spy on users, it's to A) stop malware, and B) exert more control over their ecosystem in general. I have a problem with point B, but that's a separate conversation. To your later point: > It is not possible to accurately connect an identity with an IP address. This is just plain wrong; it is possible to accurately connect identities to IP addresses, people do it all the time. Reliability is a separate conversation. If you're working off of a different definition of "accurate", then, whatever, I don't care. But I stand by the point that IP addresses are a privacy risk and that they can be used to track/identify users in the real world, I don't think that's a disputable fact. The privacy worry here is twofold. First that these requests are (currently) sent in plaintext. To their credit, I think Apple is fixing that issue. Which is good, because plaintext payloads allow adversaries on the same network to potentially sniff which applications you're using. The second privacy worry is that regardless of whether or not Apple is trying to spy on users, they still might be storing that data, and we only have their word to go on that it'll be stored in a protected way or deleted regularly. If a court order comes down asking Apple to reveal that information, or if it gets hacked, that data increases the threat model for Apple users. An adversary with access to Apple's data (whether that adversary is a hacker or a government) could theoretically tie app usage to real-world identities if the IP addresses are logged, especially if they can match IP addresses with logging of other data being sent to Apple's servers. That's the point m463 is making in his original comment -- the data here doesn't just exist in isolation, it's IP addresses that an attacker could correlate with other real-world identifying information.
bogwog 6y ago
Let's say you're one out of 10,000 users in a large network sharing a single public IP address. Anyone trying to identify you just needs to narrow that down from 10,000 to one. This can be done many different ways by combining data sources. You could automate it with algorithms and maybe some machine learning, but it'd also be pretty trivial for a dedicated human to do it. Browser fingerprint, mac address, software versions, browsing behavior (https doesn't hide URLs), access times, and application hashes will all help narrow down that search. Maybe your university requires you to install some special software (like one of those locked down browsers for exams), and the attacker knows an approximate range of time when you installed it based on your exam schedule. They could narrow their search by intercepting OCSP requests and filtering for application hashes that match the specific version of the software you most likely downloaded, based on the time you most likely downloaded it.
- user-the-name 6y ago
  But why? Why go to these ridiculous lengths to try to extract information from an unreliable source? Apple already has the device identifier and Apple ID. These are reliable. They do not need combining different data sources and algorithm and machine learning. They are the accurate data already. If they wanted it, they could just send it. They don't. Why not? If they wanted this information, why on god's green earth would they not just send it?
  - bogwog 6y ago
    I didn't mention Apple. Anyone intercepting the OCSP traffic (which isn't encrypted) could use it to track you.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    It's quite obvious. That way you can't get nailed for breaching privacy. It's exactly the same concept as the NSA saying that they are only collecting metadata and not doing any spying.
    - user-the-name 6y ago

makeworld 6y ago

Many computers don't share IP addresses too. And there are times when there is only one macOS under an IP. This is not something to just wave away.

user-the-name 6y ago
The point is, this information is UNRELIABLE. Apple has access to information that is ACTUALLY RELIABLE. However, they choose to not use the reliable information. Why would you see this, and assume that they, on purpose, decided to NOT use the reliable information, but instead use unreliable information to spy on you? Why would they do something so bone-headedly stupid?
- LocalH 6y ago
  Do you reject the possibility that they combine the reliable information with the unreliable information to strengthen the latter? I mean, if you have logs stating that a specific Apple ID connected from a specific IP address at a specific time, and they know the identity tied to that Apple ID, it seems reasonable that it would strengthen the claim of "the user at this IP address is most likely this person" quite a bit, especially if the same IP shows up regularly with that Apple ID? I'm not saying they do this currently, but I'm just drawing attention to the fine line between privacy and security. Vigilance isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as it's grounded in the full reality. It's always possible that one day, Apple's focus in this area may change. When it does, it helps if part of that discussion is already being had.
  - user-the-name 6y ago
    I reject that, yes, because they could just collect the reliable information. The unreliable information is no value.

danShumway 6y ago

Shoot, apparently those Tor devs have been completely wasting their time. Somebody in the security industry should let them know that their work on the network level is useless and unnecessary because leaking IP addresses isn't a real privacy threat.

user-the-name 6y ago
Accurately. The key word in there was "accurately".
- danShumway 6y ago
  If IP addresses couldn't in some cases accurately track users, then it wouldn't be a priority to build a network that obscured them.
  - user-the-name 6y ago
    If they can only do it "in some cases", then they can't do it accurately, is the entire point. It can do it SOMETIMES. Apple has more accurate information. They are not sending it. Why?
    - danShumway 6y ago
      I think you might be confusing accuracy and reliability. But I'm not here to argue about semantics, you can use whatever definition of accuracy you want. IP addresses are large attack vector for deanonymization/tracking, and people should be thinking more about how IP addresses get leaked and in what contexts. Whatever definition of "accuracy" you want to use, I don't think that changes the overall point that IP addresses matter. To your earlier comment: > Why would you not interpret this charitably as them not actually trying to spy on you? I fully agree with this. I think Apple's intention is not to spy on users, it's to A) stop malware, and B) exert more control over their ecosystem in general. I have a problem with point B, but that's a separate conversation. To your later point: > It is not possible to accurately connect an identity with an IP address. This is just plain wrong; it is possible to accurately connect identities to IP addresses, people do it all the time. Reliability is a separate conversation. If you're working off of a different definition of "accurate", then, whatever, I don't care. But I stand by the point that IP addresses are a privacy risk and that they can be used to track/identify users in the real world, I don't think that's a disputable fact. The privacy worry here is twofold. First that these requests are (currently) sent in plaintext. To their credit, I think Apple is fixing that issue. Which is good, because plaintext payloads allow adversaries on the same network to potentially sniff which applications you're using. The second privacy worry is that regardless of whether or not Apple is trying to spy on users, they still might be storing that data, and we only have their word to go on that it'll be stored in a protected way or deleted regularly. If a court order comes down asking Apple to reveal that information, or if it gets hacked, that data increases the threat model for Apple users. An adversary with access to Apple's data (whether that adversary is a hacker or a government) could theoretically tie app usage to real-world identities if the IP addresses are logged, especially if they can match IP addresses with logging of other data being sent to Apple's servers. That's the point m463 is making in his original comment -- the data here doesn't just exist in isolation, it's IP addresses that an attacker could correlate with other real-world identifying information.

bogwog 6y ago

Let's say you're one out of 10,000 users in a large network sharing a single public IP address. Anyone trying to identify you just needs to narrow that down from 10,000 to one. This can be done many different ways by combining data sources. You could automate it with algorithms and maybe some machine learning, but it'd also be pretty trivial for a dedicated human to do it. Browser fingerprint, mac address, software versions, browsing behavior (https doesn't hide URLs), access times, and application hashes will all help narrow down that search. Maybe your university requires you to install some special software (like one of those locked down browsers for exams), and the attacker knows an approximate range of time when you installed it based on your exam schedule. They could narrow their search by intercepting OCSP requests and filtering for application hashes that match the specific version of the software you most likely downloaded, based on the time you most likely downloaded it.

user-the-name 6y ago
But why? Why go to these ridiculous lengths to try to extract information from an unreliable source? Apple already has the device identifier and Apple ID. These are reliable. They do not need combining different data sources and algorithm and machine learning. They are the accurate data already. If they wanted it, they could just send it. They don't. Why not? If they wanted this information, why on god's green earth would they not just send it?
- bogwog 6y ago
  I didn't mention Apple. Anyone intercepting the OCSP traffic (which isn't encrypted) could use it to track you.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  It's quite obvious. That way you can't get nailed for breaching privacy. It's exactly the same concept as the NSA saying that they are only collecting metadata and not doing any spying.
  - user-the-name 6y ago