This research was conducted in partnership with the UCOSP (Undergraduate Capstone Open Source Projects) initiative. UCOSP facilitates open source software development by connecting Canadian undergraduate students with industry mentors to practice distributed development and data projects.
As champions of a healthy Internet, we at Mozilla have been increasingly concerned about the current advertisement-centric web content ecosystem. Web-based ad technologies continue to evolve increasingly sophisticated programmatic models for targeting individuals based on their demographic characteristics and interests. The financial underpinnings of the current system incentivise optimizing on engagement above all else. This, in turn, has evolved an insatiable appetite for data among advertisers aggressively iterating on models to drive human clicks.
Most of the content, products, and services we use online, whether provided by media organisations or by technology companies, are funded in whole or in part by advertising and various forms of marketing.
–Timothy Libert and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen [link]
We’ve talked about the potentially adverse effects on the Web’s morphology and how content silos can impede a diversity of viewpoints. Now, the Mozilla Systems Research Group is raising a call to action. Help us search for patterns that describe, expose, and illuminate the complex interactions between people and pages!
The following sections will introduce the data set, how it was collected and the decisions made along the way. We’ll share examples of insights we’ve discovered and we’ll provide information on how to participate in the associated “Overscripted Web: A Mozilla Data Analysis Challenge”, which we’ve launched today with Mozilla’s Open Innovation Team.
In October 2017, several Mozilla staff and a group of Canadian undergraduate students forked the OpenWPM crawler repository to begin tinkering, in order to collect a plethora of information about the unseen interactions between modern websites and the Firefox web browser.
Preparing the seed list
The master list of pages we crawled in preparing the dataset was itself generated from a preliminary shallow crawl we performed in November 2017. We ran a depth-1 crawl, seeded by Alexa’s top 10,000 site list, using 4 different machines at 4 different IP addresses (all in residential non-Amazon IP addresses served by Canadian internet service providers). The crawl was implemented using the Requests Python library and collected no information except for an indication of successful page loads.
Of the 2,150,251 pages represented in the union of the 4 parallel shallow crawls, we opted to use the intersection of the four lists in order to prune out dynamically generated (e.g. personalized) outbound links that varied between them. This meant a reduction to 981,545 URLs, which formed the seed list for our main OpenWPM crawl.
The Main Collection
The following workflow describes (at a high level) the collection of page information contained in this dataset.
- Alexa top 10k (10,000 high traffic pages as of November 1st, 2017)
- Precrawl using the python Requests library, visits each one of those pages
- Request library requests that page
- That page sends a response
- All href tags in the response are captured to a depth of 1 (away from Alexa page)
- For each of those href tags all valid pages (starts with “http”) are added to the link set.
- The link set union (2,150,251) was examined using the request library in parallel, which gives us the intersection list of 981,545.
- When OpenWPM hits content that is inside an iFrame, the location of the content is reported.
- Since we use the
window.locationto determine the location element of the content, each time an iFrame is encountered, that location can be split into the parent location of the page and the iFrame location.
- Data collection and aggregation performed through a websocket associates all the activity linked to a location hash for compilation of the crawl dataset.
Interestingly, for the Alexa top 10,000 sites, our depth-1 crawl yielded properties hosted on 41,166 TLDs across the union of our 4 replicates, whereas only 34,809 unique TLDs remain among the 981,545 pages belonging to their intersection.
In January 2018, we got to work analyzing the dataset we had created. After substantial data cleaning to work through the messiness of real world variation, we were left with a gigantic Parquet dataset (around 70GB) containing an immense diversity of potential insights. Three example analyses are summarized below. The most important finding is that we have only just scratched the surface of the insights this data may hold.
Examining session replay activity
Session replay is a service that lets websites track users’ interactions with the page—from how they navigate the site, to their searches, to the input they provide. Think of it as a “video replay” of a user’s entire session on a webpage. Since some session replay providers may record personal information such as personal addresses, credit card information and passwords, this can present a significant risk to both privacy and security.
We explored the incidence of session replay usage, and a few associated features, across the pages in our crawl dataset. To identify potential session replay, we obtained the Princeton WebTAP project list, containing 14 Alexa top-10,000 session replay providers, and checked for calls to script URLs belonging to the list.
Out of 6,064,923 distinct script references among page loads in our dataset, we found 95,570 (1.6%) were to session replay providers. This translated to 4,857 distinct domain names (netloc) making such calls, out of a total of 87,325, or 5.6%. Note that even if scripts belonging to session replay providers are being accessed, this does not necessarily mean that session replay functionality is being used on the site.
Given the set of pages making calls to session replay providers, we also looked into the consistency of SSL usage across these calls. Interestingly, the majority of such calls were made over HTTPS (75.7%), and 49.9% of the pages making these calls were accessed over HTTPS. Additionally, we found no pages accessed over HTTPS making calls to session replay scripts over HTTP, which was surprising but encouraging.
Finally, we examined the distribution of TLDs across sites making calls to session replay providers, and compared this to TLDs over the full dataset. We found that, along with .com, .ru accounted for a surprising proportion of sites accessing such scripts (around 33%), whereas .ru domain names made up only 3% of all pages crawled. This implies that 65.6% of .ru sites in our dataset were making calls to potential session replay provider scripts. However, this may be explained by the fact that Yandex is one of the primary session replay providers, and it offers a range of other analytics services of interest to Russian-language websites.
Eval and dynamically created function calls
eval() function or by creating a new
Function() object. For example, this code will print hello twice:
eval("console.log('hello')") var my_func = new Function("console.log('hello')") my_func()
While dynamic function creation has its uses, it also opens up users to injection attacks, such as cross-site scripting, and can potentially be used to hide malicious code.
In order to understand how dynamic function creation is being used on the Web, we analyzed its prevalence, location, and distribution in our dataset. The analysis was initially performed on 10,000 randomly selected pages and validated against the entire dataset. In terms of prevalence, we found that 3.72% of overall function calls were created dynamically, and these originated from across 8.76% of the websites crawled in our dataset.
These results suggest that, while dynamic function creation is not used heavily, it is still common enough on the Web to be a potential concern. Looking at call frequency per page showed that, while some Web pages create all their function calls dynamically, the majority tend to have only 1 or 2 dynamically generated calls (which is generally 1-5% of all calls made by a page).
We investigated the prevalence of cryptojacking among the websites represented in our dataset. A list of potential cryptojacking hosts (212 sites total) was obtained from the adblock-nocoin-list GitHub repo. For each script call initiated on a page visit event, we checked whether the script host belonged to the list. Among 6,069,243 distinct script references on page loads in our dataset, only 945 (0.015%) were identified as cryptojacking hosts. Over half of these belonged to CoinHive, the original script developer. Only one use of AuthedMine was found. Viewed in terms of domains reached in the crawl, we found calls to cryptojacking scripts being made from 49 out of 29,483 distinct domains (0.16%).
However, it is important to note that cryptojacking code can be executed in other ways than by including the host script in a script tag. It can be disguised, stealthily executed in an iframe, or directly used in a function of a first-party script. Users may also face redirect loops that eventually lead to a page with a mining script. The low detection rate could also be due to the popularity of the sites covered by the crawl, which might dissuade site owners from implementing obvious cryptojacking scripts. It is likely that the actual rate of cryptojacking is higher.
The majority of the domains we found using cryptojacking are streaming sites. This is unsurprising, as users have streaming sites open for longer while they watch video content, and mining scripts can be executed longer. A Chinese variety site called 52pk.com accounted for 207 out of the overall 945 cryptojacking script calls we found in our analysis, by far the largest domain we observed for cryptojacking calls.
Another interesting fact: although our cryptojacking host list contained 212 candidates, we found only 11 of them to be active in our dataset, or about 5%.
Limitations and future directions
While this is a rich dataset allowing for a number of interesting analyses, it is limited in visibility mainly to behaviours that occur via JS API calls.
Another feature we investigated using our dataset is the presence of Evercookies. Evercookies is a tracking tool used by websites to ensure that user data, such as a user ID, remains permanently stored on a computer. Evercookies persist in the browser by leveraging a series of tricks including Web API calls to a variety of available storage mechanisms. An initial attempt was made to search for evercookies in this data by searching for consistent values being passed to suspect Web API calls.
Acar et al., “The Web Never Forgets: Persistent Tracking Mechanisms in the Wild”, (2014) developed techniques for looking at evercookies at scale. First, they proposed a mechanism to detect identifiers. They applied this mechanism to HTTP cookies but noted that it could also be applied to other storage mechanisms, although some modification would be required. For example, they look at cookie expiration, which would not be applicable in the case of localStorage. For this dataset we could try replicating their methodology for set calls to
They also looked at Flash cookies respawning HTTP cookies and HTTP respawning Flash cookies. Our dataset contains no information on the presence of Flash cookies, so additional crawls would be required to obtain this information. In addition, they used multiple crawls to study Flash respawning, so we would have to replicate that procedure.
In addition to our lack of information on Flash cookies, we have no information about HTTP cookies, the first mechanism by which cookies are set. Knowing which HTTP cookies are initially set can serve as an important complement and validation for investigating other storage techniques then used for respawning and evercookies.
Beyond HTTP and Flash, Samy Kamkar’s evercookie library documents over a dozen mechanisms for storing an id to be used as an evercookie. Many of these are not detectable by our current dataset, e.g. HTTP Cookies, HSTS Pinning, Flask Cookies, Silverlight Storage, ETags, Web cache, Internet Explorer userData storage, etc. An evaluation of the prevalence of each technique would be a useful contribution to the literature. We also see the value of an ongoing repeated crawl to identify changes in prevalence and accounting for new techniques as they are discovered.
However, it is possible to continue analyzing the current dataset for some of the techniques described by Samy. For example,
window.name caching is listed as a technique. We can look at this property in our dataset, perhaps by applying the same ID technique outlined by Acar et al., or perhaps by looking at sequences of calls.
We are calling on any interested individuals to be part of the exploration. You’re invited to participate in the Overscripted Web: A Mozilla Data Analysis Challenge and help us better understand some of the hidden workings of the modern Web!
Note: In the interest of being responsive to all interested contest participants and curious readers in one centralized location, we’ve closed comments on this post. We encourage you to bring relevant questions and discussion to the contest repo at: https://github.com/mozilla/overscripted
Extra special thanks to Steven Englehardt for his contributions to the OpenWPM tool and advice throughout this project. We also thank Havi Hoffman for valuable editorial contributions to earlier versions of this post. Finally, thanks to Karen Reid of University of Toronto for coordinating the UCOSP program.