The Security Impact of HTTPS Interception
Zakir Durumeric∗ ∨ , Zane Ma† , Drew Springall∗ , Richard Barnes‡ , Nick Sullivan§ ,Elie Bursztein¶ , Michael Bailey† , J. Alex Halderman∗ , Vern Paxsonk ∨∗ University of Michigan¶ Google† University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

k University of California Berkeley

Abstract — As HTTPS deployment grows, middlebox and antivirus products are increasingly intercepting TLS connections toretain visibility into network traffic. In this work, we present acomprehensive study on the prevalence and impact of HTTPS interception. First, we show that web servers can detect interception
by identifying a mismatch between the HTTP User-Agent header
and TLS client behavior. We characterize the TLS handshakes
of major browsers and popular interception products, which
we use to build a set of heuristics to detect interception andidentify the responsible product. We deploy these heuristics atthree large network providers: (1) Mozilla Firefox update servers,(2) a set of popular e-commerce sites, and (3) the Cloudflarecontent distribution network. We find more than an order ofmagnitude more interception than previously estimated and withdramatic impact on connection security. To understand why
security suffers, we investigate popular middleboxes and clientside security software, finding that nearly all reduce connection
security and many introduce severe vulnerabilities. Drawing on
our measurements, we conclude with a discussion on recent
proposals to safely monitor HTTPS and recommendations forthe security community.

I.

INTRODUCTION

When it comes to HTTPS, the security community is working at cross purposes. On the one hand, we are striving to harden
and ubiquitously deploy HTTPS in order to provide strong endto-end connection security [5], [20], [22], [23], [34], [51]. At
the same time, middlebox and antivirus products increasinglyintercept (i.e., terminate and re-initiate) HTTPS connectionsin an attempt to detect and block malicious content that uses
the protocol to avoid inspection [6], [12], [15], [27]. Previous
work has found that some specific HTTPS interception products
dramatically reduce connection security [7], [12], [58]; however,the broader security impact of such interception remains unclear.
In this paper, we conduct the first comprehensive study of
HTTPS interception in the wild, quantifying both its prevalencein traffic to major services and its effects on real-world security.
We begin by introducing a novel technique for passively detecting HTTPS interception based on handshake characteristics.
HTTPS interception products typically function as transparent
proxies: they terminate the browser’s TLS connection, inspect
the HTTP plaintext, and relay the HTTP data over a new TLS

Permission to freely reproduce all or part of this paper for noncommercial
purposes is granted provided that copies bear this notice and the full citationon the first page. Reproduction for commercial purposes is strictly prohibitedwithout the prior written consent of the Internet Society, the first-named author(for reproduction of an entire paper only), and the author’s employer if thepaper was prepared within the scope of employment.
NDSS’17, 26 February–1 March, 2017, San Diego, CA, USA
http://dx.doi.org/10.14722/ndss.2017.23456‡ Mozilla§ Cloudflare∨ International Computer Science Instituteconnection to the destination server. We show that web servers
can detect such interception by identifying a mismatch between
the HTTP User-Agent header and the behavior of the TLS client.
TLS implementations display varied support (and preference
order) for cipher suites, extensions, elliptic curves, compression
methods, and signature algorithms. We characterize thesevariations for major browsers and popular interception products
in order to construct heuristics for detecting interception andidentifying the responsible product.
Next, we assess the prevalence and impact of HTTPSinterception by applying our heuristics to nearly eight billion
connection handshakes. In order to avoid the bias inherent inany single network vantage point, we analyzed connections for
one week at three major Internet services: (1) Mozilla Firefox
update servers, (2) a set of popular e-commerce websites, and(3) the Cloudflare content distribution network. These providers
serve different types of content and populations of users, andwe find differing rates of interception: 4.0% of Firefox update
connections, 6.2% of e-commerce connections, and 10.9% of
U.S. Cloudflare connections were intercepted. While these rates
vary by vantage point, all are more than an order of magnitude
higher than previous estimates [27], [46].
To quantify the real-world security impact of the observed
interception, we establish a grading scale based on the TLS
features advertised by each client. By applying the metricto unmodified browser handshakes and to the intercepted
connections seen at each vantage point, we calculate thechange in security for intercepted connections. While forsome older clients, proxies increased connection security, these
improvements were modest compared to the vulnerabilities
introduced: 97% of Firefox, 32% of e-commerce, and 54%
of Cloudflare connections that were intercepted became lesssecure. Alarmingly, not only did intercepted connections
use weaker cryptographic algorithms, but 10–40% advertised
support for known-broken ciphers that would allow an active
man-in-the-middle attacker to later intercept, downgrade, anddecrypt the connection. A large number of these severely
broken connections were due to network-based middleboxes
rather than client-side security software: 62% of middleboxconnections were less secure and an astounding 58% had severe
vulnerabilities enabling later interception.
Finally, we attempt to understand why such a large numberof intercepted connections are vulnerable by testing the securityof a range of popular corporate middleboxes, antivirus products,
and other software known to intercept TLS. The default settingsfor eleven of the twelve corporate middleboxes we evaluatedexpose connections to known attacks, and five introduce severe
vulnerabilities (e.g., incorrectly validate certificates). Similarly,
18 of the 20 client-side security products we tested reduceconnection security, and half introduce severe vulnerabilities.
In some cases, manufacturers attempted to customize libraries
or re-implement TLS, introducing negligent vulnerabilities. In
other cases, products shipped with libraries that were years outof date. Across the board, companies are struggling to correctly
deploy the base TLS protocol, let alone implement modern
HTTPS security features.

ClientHandshake Protocol: Client Hello
Version: TLS 1.2 (0x0303)
Cipher Suites (2 suites)
Cipher Suite: TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (0xc02b)
Cipher Suite: TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (0xc02f)
Extension: ec_point_formats
Elliptic curves point formats (1)EC point format: uncompressed (0)Extension: elliptic_curves
Elliptic curves (2 curves)
Elliptic curve: secp256r1 (0x0017)
Elliptic curve: secp256r1 (0x0018)
Extension: Application Layer Protocol Negotiation
Extension: server_name

ClientHello
Handshake Protocol: Client Hello
Version: TLS 1.0 (0x0301)
Cipher Suites Length: 4
Cipher Suites (2 suites)
Cipher Suite: TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (0x0039)
Cipher Suite: TLS_RSA_EXPORT_WITH_DES40_CBC_SHA (0x0011)
Extension: server_name

Remainder of TLS Handshake

Our results indicate that HTTPS interception has become
startlingly widespread, and that interception products as a classhave a dramatically negative impact on connection security. We
hope that shedding light on this state of affairs will motivate
improvements to existing products, advance work on recent
proposals for safely intercepting HTTPS [26], [38], [44], [54],and prompt discussion on long-term solutions.
II.

ServerHTTPS Proxy
ClientHello

HTTP Request
Hypertext Transfer Protocol
Get / HTTP/1.1\r\nHost: www.illinois.edu
Connection: keep-alive\r\nUser-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko

Fig. 1: HTTPS Interception — Products monitor HTTPS
connections by acting as transparent proxies that terminate
the browser TLS session, inspect content, and establish a newconnection to the destination server. These proxies use different
TLS libraries than popular browsers, which allows us to detect
interception by identifying a mismatch between the HTTP
User-Agent header and TLS client behavior.

BACKGROUND

In this section, we provide a brief background on HTTPSinterception and describe the aspects of HTTP and TLS that are
relevant to our fingerprinting techniques. We refer the reader
to RFC 5280 [14] for a detailed description of TLS.

As of early 2016, there exist more than 340 cipher suites,
36 elliptic curves, 3 elliptic curve point formats, 28 signaturealgorithms, and 27 extensions that clients can advertise [29],[30]. In practice, browsers and security products use varying
TLS libraries and advertise different handshake parameters. As
we will show in Section III, these characteristic variations allow
us to uniquely identify individual TLS implementations basedon their handshakes.

A. TLS Interception
Client-side software and network middleboxes that inspect
HTTPS traffic operate by acting as transparent proxies. Theyterminate and decrypt the client-initiated TLS session, analyze
the inner HTTP plaintext, and then initiate a new TLS
connection to the destination website. By design, TLS makes
such interception difficult by encrypting data and defending
against man-in-the-middle attacks through certificate validation,in which the client authenticates the identity of the destination
server and rejects impostors. To circumvent this validation,
local software injects a self-signed CA certificate into the client
browser’s root store at install time. For network middleboxes,
administrators will similarly deploy the middlebox’s CA
certificate to devices within their organization. Subsequently,
when the proxy intercepts a connection to a particular site, itwill dynamically generate a certificate for that site’s domainname signed with its CA certificate and deliver this certificate
chain to the browser. Unless users manually verify the presented
certificate chain, they are unlikely to notice that the connection
has been intercepted and re-established.1

C. HTTP User-Agent Header
The HTTP protocol allows the client and server to pass
additional information during a connection by including header
fields in their messages. For example, the client can include theAccept-Charset: utf-8 header to indicate that it expects
content to be encoded in UTF-8. One standard client header
is the User-Agent header, which indicates the client browser
and operating system in a standardized format. There has beensignificant prior study on User-Agent header spoofing. Thesestudies have largely found that end users do not spoof their own
User-Agent header [18], [45], [61]. For example, Eckersley
found that only 0.03% of connections with a Firefox UserAgent supported features unique to Internet Explorer, indicating
spoofing [18]. Fingerprinting studies commonly trust the UserAgent string [40], and we follow suit in this work.

B. TLS Feature Negotiation
TLS clients and servers negotiate a variety of protocol
parameters during a connection handshake [14]. In the first
protocol message, Client Hello, the client specifies what TLS
version and features it supports. It sends ordered lists ofcipher suites, compression methods, and extensions — whichthemselves frequently contain additional parameters, such assupported elliptic curves and signature algorithms. The serverthen selects a mutually agreeable choice from each list of
options. This extensibility facilitates the continuing evolutionof features and provides adaptability in the wake of new attacks.

III.

T L S I M P L E M E N TAT I O N H E U R I S T I C S

Our methodology for identifying interception is based on
detecting a mismatch between the browser specified in the
HTTP User-Agent header and the cryptographic parameters
advertised during the TLS handshake (Figure 1). In this section,
we characterize the handshakes from popular browsers anddevelop heuristics that determine whether a TLS handshake isconsistent with a given browser. We then go on to fingerprint
the handshakes produced by popular security products in order
to identify the products responsible for interception in the wild.

1 Contrary to widespread belief, public key pinning [19] — an HTTPS featurethat allows websites to restrict connections to a specific key — does not prevent
this interception. Chrome, Firefox, and Safari only enforce pinned keys whena certificate chain terminates in an authority shipped with the browser or
operating system. The extra validation is skipped when the chain terminates ina locally installed root (i.e., a CA certificate installed by an administrator) [34].
Internet Explorer and Edge do not support key pinning [39].

A. Web Browsers
We captured the TLS handshakes generated by the fourmost popular browsers: Chrome, Safari, Internet Explorer,and Firefox [57]. To account for older versions, differing2

operating systems, and varying mobile hardware, we generated
and captured handshakes in different environments using
BrowserStack [4], a cloud service that provides developers
with a variety of virtual machines for testing websites.2

orderings for each version of Chrome, and furthermore, users
can disable individual cipher suites. We check for ciphers andextensions that Chrome is known to not support, but do notcheck for the inclusion of specific ciphers or extensions, nor
do we validate their order. When appropriate, we check thepresence and order of elliptic curves, compression methods,
and EC point formats. We note that because Chrome uses
BoringSSL, an OpenSSL fork, connections have a similar
structure to OpenSSL. However, Chrome supports considerably
fewer options, including a subset of the default extensions,ciphers, and elliptic curves advertised by OpenSSL.

We analyzed the non-ephemeral parameters advertised in
the TLS handshakes, finding that each browser family selects aunique set of options, and that these options differ from thoseused by both common libraries (e.g., OpenSSL) and popularinterception products.3 However, while each browser, library,and security product produces a unique Client Hello message,
the parameters selected by browsers are not statically defined.
Instead, browsers alter their behavior based on hardware support,
operating system updates, and user preferences.

Microsoft Internet Explorer and Edge Internet Explorer isless consistent than the other browsers for two reasons: (1)administrators can enable new ciphers, disable default ciphers,
and arbitrarily reorder cipher suites through Windows Group
Policy and registry changes, and (2) IE uses the Microsoft
SChannel library, an OS facility which behaves differently
depending on both Windows updates and browser version.
Because of this additional flexibility, it is hard to rule out
handshakes that include outdated ciphers, so we introduce
a third categorization, unlikely, which we use to indicate
configurations that are possible but improbable in practice (e.g.,
including an export-grade cipher suite). We note that minor
OS updates alter TLS behavior, but are not indicated by the
HTTP User-Agent header. We mark behavior consistent with
any OS update as valid. SChannel connections can by uniquely
identified because SChannel is the only TLS library we tested
that includes the OCSP status request extension before thesupported groups and EC point formats extensions.

Instead of generating all possible permutations, we analyzed
when browsers select different parameters and developed a setof heuristics that determine whether a specific handshake could
have been generated by a given browser. For example, noneof the four browsers have ever supported the TLS Heartbeat
extension [53]. If a browser connection advertises its support,
we know that the session was intercepted. On the other hand,
despite the fact that all four browsers have default support for
AES-based ciphers, the lack of these ciphers does not indicate
interception, because browsers allow users to disable specificcipher suites. This methodology has the advantage of excluding
false positives that arise from uncommon user configurations.
However, it can yield false negatives if a proxy copies TLS
parameters from the original client connection.
We describe the heuristics for each browser below:
Mozilla Firefox Firefox was the most consistent of the fourbrowsers, and by default, each version produces a nearly
identical Client Hello message regardless of operating systemand platform. All parameters, including TLS extensions, ciphers,
elliptic curves, and compression methods are predeterminedand hard-coded by the browser. Users can disable individual
ciphers, but they cannot add new ciphers nor reorder them. To
determine whether a Firefox session has been intercepted, we
check for the presence and order of extensions, cipher suites,
elliptic curves, EC point formats, and handshake compression
methods. Mozilla maintains its own TLS implementation,
Mozilla Network Security Services (NSS) [42]. NSS specifies
extensions in a different order than the other TLS libraries
we tested, which allows it to be easily distinguished fromother implementations. The library is unlikely to be directly
integrated into proxies because it is seldom used in server-side
applications.

Apple Safari Apple Safari ships with its own TLS implementation, Apple Secure Transport, which does not allow user
customization. The order of ciphers and extensions is enforcedin code. While extension order does not vary, the NPN, ALPN,
and OCSP stapling extensions are frequently excluded, and thedesktop and mobile versions of Safari have different behavior.
One unique aspect of Secure Transport is that it includes the
TLS_EMPTY_RENEGOTIATION_INFO_SCSV cipher first,
whereas the other libraries we investigated include the cipher
last. Similar to Microsoft, Apple has changed TLS behavior inminor OS updates, which are not indicated in the HTTP UserAgent header. We allow for any of the updates when validating
handshakes, and we check for the presence and ordering of
ciphers, extensions, elliptic curves, and compression methods.
B. Fingerprinting Security Products

Google Chrome Chrome was one of the most challenging
browsers to fingerprint because its behavior is dependent on
hardware support and operating system. For example, Chromeprioritizes ChaCha-20-based ciphers on Android devices thatlack hardware AES acceleration [10] and Chrome on Windows XP does not advertise support for ECDSA keys at all.
These optimizations result in several valid cipher and extension

While our heuristics enable us to detect when interception is
occurring, they do not indicate what intercepted the connection.
To identify products used in the wild, we installed andfingerprinted the Client Hello messages generated by wellknown corporate middleboxes (Figure 3), antivirus software(Figure 4), and other client-side software previously found tointercept connections (e.g., SuperFish [8]). In this section, we
describe these products.

2 We analyzed Chrome 34–50 and Firefox 3–46 on Windows XP, 7, 8, 8.1,
and 10 and Mac OS X Snow Leopard, Lion, Mountain Lion, Mavericks,
Yosemite, and El Capitan. We additionally captured handshakes from Apple
Safari 5–9, Internet Explorer 6–11, Microsoft Edge, and the default Android
browser on Android 4.0–5.0. In total, we collected 874 fingerprints.
3 We compare the presence and order of cipher suites, extensions, compression
methods, elliptic curves, signature algorithms, and elliptic curve point formats.

We generate a fingerprint for each product by hashing thenon-ephemeral parameters advertised in the Client Hello message (i.e., version, ciphers, extensions, compression methods,
elliptic curves, and signature methods). When we detect that a
handshake is inconsistent with the indicated browser, we checkfor an exact match with any of the fingerprints we collected.
3This strategy has several potential weaknesses. First, multiple
products could share a single fingerprint. This seems particularly
likely given that developers are likely to use one of a small
number of popular TLS libraries (e.g., OpenSSL). Second, if
products allow customization, then fingerprints of the default
configuration will not match these customized versions.

Vantage Point
Cloudflare
FirefoxE-commerce% HTTPS Connections Intercepted
No Interception
LikelyConfirmed
88.6%
96.0%
92.9%

0.5%
0.0%
0.9%

10.9%
4.0%
6.2%

Surprisingly, we find that none of the browsers nor the104 products we manually investigated shared fingerprints,
except for eight pieces of unwanted software that all use
the Komodia Redirector SDK [32]. In other words, thesefingerprints uniquely identify a single product. None of theclient-side security products we tested allow users to customize
TLS settings. However, many of the corporate middleboxes
allow administrators to specify custom cipher suites. In thissituation, we would be able to detect that interception is
occurring, but not identify the responsible product.

Fig. 2: Detecting Interception — We quantify HTTPS interception at three major Internet services. We estimate that 5–10%
of connections are intercepted.

Middleboxes and Corporate Proxies Nearly every major
networking hardware manufacturer — including Barracuda, Blue
Coat, Cisco, and Juniper — produces middleboxes that support“SSL Inspection”. These devices allow organizations to intercept
TLS traffic at their network border for analysis, content filtering,and malware detection. In March 2015, Dormann documented
products from nearly 60 manufacturers that advertise thisfunctionality [15]. We configured and fingerprinted twelve
appliance demos from well-known manufacturers (e.g., Cisco
and Juniper) and anecdotally popular companies (e.g., A10 andForcepoint), per Figure 3. We note one conspicuous absence:
ZScaler SSL Inspection. ZScaler provides a cloud-based SSL
inspection service, but did not provide us with a trial or demo.

Firefox Update Servers Firefox browsers routinely check forsoftware updates by retrieving an XML document from a central
Mozilla server over HTTPS. This check uses Firefox’s standard
TLS library (Mozilla NSS) and occurs every 24 hours while
the browser is running and on browser launch if the last update
occurred more than 24 hours prior. We used Bro [49] to monitor
connections to aus5.mozilla.org — the update server used
by Firefox versions 43–48 — between February 14–26, 2016.
During this period, we observed 4.36 billion connections from
45K ASes and 243 of the 249 ISO-defined countries. Because
we collected traffic using an on-path monitor instead of on
the web server, we do not have access to the HTTP UserAgent header. However, only specific versions of Firefox are
configured to connect to the server. Instead of looking for amismatch with the HTTP User-Agent, we look for a mismatch
between TLS handshake and any of the Firefox versions
configured to connect to the server. There is no user-accessible
content available on the site and there should be negligible
other traffic. This vantage point provides one of the cleanest
perspectives on clients affected by TLS interception. However,it only provides data for Firefox, one of the browsers believed
to be least affected by client-side interception software [12].

Cloudflare content distribution network. We observed 7.75 billion TLS handshakes across the three networks. By deploying
the heuristics on different networks, we avoid the bias inherentof any single vantage point. However, as we will discuss in thenext section, we find varying amounts of interception and abuseon each network. Below, we describe each perspective in detail:

Antivirus Software We installed, tested, and fingerprinted
popular antivirus products based on the software documented byde Carné de Carnavalet and Mannan [12], products previously
found to be intercepting connections [27], [46], and a reportof popular antivirus products [47]. Products from twelve
vendors inject a new root certificate and actively intercept TLS
connections.4 We list the products that intercept connectionsin Figure 4.5

Popular E-commerce Sites During two weeks in August and
September 2015, a set of popular e-commerce sites hosted
JavaScript that loaded an invisible pixel from an external
server that recorded the raw TLS Client Hello, HTTP UserAgent string, and client HTTP headers. This perspective seestraffic from all browsers, but may suffer from falsified UserAgent headers. However, because the measurement required
JavaScript execution, the dataset excludes simple page fetches.
The sites have an international presence, but the connections
we observe are likely skewed towards desktop users because
the e-commerce provider has popular mobile applications.
The dataset has the added benefit that it contains HTTP
headers beyond User-Agent, which allow another avenue fordetecting interception: looking for proxy related headers (e.g.,
X-Forwarded-For and X-BlueCoat-Via) and the modifications documented by Weaver et al. [60].

Unwanted Software and Malware
Motivated by recent
reports of unwanted software intercepting TLS connections,
we fingerprinted the Komodia SDK [32], which is used bySuperfish, Qustodio, and several pieces of malware [8], [56],and the NetFilter SDK [1], which is used by PrivDog.
We tested products in January–March, 2016. We are
publishing our browser heuristics and product fingerprints at
https://github.com/zakird/tlsfingerprints.
I V.

MEASURING TLS INTERCEPTION

We measured global interception rates by deploying ourheuristics at three network vantage points: Mozilla Firefox
update servers, a set of popular e-commerce websites, and the
4 We found that the following products did not intercept HTTPS: 360 Total,
Ahnlabs V3 Internet Security, Avira AV 2016, Comodo Internet Security, FSecure Safe, G DATA products, K7 Total Security, Malwarebytes, McAfee
Internet Security, Microsoft Windows Defender, Norton Security, Panda Internet
Security 2016, Security Symantec Endpoint Protection, Tencent PC Manager,
Trend Micro Maximum Security 10, and Webroot SecureAnywhere.
5 A preprint of this paper incorrectly listed G DATA products in Figure 4.

Cloudflare Cloudflare is a popular CDN and DDoS protection
company that serves approximately 5% of all web traffic [25].
Cloudflare provides these services by acting as a reverse
proxy. Clients connect to one of Cloudflare’s servers whenaccessing a website, which serve cached content or proxy4

Product

Grade

Validates
Certificates

ModernCiphers

Advertises
RC4

TLS
VersionGrading Notes

A10 vThunder SSL InsightBlue Coat ProxySG 6642
Barracuda 610Vx Web Filter
Checkpoint Threat Prevention
Cisco IronPort Web Security
Forcepoint TRITON AP-WEB Cloud
Fortinet FortiGate 5.4.0
Juniper SRX Forward SSL Proxy
Microsoft Threat Mgmt. Gateway
Sophos SSL Inspection
Untangle NG Firewall
WebTitan Gateway

F
A*
C
F
F
C
C
C
F
C
C
F

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
3
3
5

3
3
5
5
3
3
3
5
5
3
5
3

Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

1.2
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
SSLv2
1.2
1.2
1.2

Advertises export ciphers
Mirrors client ciphers
Vulnerable to Logjam attack
Allows expired certificates
Advertises export ciphers
Accepts RC4 ciphers
Vulnerable to Logjam attack
Advertises RC4 ciphers
No certificate validation
Advertises RC4 ciphers
Advertises RC4 ciphers
Broken certificate validation

Fig. 3: Security of TLS Interception Middleboxes — We evaluate popular network middleboxes that act as TLS interception
proxies. We find that nearly all reduce connection security and five introduce severe vulnerabilities. *Mirrors browser ciphers.

Product

Grade

Validates
Certificates

ModernCiphers

TLS
Version

#

A*
F

3
3

3
3

1.2
1.2

Mirrors client ciphers
Advertises DES

#

C

3

3

1.2

Advertises RC4

C
C
C

3
3
3

1.2
1.2
1.2

RC4, 768-bit D-H
RC4, 768-bit D-H
RC4, 768-bit D-H

Win
Win

A*
F

3
3

#
#
#
3
5

1.2
1.0

Mirrors client ciphers
Advertises DES

Win

F

5

5

1.2

No cert. validation, DES

Win
Mac

C
F

3
3

#
5

1.2
1.0

RC4, FREAK
Export ciphers, DES, RC2

Win

FBroken cert. validation

C
C
C

#

1.2

Win
Win
Mac

#

3
3
3

1.2
1.2
1.2

CRIME vulnerability
CRIME vulnerability
768-bit D-H

Win

F

5

1.0

Broken cert. validation

Win
Mac

F
F

#
3
3

3
3

1.2
1.2

Anonymous ciphers
Anonymous ciphers

F

5

5

1.0

No certificate validation

F

3

3

1.2

Advertises DES

OS

Avast . . .
AV 11
AV 11.7
AVG . . .
Internet Security 2015–6
Bitdefender . . .
Internet Security 2016
Total Security Plus 2016
AV Plus 2015–16
Bullguard . . .
Internet Security 16
Internet Security 15
CYBERsitter . . .
CYBERsitter 11
Dr. Web . . .
Security Space 11
Dr. Web 11 for OS X
ESET . . .
NOD32 AV 9
Kaspersky . . .
Internet Security 16
Total Security 16
Internet Security 16
KinderGate . . .
Parental Control 3
Net Nanny . . .
Net Nanny 7
Net Nanny 7
PC Pandora . . .
PC Pandora 7
Qustodio . . .
Parental Control 2015

Win
Mac

IE

Browser MITM
Chrome Firefox Safari
#

Win
Win
Win
Win

Win
Mac

#
G

#
G

Interception:# No Interception (conn. allowed)
G# Connections Blocked
Connections Intercepted3
3
3

Certificate Validation:
5 No Validation# Broken Validation
3 Correct Validation

Grading Notes

Modern Ciphers:
5 No Support# Non-preferred Support
3 Preferred Support

Fig. 4: Security of Client-side Interception Software — We evaluate and fingerprint popular antivirus and client-side security
products, finding that products from twelve vendors intercept connections.5 In all but two cases, products degrade TLS connection
security. *Mirrors browser ciphers.

5

CDF Intercepted Traffic

100
80
60
40
Mozilla Update Server
E-commerce Sites
Cloudflare CDN

20
0

00

10

0

10

10

1

Client Hello Fingerprints

Detection Method

FirefoxE-commerce

Cloudflare

Invalid Extensions
Invalid Ciphers
Invalid Version
Invalid Curves
Invalid Extension Order
Invalid Cipher Order
Missing Required Ext.
Injected HTTP Header

16.8%
98.1%
–
–
87.7%
98.8%
97.9%
–

85.6%
54.2%
2.0%
5.5%
33.9%
21.2%
91.1%
14.0%

89.0%
68.7%
–
9.4%
40.4%
21.1%
50.9%
–

Fig. 7: Handshake Mismatches — We break down the mismatches used to detect intercepted sessions. For more than 85%
of intercepted connections, we detect an invalid handshakebased on the use of unsupported extensions, ciphers, or curves.
Some features were unavailable for Firefox and Cloudflare.

Fig. 5: CDF of Interception Fingerprints — We fingerprint
non-ephemeral parameters in replacement Client Hello messages to track the products that perform interception. Ten
fingerprints account for 69% of the intercepted e-commerce
traffic, 69% of Firefox update traffic, and 42% of Cloudflaretraffic.
Fingerprint Description% TotalE-commerce

Unknown
Avast Antivirus
UnknownBlue CoatUnknown

17.1%
10.8%
9.4%
9.1%
8.3%

Cloudflare

Avast Antivirus
AVG Antivirus
Unknown. Likely AV; mainly Windows 10/Chrome 47
Kaspersky Antivirus
BitDefender Antivirus

9.1%
7.0%
6.5%
5.0%
3.1%

Firefox

A. Firefox Update Server

Bouncy Castle (Android 5)
Bouncy Castle (Android 4)
Unknown. Predominantly India
ESET Antivirus
Dr. Web Antivirus

26.3%
21.6%
5.0%
2.8%
2.6%

HTTPS connections for 4.0% of Firefox clients were intercepted, which is the lowest rate among the three perspectives.
Interception is likely less common for Firefox users because thebrowser ships with its own certificate store, whereas Internet
Explorer, Chrome, and Safari use the host operating system’s
root store. Prior work [12] and our own testing (Figure 4) bothfind that some antivirus products (e.g., Avast) will intercept
connections from these other browsers but neglect to proxyFirefox sessions. In corporate environments, administrators canseparately install additional root authorities in Firefox [41],but the added step may dissuade organizations that proxyconnections from deploying the browser.
Sources of Interception The two most common interception
fingerprints belong to the default configurations of Bouncy Castle on Android 4.x and 5.x, and account for 47% of interceptedclients (Figure 5). These fingerprints were concentrated in large
ASes belonging to mobile wireless providers, including Verizon
Wireless, AT&T, T-Mobile, and NTT Docomo (a Japanese
mobile carrier). As can be seen in Figure 9, 35% of all Sprint
and 25.5% of all Verizon Firefox connections (including nonintercepted) matched one of the two fingerprints. It is possible
to intercept TLS connections on Android using the VPN
and/or WiFi permissions. However, given the default values,
it is unclear exactly which Android application is responsible
for the interception. Bouncy Castle on Android 5.x provides
reasonable ciphers equivalent to a modern browser; on Android
4.x, Bouncy Castle advertises export-grade cipher suites, making
it vulnerable to interception by an on-path attacker. The third
most common fingerprint accounts for 5.3% of Firefox traffic.
We were not able to identify the product associated with thefingerprint but note that nearly half of its traffic occurred inIndia and its diurnal and weekend patterns are consistent withhome antivirus or malware.

Fig. 6: Top Interception Fingerprints — We show the products responsible for the most interception at each vantage point.

the connection to the origin web server. We logged the raw
TLS Client Hello messages and HTTP User-Agent for arandom 0.5% sample of all TLS connections to Cloudflare’s
frontend between May 13–20, 2016. We measure interception
by detecting mismatches between the HTTP User-Agent andthe TLS handshake. Cloudflare provides a more representative
sample of browsers than the Firefox update servers. However,
one of Cloudflare’s foremost goals is to prevent DDoS attacks
and other abuse (e.g., scripted login attempts), so the data ismessier than the other two datasets, and a portion of connections
likely have falsified HTTP User-Agent headers.

V.

Temporal Pattern The number of raw intercepted connections
mirrors the diurnal pattern of all Firefox traffic. As can be seenin Figure 8, there are typically more connections on weekdays,
and we observe the peak number of connections on weekday
mornings. This intuitively aligns with the first computer accessof the day triggering a connection to the Firefox update
server. Oddly, though, the percentage of intercepted traffic
is inversely proportional to total traffic, peaking near midnight
and in the early morning. When we remove the two Android

R E S U LT S

Our three vantage points provide varying perspectives on
the total amount of interception: 4.0% of Firefox update
connections, 6.2% of the e-commerce connections, and 10.9%of Cloudflare sessions in the United States (Figure 2). In allcases, this is more than an order of magnitude higher thanpreviously estimated [27], [46].
6MITM Detected

MITM rate

Adj. MITM rate

Country

1.6M
1.4M

0.06

1.2M

0.05

1.0M
800K

0.04

600K

0.03

400K

0.02

200K

0.01

Sat 02-20

Sun 02-21

Mon 02-22
Date

Tue 02-23

MITM rate

MITM Detected

GuatemalaGreenlandSouth Korea
KuwaitQatar

0.07

AT&T Mobile
T-Mobile
VerizonWed 02-24

MITM rate

0.3
0.2
0.1
Tue 02-23

MITM %
8.2%
8.1%
7.3%
7.3%
6.7%

The e-commerce dataset is composed of visits to set of
popular e-commerce websites and is not limited to a specificbrowser version. To account for this, we parsed the HTTP UserAgent header and identified mismatches between the announced
browser and TLS handshake. We observed 257K unique UserAgent headers, and successfully parsed the header for 99.5% ofconnections. The browsers we fingerprinted account for 96.1%
of connections; 2.5% belong to browsers we did not fingerprint
and 1.4% are from old browser versions.

Free Mobile
MCI
Top 500

0.4

Mon 02-22
Date

Kiribati
Iran
Tanzania
BahrainAfghanistan

B. Popular E-commerce Sites

0.5

Sun 02-21

Countryrate around 50% that begins in the morning and ends near
midnight everyday. It is unclear what behavior results in this
temporal pattern.

0.6

Sat 02-20

15.0%
9.9%
8.8%
8.5%
8.4%

Fig. 10: Countries with Highest Firefox Interception — Weshow the ten countries with the highest interception rates whenconnecting to the Mozilla update server. Countries with above
average interception rates generally have a large amount oftraffic intercepted by a single, dominant mobile provider.

Fig. 8: Temporal Variation in Firefox Interception — We
observe the highest amount of raw interception during times ofpeak traffic, but the highest interception rates during periodsof low total traffic. This is likely because the two largest
fingerprints are associated with mobile carriers and will update
at night when desktop computers are powered off. Excludingthese two fingerprints, interception remains relatively stable.
SprintMarubeni
NTT Docomo

MITM %

We find that 6.8% of connections were intercepted andanother 0.9% were likely intercepted, but cannot be definitively
classified. For the connections where we could detect a specificfingerprint, 58% belong to antivirus software and 35% tocorporate proxies. Only 1.0% of intercepted traffic is attributed
to malware (e.g., SuperFish), and the remaining 6% belong
to miscellaneous categories. The three most prevalent known
fingerprints belong to Avast Antivirus, Blue Coat, and AVG
Antivirus, which account for 10.8%, 9.1%, and 7.6% ofintercepted connections, respectively.

Wed 02-24

Fig. 9: ASes with Highest Firefox Interception — We findthat 8 ASes have significantly higher interception rates within
the top 500 ASes. All but one are mobile providers.
Bouncy Castle fingerprints, the total percentage of intercepted
connections decreases by 47% and no longer peaks during theseoff hours. We suspect that the interception peaks are the resultof mobile devices remaining on at night when other desktop
computers are powered off. Weekend interception rates levelout around 2% and increase during the weekdays, suggesting
the presence of corporate TLS proxies.

The e-commerce dataset also includes HTTP headers,which allow us to identify a subset of connections that wereintercepted by network middleboxes, but do not match any our
existing fingerprints. We find proxy-related headers in 14.0%
of invalid handshakes, most prominently X-BlueCoat-Via,
Via, X-Forwarded-For, and Client-IP. We additionally use
these headers to detect interception. We detected 96.1% ofinterception based on a version mismatch or the presence ofinvalid extensions or ciphers. Another 2.2% of intercepted
connections lacked expected extensions, 0.7% used invalid
cipher or extension ordering, and 1.6% contained proxy-related
HTTP headers (Figure 7).

Geographic Disparities Interception is more prevalent inseveral countries (Figure 10). For example, 15% of TLS
connections from Guatemala were intercepted, a rate 3–4
times higher than the global average. This is primarily due
to COMCEL, a mobile provider responsible for 34.6% of all
Guatemalan update server traffic, having a 32.9% interception
rate. Greenland has the second highest interception rate (9.9%),
which is caused by a single AS: TELE Greenland. Nearly
half of the interception is performed by a Fortigate middlebox.
The third most commonly intercepted country, South Korea,
is one of the most highly mobile-connected countries in
the world [55]. In general, large ASes with above averageinterception belong to mobile providers and fluctuate between
20% to 55% interception depending on the time of day, as
seen in Figure 9. The single exception is Marubeni OKI
Network Solutions, which maintains a consistent interception

Chrome accounts for 40.3% of TLS traffic, of which 8.6%
was intercepted, the highest interception rate of any browser. On
the other extreme, only 0.9% of Mobile Safari connections wereintercepted. Interception is far more prominent on Windows,
where we see 8.3%–9.6% interception compared to 2.1% on
Mac OS. This is likely because most corporate users use
Windows in the workplace, and many antivirus products that
perform interception are Windows-based. We summarize theseresults in Figure 13.
7

MITM detected

MITM Detected

MITM rate

8000

0.18

7000

0.16

6000

0.14
0.12

5000

0.1

4000

0.08

3000

0.06

2000

0.04

1000

0.02

0
Wed 05-18

Thu 05-19
Date

MITM rate

Falsified User-Agents It is possible that some connections in
the e-commerce dataset have falsified User-Agents headers,which would artificially inflate the interception rate. We
intuitively expect that handshakes belonging to interception
products will have a larger number of associated User-Agentsthan a custom crawler with a falsified User-Agent. All but
a handful of the TLS products we investigated have at least
50 associated User-Agents, and at the extreme, Avast Antivirus
and Blue Coat’s corporate proxy had 1.8K and 5.2K associatedUser-Agents, respectively. When we excluded interception
fingerprints associated with less than 50 User-Agents, the global
interception rate dropped from 6.8% to 6.2%. Given this modest
decrease, we suspect that the mismatches we detect are due tointerception instead of spoofed User-Agents. However, we takea conservative route and restrict our analysis to the 6.2%.

Fri 05-20

Fig. 11: Temporal Variation in Cloudflare Interception —We observe the highest amount of raw interception during timesof peak traffic, but the highest interception rates during periodsof low total traffic. This is likely due to higher percentages ofautomated bot traffic where the User-Agent header is spoofed.

During our analysis, we noted two irregularities. First,
nearly 3 million connections (approximately 75% of which
had a Blue Coat header) used the generic User-Agent string“Mozilla/4.0 (compatible;)”). Cisco has documented thatBlue Coat devices will frequently mask browser User-Agentswith this generic agent string [31]. Despite knowing Blue Coat
devices intercept these TLS connections, we take the mostconservative approach and exclude these connections from ouranalysis because we do not know what percentage of devices
behind the proxy would have been identifiable. However, wenote that if we assume the same proportion of identifiablebrowsers as the general population (95.6%), Blue Coat would
be the second largest fingerprint and the total percentage of
connections intercepted would rise from 6.2% to 7.0%. Second,
we find that over 90% of Internet Explorer connections on
Windows XP appear intercepted because they include modern
ciphers and extensions that were not previously documented on
XP, nor that we could reproduce. We exclude these connections.

Network Type
Residential/Business
Cell Provider

No Interception

LikelyConfirmed

86.0%
94.1%

0.4%
0.1%

13.6%
5.8%

Fig. 12: U.S. Network Breakdown — We show the Cloudflareinterception rates for types of U.S. networks.
users and hosting providers. We limit our analysis to the ASesfrom the top 50 that were located in the United States andprimarily serve end users. While this reduces the scope of thedataset, there are lower interception rates in the U.S. compared
to any other region, providing a conservative lower bound.
In the U.S., we observe a 10.9% interception rate, witha stark contrast between mobile ASes (5.2–6.5%) and residential/enterprise ASes 10.3–16.9%), per Figure 12. Fourof the top five handshake fingerprints belong to antivirus
providers: Avast, AVG, Kaspersky, and BitDefender, which
are also prominent on the e-commerce sites. The remaining
unidentified fingerprint primarily occurs for Chrome 47 on
Windows 10. Despite the alignment with a specific browser
version and OS — which might indicate an incorrect heuristic —we confirm that this handshake cannot be produced by Chrome
and advertises 80 cipher suites including IDEA/CAMELLIA,
diverging significantly from the Chrome family. The fingerprint
also occurs consistently across non-mobile ASes and peaks
usage during evening hours, suggesting malware or antivirus
software. These five fingerprints account for 31% of intercepted
traffic (Table 5).

C. Cloudflare
The Cloudflare network provides perhaps the most representative view of global HTTPS traffic, but also the messiest. We
initially observe a 31% interception rate, which is 3–7 times
higher than the other vantage points. This elevated interception
rate is likely due to abuse (e.g., login attempts or content
scraping) and falsified User-Agent headers — some of the very
types of requests that Cloudflare protects against. The Firefox
server relied on only Firefox browsers accessing an obscure
update server and the e-commerce websites required JavaScript
execution in order to record a TLS connection. In contrast, theCloudflare data reflects all TLS connections across a broad
range of websites, so even simple command line utilities suchas wget and curl can appear in the Cloudflare dataset withfalsified User-Agent headers.

Similar to Firefox updates, the total amount of HTTPSinterception correlates with total HTTPS traffic, peaking in the
middle of the day and declining during evening hours, but withthe highest interception rates at night (Figure 11). This might
be due to mobile traffic as we saw for Firefox but could also
indicate the presence of bot traffic.

We take several steps to account for this abuse. First, weremoved fingerprints associated with fewer than 50 unique UserAgent headers. Next, we limited our analysis to the 50 largest
ASes that are not cloud or hosting providers. Unfortunately,even after this filter, we still observe an artificially highinterception rate ranging from 11% in the Americas to 42%
in Asia. We find that while large ASes in the U.S. have clear
purposes, the majority of networks in Europe and Asia donot. In Asia, numbers varied widely and most ASes had little
description. In Europe, ASes would frequently span multiple
countries and contain requests that appeared to from both home

D. Results Summary and Validation
We can partially validate our methodology by checking
whether we failed to detect any connections that included
proxy-related HTTP headers as intercepted. We find that 1.6%of the e-commerce connections included proxy headers, but
8E-commerce Sites
Browser
ChromeExplorer
Firefox
Safari
Chromium
Mobile Safari
Other
OS
Windows 7
Windows 10
iOS
Mac OS
Android
Windows 8.1
Other

Cloudflare

All Traffic

Intercepted

Of Intercepted

40.3%
16.8%
13.5%
10.2%
7.6%
7.6%
4.0%

8.6%
7.4%
8.4%
2.1%
0.1%
0.9%
4.0%

56.2%
19.6%
18.2%
3.4%
0.1%
1.1%
2.4%

All Traffic

Intercepted

Of Intercepted

23.3%
22.5%
17.3%
15.8%
9.4%
6.9%
4.8%

9.6%
9.3%
0.1%
2.1%
1.0%
8.3%
21.4%

56.6%
14.3%
1.1%
6.5%
0.5%
15.8%
15.2%

Browser
ChromeMobile Safari
Explorer
SafariFirefox
Mobile Chrome
Other
OS
Windows 7
Windows 10
iOS
Mac OS
Android
Windows 8.1
Other

All Traffic

Intercepted

Of Intercepted

36.2%
17.5%
14.9%
8.9%
8.5%
8.4%
5.6%

14.7%
1.9%
15.6%
6.5%
18.2%
4.7%
7.0%

48.8%
3.3%
21.2%
5.3%
14.2%
3.6%
3.6%

All Traffic

Intercepted

Of Intercepted

23.9%
22.9%
17.5%
16.0%
9.5%
4.9%
5.3%

13.4%
13.1%
2.0%
6.6%
4.8%
24.4%
31.7%

29.2%
27.4%
3.2%
9.6%
4.2%
11.0%
15.4%

Fig. 13: OS and Browser Breakdown — We show the breakdown of all traffic, the amount of traffic intercepted, and percentage
of all interception that each browser and operating system accounts for across both the e-commerce and Cloudflare vantage points.
did not have evidence of interception in their TLS handshakes.
This suggests that the methodology catches the vast majority
of interception, but it does miss some edge cases.

to consistently rate browsers, interception products, and theconnections we observe in the wild:
A: Optimal. The TLS connection is equivalent to a modern
web browser in terms of both security and performance. When
grading cipher suites, we specifically use Chrome’s definitionof “secure TLS” [11].

To verify that our heuristics aren’t incorrectly classifying
valid handshakes, we investigated why our heuristics marked
connections as intercepted. We detected more than 85% ofintercepted connections based on the presence of known
unsupported ciphers or extensions, rather than a missing
extension or invalid ordering. More than 98% of intercepted
connections in the Firefox dataset were found based on the
inclusion of ciphers that have never been implemented in NSS,
and 82% of all intercepted connections indicated support for
the heartbeat extension — an immediate giveaway given that nobrowsers support the extension. This suggests that our heuristics
are finding handshakes produced by other libraries rather than
misclassifying browser edge cases.

B: Suboptimal. The connection uses non-ideal settings (e.g.,
non-PFS ciphers), but is not vulnerable to known attacks.
C: Known Attack. The connection is vulnerable to known
TLS attacks (e.g., BEAST, FREAK, and Logjam), accepts
768-bit Diffie-Hellman parameters, or advertises RC4 support.
F: Severely Broken. The connection is severely broken suchthat an active man-in-the-middle attacker could intercept anddecrypt the session. For example, the product does not validate
certificates, or offers known-broken cipher suites (e.g., DES).

However, while the methodology appears sound, the threeperspectives we studied provide differing numbers on the total
amount of interception. All three perspectives find more than anorder of magnitude more interception than previously estimated,
and we estimate that 5–10% of connections are intercepted.
However, we offer a word of caution on the exact numbers,
particularly for the Cloudflare dataset, where abuse may inflate
the interception rate we observe.
VI.

Our grading scale focuses on the security of the TLS
handshake and does not account for the additional HTTPS
validation checks present in many browsers, such as HSTS,
HPKP, OneCRL/CRLSets, certificate transparency validation,
and OCSP must-staple. None of the products we tested
supported these features. Therefore, products that receive an A
grade for their TLS security likely still reduce overall security
when compared to recent versions of Chrome or Firefox.

I M PA C T O N S E C U R I T Y

In this section, we investigate the security impact of
HTTPS interception. First, we introduce a grading scale forquantifying TLS client security. Then, we investigate common
interception products, evaluating the security of their TLS
implementations. Based on these ratings and the features
advertised in Client Hello messages, we quantify the change
in security for intercepted connections.

B. Testing Security Products
To measure the security of the connections initiated byinterception products, we installed the trial versions of thecorporate proxies, popular client security software, and malware
listed in Section III.6 We then ran the latest version of Chrome,
Internet Explorer, Firefox, and Safari through each product,
visiting a website that executed the following tests:

A. Client Security Grading Scale
6 Product demos could have different security profiles than their production
counterparts. However, during our disclosure process, none of the manufacturers
we contacted indicated this.

There does not exist a standardized rubric for rating
TLS client security. We define and use the following scale
91) TLS Version. We check the highest version of TLS thatthe product supports. We grade any client that supports atbest TLS 1.1 as B, SSLv3 as C, and SSLv2 as F.
2) Cipher Suites. We investigate the cipher suites present in
the Client Hello. We rate any product that does not support
Chrome’s Strong TLS ciphers [11] as B, handshakes thatoffer RC4 as C, and any product that advertises broken
ciphers (e.g., export-grade or DES) as F.
3) Certificate Validation. We present a series of untrusted
certificates, including expired, self-signed, and invalidlysigned certificates. We further test with certificates signedby CAs with a publicly-known private key (i.e., Superfish [58], eDell, and Dell provider roots [13]). We rate
any product that accepts one of these certificates as F.
4) Known TLS Attacks. We check whether clients arevulnerable to the BEAST, FREAK, Heartbleed, andLogjam attacks, or accept weak Diffie-Hellman keys. We
rate any vulnerable client as C.7

Malware and Unwanted Software Researchers have previously found that Komodia does not validate certificates [58]and we find that the NetFilter SDK similarly does not properly
validate certificate chains. We grade both as F: severely broken.
C. Impact on TLS Traffic
While many security products have insecure defaults,
intercepted connections could have a different security profile. Security might be improved if administrators configure
middleboxes to perform responsible handshakes, or, even with
their poor security, proxies might protect further out-of-dateclients. We investigated the security of intercepted handshakes
based on the parameters advertised in the handshake (e.g.,
TLS version and cipher suites), and in the cases where we
can identify the interception product, its security rating. To
determine the change in security rather than just the security of
the new connection, we calculated the security of the browser
version specified in the HTTP User-Agent and compare that tothe security of the handshake we observe.

Corporate Middleboxes The default configurations for elevenof the twelve middleboxes we tested weaken connection
security, and five of the twelve products introduce severe
vulnerabilities that would enable future interception by a
man-in-the-middle attacker. Ten support RC4-based ciphers,
two advertise export-grade ciphers, and three have broken
certificate validation (Figure 3). We note that the installation
process for many of these proxies is convoluted, crashprone, and at times, non-deterministic. Configuration is equallyconfusing, oftentimes with little to no documentation. For
example, Cisco devices allow administrators to customize
permitted cipher suites, but do not provide a list of ciphers tochoose from. Instead, the device provides an undocumented
text box that appears to accept OpenSSL cipher rules (e.g.,
ALL:!ADH:@STRENGTH). We suspect that this poor usability
contributes to the abysmal configurations we see in the wild.

Similar to how each of our three networks has a different
interception rate, each vantage point presents a different security
impact. For Firefox, 65% of intercepted connections have
reduced security and an astounding 37% have negligent security
vulnerabilities. 27% of the e-commerce and 45% of the
Cloudflare connections have reduced security, and 18% and
16% are vulnerable to interception, respectively.
Interception products increased the security for 4% of
the e-commerce and 14% of the Cloudflare connections. The
discrepancy in increased security is largely due to temporal
differences in data collection and the deprecation of RC4
cipher suites during this period. When the e-commerce sites
collected data in August 2015, browsers considered RC4 to
be safe. However, between August 2015 and April 2016,
standards bodies began advising against RC4 [50] and both
Chrome and Firebox deprecated the cipher [59]. When grading
Cloudflare connections in May 2016, we labeled connections
that advertised RC4 as C. This results in connections fromolder versions of Internet Explorer and Safari being marked
insecure, and proxies improving the security for an increased
number of connections.

We were not able to acquire a demo or trial of the ZScaler
Proxy, a prominently advertised cloud-based middlebox. Instead,
we investigated the traffic that originated from one of theseven ZScaler ASes in the Cloudflare dataset.8 We found one
predominant handshake fingerprint that accounts for more thanfour times more traffic than the second most popular, and does
not match any popular browsers indicated in the associatedUser-Agent strings. We would have rated this handshake atbest B due to the lack of any perfect-forward-secret ciphers.
However, we exclude it from any other analysis, because wewere not able to check for further vulnerabilities.

Corporate Middleboxes During our earlier analysis of corporate proxies, we found that many network middleboxes
inject HTTP headers, such as X-Forwarded-For and Via,
to assist managing simultaneous proxied connections. We
analyzed the connections in the e-commerce dataset with proxyrelated headers to better understand the security of corporate
middleboxes compared to client-side software. We find thatconnection security is significantly worse for middleboxes
than the general case. As can be seen in Figures 14 and 15,
security is degraded for 62.3% of connections that traverse
a middlebox and an astounding 58.1% of connections havesevere vulnerabilities.

Client-side Security Software
In line with de Carné deCarnavalet and Mannan [12], we find that nearly all of the clientside security products we tested reduce connection security
and ten introduce severe vulnerabilities (Figure 4). We notethat these security grades are a lower bound that assume TLS
stacks have no additional vulnerabilities. However, in practice,researchers discover bugs in antivirus software regularly. For
Avast alone, ten vulnerabilities have been publicly disclosed
within the last eight months, one of which allowed remote code
execution through carefully crafted certificates [48].

We note a similar phenomenon in the Firefox data where
we manually investigated the top 25 ASes with more than
100K connections, the highest interception rates, and a single
predominant interception fingerprint. We primarily find financial
firms, government agencies, and educational institutions. With
the exception of one bank, 24 of the top 25 ASes haveworsened security due to interception. For 12 of the 25 ASes,

7 We tested these products in January–March, 2016, which was approximately
eight months after the Logjam disclosure and eleven months after FREAK.
8 We investigated ASes 62907, 55242, 53813, 53444, 40384, 32921, and 22616.

10

Network
E-commerce (All Traffic)
E-commerce (Middleboxes)
Cloudflare
Firefox Updates

Increased
Security

Decreased
Security

Severely
Broken

4.1%
0.9%
14.0%
0.0%

26.5%
62.3%
45.3%
65.7%

17.7%
58.1%
16.0%
36.8%

on whether interception is appropriate in order to develop
sustainable, long-term solutions.
We should reconsider where validation occurs. Many HTTPS
security features expect connections to be end-to-end by
mixing the HTTP and TLS layers, and by implementing
HTTPS features in browser code rather than in TLS libraries.
For example, to overcome weaknesses in existing revocation
protocols, Firefox ships with OneCRL [43] and Chrome,
CRLSets [24]. Both of these solutions increase browser security
in the typical end-to-end case. However, these solutions provide
no protection in the presence of a TLS proxy and because thesolution is not part of the TLS protocol itself, TLS libraries
do not implement these safe revocation checks. In a second
example, HPKP directives are passed over HTTP rather thanduring the TLS handshake. Browsers cannot perform HPKP
validation for proxied connections because they do not haveaccess to the destination certificate and proxies do not perform
this validation in practice.

Fig. 14: Impact of Interception — We summarize the security impact of HTTPS interception, comparing client–proxyconnection security with proxy–server connection security.

DatasetOriginal

New Security

Security

→A

→B

→C

→F

A→

34.3%

16.8%

12.2%

36.8%

Firefox

A→

57.1%

2.9%

5.6%

8.1%

E-commerce Sites:

B→

2.7%

10.2%

1.2%

8.3%

All Traffic

C→

0.6%

0.4%

1.0%

0.3%

F→

0.0%

0.2%

0.1%

1.0%

A→

13.5%

3.0%

0.8%

18.0%

E-commerce Sites:

B→

0.7%

23.3%

0.6%

37.8%

Middleboxes

C→

0.1%

0.1%

0.0%

2.2%

F→

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

A→

17.3%

1.1%

29.7%

10.0%

B→

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

C→

9.4%

3.3%

22.0%

4.5%

F→

0.8%

0.1%

0.4%

1.5%

Cloudflare

While it is possible for proxies to perform this additionalverification, they are not doing so, and in many cases vendors
are struggling to correctly deploy existing TLS libraries,
let alone implement additional security features. Given thisevidence, our community needs to decide what roles should
be carried out by the browser versus TLS implementation.
If we expect browsers to perform this additional verification,
proxies need a mechanism to pass connection details (i.e.,
server certificate and cryptographic parameters) to the browser.
If we expect proxies to perform this validation, we need tostandardize these validation steps in TLS and implement them in
popular libraries. Unfortunately the current situation, in which
we ignore proxy behavior, results in the worst case scenario
where neither party is performing strict validation.

Fig. 15: Change in Security — We calculate the change inconnection security based on the parameters advertised in the
Client Hello message and the security of the browser in the
HTTP User-Agent header.

Cryptographic libraries need secure defaults. Several proxies
deployed TLS libraries with minimal customization. Unfortunately the default settings for these libraries were vulnerable
rendering the middlebox vulnerable. Client libraries and web
servers need to prioritize making their products safe by default.
We applaud OpenSSL’s recent decision to remove knownbroken cipher suites [2]. However, this change should haveoccurred more than a decade earlier and libraries continue toaccept other weak options. Our community should continue
restricting default options to known safe configurations.

the predominant TLS handshake includes export-grade cipher
suites, making them vulnerable to future interception by anactive man-in-the-middle attacker.
VII.

DISCUSSION

Antivirus vendors should reconsider intercepting HTTPS. Antivirus software operates locally and already has access to the
local filesystem, browser memory, and any content loaded over
HTTPS. Given their history of both TLS misconfigurations [12]and RCE vulnerabilities [48], we strongly encourage antivirus
providers to reconsider whether intercepting HTTPS is responsible.

While the security community has long known that security
products intercept TLS connections, we have largely ignored theissue. We find that interception is occurring more pervasively
than previously estimated and in many cases, introduces
significant vulnerabilities. In this section, we discuss theimplications of our measurements and make recommendations
for both vendors and the security community.

Security companies are acting negligently.
Many of thevulnerabilities we find in antivirus products and corporate
middleboxes — such as failing to validate certificates andadvertising broken ciphers — are negligent and another data
point in a worrying trend of security products worsening
security rather than improving it [12], [17]. We hope thatby disclosing vulnerabilities in existing products, we canencourage manufacturers to patch problems. We urge companies
to prioritize the security of their TLS implementations and to

We need community consensus. There is little consensus
within the security community on whether HTTPS interceptionis acceptable. On the one hand, Chrome and Firefox haveprovided tacit approval by allowing locally installed roots to
bypass key pinning restrictions [34]. However, at the sametime, discussions over protocol features that facilitate safer
interception have been met with great hostility within standards
groups [35], [37]. These communities need to reach consensus
11consider the pace at which the HTTPS ecosystem evolves andwhether they can keep up with the necessary updates.

Measuring HTTPS Interception Several groups have measured the prevalence of TLS interception by deploying Flashbased measurements on popular websites or by purchasing ads.
In early 2014, Huang et al. analyzed 3M SSL connections to
Facebook and found that 0.2% of connections were interceptedby a variety of antivirus software, corporate content filters,
and malware [27]. A year later in 2015, O’Neill et al.
deployed a Google AdWords campaign in which they observed
15.2M connections and found 0.4% of TLS connections areintercepted — nearly double the number found by Facebook [46].
We find approximately an order of magnitude more interception
at each of our three vantage points.

Do not rely on client configuration. Because cryptographic
parameters must be supported by both the client and server,
the security community has largely ignored HTTPS servers’lenient cipher support with the implied understanding thatbrowser vendors will only advertise secure parameters. In
2015, Durumeric et al. found that nearly 37% of browsertrusted HTTPS servers on the IPv4 address space supported
RSA export ciphers [16] despite their known weaknesses anddiscontinued use. It was only after the discovery of the FREAK
attack — a bug in OpenSSL that allowed an active attacker todowngrade connections to export-grade cryptography — that
operators began to actively disable export cipher suites.

It is not immediately evident why our numbers differ
from these previous studies. It is possible that some of ournumbers — particularly for Cloudflare — are overestimates due
to abuse. However, we note that the number of intercepted
connections found in these prior studies is less than the numberof connections with Blue Coat HTTP headers alone and lessthan half of the number of connections that include proxyrelated HTTP headers. There may be bias introduced by using
Flash, which browsers are in the process of deprecating andis not available on many mobile devices. Facebook may beblocked on the types of corporate networks that have deployed
TLS inspection, and some malware may block connections toad providers in order to inject their own ads.

While modern browsers are not vulnerable to active downgrade attacks, nearly two thirds of connections that traversea network middlebox advertise export ciphers and nearly 3%of all HTTPS connections to the e-commerce sites included
at least one export-grade cipher suite. While these products
would optimally not be vulnerable, their risk can be reduced byencouraging websites to disable weak ciphers. Similarly, someinterception products support secure ciphers, but do not orderthem correctly. In this situation, servers that explicitly choosestrong ciphers will negotiate a more secure connection thanthose that honor client preference. We need to practice defensein-depth and encourage both clients and servers to select secureparameters instead of relying on one side to always act sanely.

The two methodologies have other differences. Studying
the certificates presented to clients provides a limited view on
the security impacts of MITM because the client is not able
to observe the security properties of the outgoing connection
to the destination web server. However, because clients canaccess the certificate presented by the proxy, there is more dataon the product that intercepted the connection.

Administrators need to test middleboxes.
Many of the
products we tested support more secure connections withadditional configuration. Unfortunately, this does not appear
to be happening in practice. While manufacturers clearlyneed to improve their default settings, we also encourage
the administrators who are deploying proxies to test theirconfigurations using sites such as Qualys SSL Lab’s client
test, https://howsmyssl.com, and https://badssl.com. To incentivize better software, servers could consider checking client
configuration and rejecting insecure clients.
VIII.

Client Security Several studies have investigated the securityof specific TLS clients. Georgiev et al. analyzed the securityof non-browser software that validates SSL certificates by
installing TLS clients and validating their behavior [21]. They
identify numerous vulnerabilities in TLS clients, including
Amazon’s EC2 client, Amazon and PayPal’s SDKs, and anumber of other e-commerce products. They conclude that thesevulnerabilities are the result of poorly designed cryptographic
libraries.

R E L AT E D W O R K

There have been several recent studies on fingerprinting
TLS connections, HTTPS interception, and safe interception
protocols:de Carné de Carnavalet and Mannan demonstrated thatmany popular Windows antivirus applications perform TLS
traffic inspection that weakens connection security [12]. We
extend this work by investigating additional products, showingthat Mac connections have worse security than their Windowsbased counterparts, and fingerprinting their connections. There
have been repeated discussions about the theoretical danger of
network middleboxes that intercept TLS connections. Dormann
details these potential risks and lists devices that perform
interception [15], but to the best of our knowledge, no
one has systematically characterized these devices. We buildon this investigation, testing devices for vulnerabilities andfingerprinting their behavior.

Fingerprinting TLS Handshakes While there has been little
rigorous study on TLS handshake fingerprinting, several groups
have previously suggested the idea. Ristić first described theapproach in 2009 [52]. Later, in 2012, Majkowski implemented
SSL fingerprinting in p0f [36]. In 2015, Husá et al. used client
fingerprinting to broadly describe the types of HTTPS traffic
on their institutional network [28], and in 2016, Brotherston
showed how desktop applications could be identified by their
Client Hello messages [9]. Concurrent to our work, Cisco
showed that malware uses different TLS parameters thanbrowsers [3]. To the best of our knowledge, no groups haveused the methodology to measure HTTPS interception. We also
note that we take a slightly different approach than described inthese prior works in which we look for inconsistencies between
the HTTP and TLS layers rather than trying to passively identify
handshakes seen on the wire.

Alternatives to Interception Researchers have proposed bothalternatives to TLS interception and TLS extensions to help
middleboxes safely intercept connections. In the simplest case,the HTTP 2.0 Explicit Trusted Proxy RFC [26] requires
middleboxes to explicitly notify the client of interception.
12

The proposed TLS Proxy Server Extension [38] extends theidea, requiring the proxy to indicate the interception, but toadditionally relay proxy–server session information back to theclient, such that the client can validate the server’s identify andperform additional validation.

that traverses a network middlebox has reduced security and
58% of middlebox connections have severe vulnerabilities. We
investigated popular antivirus and corporate proxies, finding thatnearly all reduce connection security and that many introduce
vulnerabilities (e.g., fail to validate certificates). While thesecurity community has long known that security products
intercept connections, we have largely ignored the issue,
believing that only a small fraction of connections are affected.
However, we find that interception has become startlingly
widespread and with worrying consequences. We hope that bybringing these issues to light, we can encourage manufacturers
to improve their security profiles and prompt the security
community to discuss alternatives to HTTPS interception.

Naylor et al. introduced multi-context TLS (mcTLS) [44],an extended version of TLS that requires endpoints to explicitly specify permitted middleboxes in order to securely
authenticate each hop and cryptographically control exactly
what data middleboxes can access. Sherry et al. eschewed any
plaintext data access for middleboxes and developed BlindBox,
a cryptographic protocol that supports both intrusion anddata exfiltration detection through searchable encryption [54].
Lan et al. extended BlindBox with Embark, which further
optimized keyword and prefix matching searchable encryption
schemes [33].
IX.

AC K N OW L E D G M E N T S
The authors thank Peter Bowen, Xavier de Carné deCarnavalet, Patrick Donahue, Alessandro Ghedini, Mohammad
Mannan, Paul Pearce, Michal Purzynski, Ivan Ristić, Narseo
Vallina Rodriguez, and Ryan Sleevi. This work was supported
in part by the National Science Foundation under awards CNS1505790, CNS-1518741, CNS-1345254, CNS-1409505, CNS1518888, CNS-1530915, CNS-1237265, and CNS-1348077, by
the Department of Energy under award DE-OE0000780, by
the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program under grantDGE-1256260, by the Post-9/11 GI Bill, by a Google Ph.D.
Fellowship, and by an Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Research
Fellowship.

RESPONSIBLE DISCLOSURE

In the course of analyzing corporate middleboxes andclient-side security software, we uncovered a range of TLS
implementation errors, many of which allow connections to
be intercepted by a man-in-the-middle attacker. We disclosed
these weaknesses to manufacturers in August 2016. Several
manufacturers indicated that they deployed updates that protect
against attacks after our testing but before disclosure. Others
indicated plans to deprecate RC4 and move to modern cipher
suites. In many cases, we received no response and in othercases, we were unable to convince manufacturers that TLS
vulnerabilities such as Logjam required patching. One company
would not accept our vulnerability report without a productserial number, and several indicated that secure productconfiguration was a customer responsibility and that they would
not be updating their default configuration. Figures 3 and 4
show scores prior to disclosure.

REFERENCES[1] NetFilter SDK. http://netfiltersdk.com/.
[2] OpenSSL changelog. https://www.openssl.org/news/changelog.html.
[3] B. Anderson, S. Paul, and D. McGrew. Deciphering malware’s use of
TLS (without decryption). arXiv preprint arXiv:1607.01639, 2016.
[4] R. Arora and N. Aggarwal. Browserstack. https://browserstack.com.
[5] R. Barnes. Deprecating non-secure HTTP. Mozilla Security Blog. https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2015/04/30/deprecating-non-secure-http/.
[6] R. Barnes. Man-in-the-middle interfering with increased security. Mozilla
Security Blog. https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2016/01/06/man-in-themiddle-interfering-with-increased-security/.
[7] H. Böck. Software Privdog worse than Superfish. https://blog.hboeck.de/archives/865-Software-Privdog-worse-than-Superfish.html.
[8] H. Böck. Superfishy. https://github.com/hannob/superfishy.
[9] L. Brotherston. Stealthier attacks and smarter defending with TLS
fingerprinting. DerbyCon 2015.
[10] E. Bursztein. Speeding up and strengthening HTTPS connections for
Chrome on Android. https://security.googleblog.com/2014/04/speedingup-and-strengthening-https.html.
[11] Chromium.
IsSecureTLSCipherSuite function.
https://
chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/net/+/master/ssl/
ssl_cipher_suite_names.cc#373.
[12] X. de Carné de Carnavalet and M. Mannan. Killed by proxy: Analyzing
client-end TLS interception software. In Network and Distributed System
Security Symposium, 2016.
[13] Dell. Information on the eDellRoot and DSDTestProvider certificates.
http://www.dell.com/support/article/us/en/19/SLN300321.
[14] T. Dierks and E. Rescorla. Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.2. RFC 5246.
[15] W. Dormann. The risks of SSL inspection. https://insights.sei.cmu.edu/
cert/2015/03/the-risks-of-ssl-inspection.html.
[16] Z. Durumeric, D. Adrian, A. Mirian, M. Bailey, and J. A. Halderman.
Tracking the FREAK attack. https://freakattack.com/.

Several manufacturers asked that we note patched versionsof their products. In May 2016, A10 introduced a configuration
wizard that recommends a more sane set of cipher suites. Avast
removed broken ciphers from their Mac product line in July,
2016. Cisco updated their default ciphers in July, 2016. Fortinet
patched the Logjam vulnerability in version 5.4.1, which was
released in September, 2016. Qustodio patched in October, 2016.
Untangle indicated that issues had already been addressed at
the time of disclosure.
X.

CONCLUSION

In this paper, we conducted the first comprehensive study
on the security impact of HTTPS interception in the wild.
We characterized the TLS handshakes produced by modernbrowsers, common security products, and malware, findingthat products advertise varied TLS parameters. Building on
this observation, we constructed a set of heuristics that allow
web servers to detect HTTPS interception and identify popularinterception products. We deployed these heuristics on three
diverse networks: (1) Mozilla Firefox update servers, (2) a setof popular e-commerce sites, and (3) the Cloudflare content
distribution network. In each case, we find more than an order ofmagnitude more interception than previously estimated, ranging
from 4–11%. As a class, interception products drasticallyreduce connection security. Most concerningly, 62% of traffic
13

[17]

[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]

[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]

[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]

[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]

Z. Durumeric, D. Adrian, A. Mirian, J. Kasten, E. Bursztein,
N. Lidzborski, K. Thomas, V. Eranti, M. Bailey, and J. A. Halderman.
Neither snow nor rain nor MITM...: An empirical analysis of email
delivery security. In ACM Internet Measurement Conference, 2015.
P. Eckersley. How unique is your web browser? In Symposium on
Privacy Enhancing Technologies, 2010.
C. Evans, C. Palmer, and R. Sleevi. Public key pinning extension for
HTTP. RFC 7469.
S. Farrell and H. Tschofenig. Pervasive monitoring is an attack. RFC7258, 2014.
M. Georgiev, S. Iyengar, S. Jana, R. Anubhai, D. Boneh, andV. Shmatikov. The most dangerous code in the world: validating SSL
certificates in non-browser software. In ACM Conference on Computerand Communications Security, 2012.
Google. Certificate transparency in Chrome. https://www.certificatetransparency.org/certificate-transparency-in-chrome.
Google. HTTPS as a ranking signal. https://webmasters.googleblog.com/
2014/08/https-as-ranking-signal.html.
Google Chromium.
CRLSets.
https://dev.chromium.org/Home/
chromium-security/crlsets.
J. Graham-Cumming. The two reasons to be an engineer at Cloudflare.
https://blog.cloudflare.com/the-two-reasons-to-work-for-cloudflare/.
H. W. Group. Explicit trusted proxy in HTTP/2.0, 2014. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-loreto-httpbis-trusted-proxy20-01.
L. S. Huang, A. Rice, E. Ellingsen, and C. Jackson. Analyzing forged
SSL certificates in the wild. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy
2014.
M. Husák, M. Cermák, T. Jirsík, and P. Celeda. Network-based HTTPS
client identification using SSL/TLS fingerprinting, 2015.
IANA. Transport layer security (TLS) extensions. http://www.iana.org/
assignments/tls-extensiontype-values/tls-extensiontype-values.xhtml.
IANA. Transport layer security (TLS) parameters. http://www.iana.org/
assignments/tls-parameters/tls-parameters.xhtml.
A. Kirk. Web proxies, user-agent strings, and malware detection. http://
blog.talosintel.com/2012/11/web-proxies-user-agent-strings-and.html.
Komodia. Redirector. http://www.komodia.com/products/komodiaredirector.
C. Lan, J. Sherry, R. A. Popa, S. Ratnasamy, and Z. Liu. Embark:securely outsourcing middleboxes to the cloud. In USENIX Symposium
on Networked Systems Design and Implementation, 2016.
A. Langley. Public key pinning. https://www.imperialviolet.org/2011/05/04/pinning.html.
P. Lepeska. Comments on explicit/trusted proxy. https://www.ietf.org/
mail-archive/web/httpbisa/current/msg13124.html.
M. Majkowski. SSL fingerprinting for p0f. https://idea.popcount.org/
2012-06-17-ssl-fingerprinting-for-p0f/.
D. McGrew. Comments on explicit/trusted proxy. https://www.ietf.org/
mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg07815.html.
D. McGrew, D. Wing, Y. Nir, and P. Gladstone. TLS proxy server extension, 2012. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mcgrew-tls-proxy-server-01.
Microsoft. Platform status. https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/
microsoft-edge/platform/status/publickeypinningextensionforhttp.
K. Mowery, D. Bogenreif, S. Yilek, and H. Shacham. Fingerprinting
information in JavaScript implementations. Web 2.0 Security & Privacy,
2011.

[41] Mozilla. Installing certificates into Firefox. https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA:
AddRootToFirefox.
[42] Mozilla. Network security services (NSS). https://developer.mozilla.org/
en-US/docs/Mozilla/Projects/NSS.
[43] Mozilla. Revoking intermediate certificates: Introducing OneCRL.
https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2015/03/03/revoking-intermediatecertificates-introducing-onecrl/.
[44] D. Naylor, K. Schomp, M. Varvello, I. Leontiadis, J. Blackburn, D. R.
López, K. Papagiannaki, P. Rodriguez Rodriguez, and P. Steenkiste.
Multi-context TLS (mcTLS): Enabling secure in-network functionality
in TLS. In ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 2015.
[45] N. Nikiforakis, A. Kapravelos, W. Joosen, C. Kruegel, F. Piessens, and
G. Vigna. Cookieless monster: Exploring the ecosystem of web-based
device fingerprinting. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy,2013.
[46] M. O’Neill, S. Ruoti, K. Seamons, and D. Zappala. TLS proxies: Friend
or foe? In ACM Internet Measurement Conference, 2016.
Antivirus and compromised device report: Janu[47] OPSWAT.
rary 2015. https://www.opswat.com/resources/reports/antivirus-andcompromised-device-january-2015.
Avast antivirus: X.509 error rendering command[48] T. Ormandy.
execution. https://bugs.chromium.org/p/project-zero/issues/detail?id=546&can=1&q=avast.
[49] V. Paxson. Bro: a system for detecting network intruders in real-time.
In 7th USENIX Security Symposium, 1998.
[50] A. Popov. Prohibiting RC4 cipher suites. RFC 7465.
[51] B. Riordan-Butterworth. Adopting encryption: The need for HTTPS.
http://www.iab.com/adopting-encryption-the-need-for-https/.
[52] I. Ristic. HTTP client fingerprinting using SSL handshake analysis. https://blog.ivanristic.com/2009/06/http-client-fingerprinting-usingssl-handshake-analysis.html.
[53] R. Seggelmann, M. Tuexen, and M. Williams. Transport layer security(TLS) and datagram transport layer security (DTLS) heartbeat extension.
RFC 6520.
[54] J. Sherry, C. Lan, R. A. Popa, and S. Ratnasamy. Blindbox: Deep
packet inspection over encrypted traffic. In SIGCOMM Computer
Communication Review, 2015.
[55] Statista. Mobile phone internet user penetration in South Korea from2014 to 2019, 2016. http://www.statista.com/statistics/284204/southkorea-mobile-phone-internet-user-penetration/.
[56] Symantec. Trojan.Nurjax. https://www.symantec.com/security_response/
writeup.jsp?docid=2014-121000-1027-99.
[57] U.S. Digital Analytics Program. The U.S. federal government’s web
traffic. https://analytics.usa.gov/.
[58] F. Valsorda. Komodia/superfish SSL validation is broken, February 2015.
https://blog.filippo.io/komodia-superfish-ssl-validation-is-broken/.
[59] M. Vanhoef and F. Piessens. All your biases belong to us: Breaking
RC4 in WPA-TKIP and TLS. In USENIX Security Symposium, 2015.
[60] N. Weaver, C. Kreibich, M. Dam, and V. Paxson. Here be web proxies. In
International Conference on Passive and Active Network Measurement,
2014.
[61] T.-F. Yen, Y. Xie, F. Yu, R. P. Yu, and M. Abadi. Host fingerprinting
and tracking on the web: Privacy and security implications. In Network
and Distributed System Security Symposium, 2012.

14