Skip to content
Tech News
← Back to articles

Researchers say they can spy on your browsing by measuring SSD activity through a browser API — claim FROST attack requires no permissions or user interaction to identify which apps and websites you're using

read original get SSD Monitoring Tool → more articles
Why This Matters

The FROST attack highlights a significant privacy vulnerability in modern browsers, allowing malicious websites to identify users' browsing habits and applications without permission. This underscores the need for improved security measures in browser APIs and storage management to protect user privacy in an increasingly interconnected digital landscape.

Key Takeaways

Security researchers at Graz University of Technology in Austria have published a paper describing a side-channel attack that lets a malicious website identify what other sites and apps a visitor has open by measuring SSD access latency through JavaScript inside a standard browser sandbox. The technique, called FROST (Fingerprinting Remotely using OPFS-based SSD Timing), correctly identified visited websites with roughly 89% accuracy and running applications with roughly 96% accuracy on a test Mac, requires nothing from the victim beyond visiting the attacker's page, and works across different browsers.

FROST exploits the Origin Private File System (OPFS), a browser API that lets websites create and store files on a user's local disk without prompting for permission. Previous SSD side-channel attacks that we’ve seen require native code running through privileged kernel interfaces, but FROST eliminates that requirement.

The team disclosed their findings to Google, Apple, and Mozilla: Google said it doesn’t consider fingerprinting a security vulnerability, Apple called the attack "currently out of scope," and Mozilla acknowledged the findings without implementing fixes.

Latest Videos From

The attack creates a large OPFS file on the victim's SSD, with both Chrome and Safari allowing a website to claim up to 60% of total disk space through OPFS, which on a 256GB drive is over 150GB. The file must exceed the system's available RAM so that every random 4 KB read hits the SSD rather than the OS’s page cache. When other activity generates its own disk I/O, it creates measurable latency spikes in the attacker's reads, and those timing patterns are fed into a convolutional neural network trained to recognize specific websites and applications by their I/O signatures.

Because the contention occurs at the storage level, the attack works across browsers; running the attacker page in Chrome while the victim browsed in Safari showed only a 3.38% throughput difference versus a same-browser attack.

The full fingerprinting attack was only tested on an M2 Mac Mini with 8GB of RAM and a 256GB SSD. On Linux, the researchers confirmed they could measure SSD latency from the browser, but didn’t run the full fingerprinting classification, and Windows wasn’t tested at all. The OPFS file must also reside on the same physical SSD as the monitored activity, which isn’t guaranteed on multi-drive workstations.

By far the biggest barrier to this attack is the large file size; most people will notice tens or hundreds of gigabytes suddenly disappearing, but the researchers propose mitigations, including capping OPFS file sizes to fit within system memory or requiring explicit permission for OPFS file creation. Given that Google doesn’t classify fingerprinting as a security issue, browser-level fixes are unlikely in the near term.

Stay On the Cutting Edge: Get the Tom's Hardware Newsletter Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox. Contact me with news and offers from other Future brands Receive email from us on behalf of our trusted partners or sponsors

Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News, or add us as a preferred source, to get our latest news, analysis, & reviews in your feeds.