privacy: pseudonymize the whole ULA prefix, not just its tail

Found in a real uploaded run from the phone: the server held
fda1:3fb1:ff92:6696::2662 for a DNS server. The general IPv6 path keeps the
leading two groups on purpose - for a global address that preserves the ISP
allocation, which is the useful part - but for a ULA that passes through 32 of
the 40 random bits of the global ID.

A ULA looks like the v6 RFC1918 and the instinct is to treat it the same. It is
not analogous, and the difference is the point: an RFC1918 prefix is shared by
millions of networks and identifies none of them, while a ULA global ID is
random and unique to one network by construction (RFC 4193). The prefix IS the
identifier, so it was a network fingerprint surviving redaction.

Pseudonymized as a unit now, so two addresses on one ULA subnet still share a
pseudonymous prefix - "these hosts are on one network" survives, "this is that
network" does not. RFC1918 stays readable, and the contrast is what justifies
it; a test pins both halves.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
mrambossek
2026-08-01 15:26:09 +02:00
co-authored by Claude Fable 5
parent 305d21f8a7
commit ac6c653115
4 changed files with 85 additions and 1 deletions
+21
View File
@@ -893,3 +893,24 @@ it — much of a document's payload lives in `evidence`/`metrics`/`params`, whic
`JsonObject` by design and therefore *outside* any schema. A schema-driven anonymizer would have `JsonObject` by design and therefore *outside* any schema. A schema-driven anonymizer would have
less coverage there than the name-plus-shape one now does, so the schema should be built for less coverage there than the name-plus-shape one now does, so the schema should be built for
validation and external tooling, not as a replacement for the classifier. validation and external tooling, not as a replacement for the classifier.
### ULA prefixes are pseudonymized whole (2026-08-01)
Spotted in a real uploaded run from the phone: the server had
`fda1:3fb1:ff92:6696::2662` for a DNS server. The general IPv6 path preserves the leading two
groups (deliberately — for a global address that keeps the ISP allocation, which is the
diagnostically useful part), and for a ULA that passed through **32 of the 40 random bits** of the
global ID.
ULA looks like the v6 equivalent of RFC1918 and the instinct is to treat it the same. That
reasoning does not carry over, and the difference is the whole point: an RFC1918 prefix is shared
by millions of networks and identifies none of them, while a ULA global ID is random and unique to
one network by construction (RFC 4193). The prefix *is* the identifier — it is a network
fingerprint that was surviving redaction.
Now pseudonymized as a unit, so two addresses on the same ULA subnet still land on the same
pseudonymous prefix: "these hosts are on one network" survives, "this is *that* network" does not.
Three tests, one of which uses the exact value observed on the wire.
Worth recording as a reasoning trap: I had originally raised this as "ULA should probably be kept
verbatim, like RFC1918, for consistency". The surface analogy pointed the wrong way, and the
correct answer was the opposite.
+1 -1
View File
@@ -269,7 +269,7 @@ The JSON Schema (machine-readable companion, `measurement.schema.json`, generate
| type | example fields | v2 anonymizer transform | | type | example fields | v2 anonymizer transform |
|---|---|---| |---|---|---|
| `ip4`, `ip6` | addresses, routes, hops, DNS answers | prefix-preserving pseudonymization, consistent per document; well-known/reserved ranges kept verbatim | | `ip4`, `ip6` | addresses, routes, hops, DNS answers | prefix-preserving pseudonymization, consistent per document; well-known/reserved ranges kept verbatim. **Exception: ULA (`fc00::/7`) has its whole prefix pseudonymized as a unit.** It resembles RFC1918 but is not analogous: a ULA global ID is 40 random bits, unique to one network by construction (RFC 4193), so the prefix *is* the identifier, whereas `192.168.0.0/16` is shared by millions of networks and identifies none. Pseudonymizing it as a unit keeps "these hosts are on one subnet" while dropping "this is that subnet". |
| `mac`, `bssid` | wifi, arp_watch | OUI kept, NIC part pseudonymized | | `mac`, `bssid` | wifi, arp_watch | OUI kept, NIC part pseudonymized |
| `fqdn` | DNS names, reverse lookups | per-label pseudonyms, public-suffix kept | | `fqdn` | DNS names, reverse lookups | per-label pseudonyms, public-suffix kept |
| `ssid` | wifi | pseudonym | | `ssid` | wifi | pseudonym |
@@ -188,6 +188,26 @@ class Anonymizer(private val level: PrivacyLevel, private val salt: Salt) {
// The unspecified address and the default route are not identities; mangling them would // The unspecified address and the default route are not identities; mangling them would
// make a routing table unreadable for no privacy gain. // make a routing table unreadable for no privacy gain.
if (v == "::1" || v == "::" || v.startsWith("fe80:") || v.startsWith("ff")) return v if (v == "::1" || v == "::" || v.startsWith("fe80:") || v.startsWith("ff")) return v
// Unique local addresses (fc00::/7) need the *whole* prefix replaced, not the tail.
//
// They look like the v6 equivalent of RFC1918, and the first instinct is to keep them for
// the same reason: private, topological, says nothing about anyone. That reasoning does
// not carry over. An RFC1918 prefix is shared by millions of networks and identifies
// none of them; a ULA global ID is 40 *random* bits, unique to one network by
// construction (RFC 4193). It is a network fingerprint. Passing the leading groups
// through - which is what the general path does - leaked 32 of those 40 bits.
//
// The prefix is pseudonymized as a unit, so two addresses on the same ULA subnet still
// land on the same pseudonymous prefix. "These hosts are on one network" survives;
// "this is *that* network" does not.
if (v.startsWith("fc") || v.startsWith("fd")) {
val groups = v.substringBefore('%').split(":")
val prefix = pseudo("ula-prefix", groups.take(3).joinToString(":")) { it }
val host = pseudo("ula-host", v) { it }
return "fd${prefix.substring(0, 2)}:${prefix.substring(2, 6)}:${prefix.substring(6, 10)}" +
"::${host.substring(0, 4)}"
}
val groups = v.substringBefore('%').split(":") val groups = v.substringBefore('%').split(":")
if (groups.size < 3) return v if (groups.size < 3) return v
val h = pseudo("ip6", value) { it } val h = pseudo("ip6", value) { it }
@@ -182,4 +182,47 @@ class AnonymizerTest {
assertEquals(PrivacyLevel.BALANCED, PrivacyLevel.max(PrivacyLevel.BALANCED, PrivacyLevel.FULL)) assertEquals(PrivacyLevel.BALANCED, PrivacyLevel.max(PrivacyLevel.BALANCED, PrivacyLevel.FULL))
assertEquals(PrivacyLevel.FULL, PrivacyLevel.fromWire("nonsense")) assertEquals(PrivacyLevel.FULL, PrivacyLevel.fromWire("nonsense"))
} }
// A ULA looks like the v6 RFC1918 and is not. Its global ID is 40 random bits, unique to one
// network by construction (RFC 4193), so the prefix IS the identifier - unlike 192.168.x,
// which millions of networks share. Passing the leading groups through leaked most of it.
@Test
fun ulaPrefixesArePseudonymizedWhole() {
val doc = json.parseToJsonElement(
"""{"run":{"id":"r"},"networks":[{"link":{"dns":{"servers":["fda1:3fb1:ff92:6696::2662"]}}}]}"""
).jsonObject
val out = flat(anon(PrivacyLevel.BALANCED, doc))
assertFalse(out.contains("fda1"), "the ULA global ID survived: $out")
assertFalse(out.contains("3fb1"), "part of the ULA global ID survived: $out")
assertTrue(out.contains("fd"), "the result should still read as a ULA: $out")
}
// Pseudonymizing the prefix as a unit keeps the one fact that is diagnostically useful:
// whether two addresses sit on the same network.
@Test
fun addressesOnOneUlaSubnetStayRelated() {
val doc = json.parseToJsonElement(
"""{"run":{"id":"r"},"networks":[{"link":{"dns":{"servers":[
"fda1:3fb1:ff92:6696::1","fda1:3fb1:ff92:6696::2","fdff:9999:8888:7777::1"]}}}]}"""
).jsonObject
val servers = anon(PrivacyLevel.BALANCED, doc)["networks"]!!.jsonArray[0].jsonObject["link"]!!
.jsonObject["dns"]!!.jsonObject["servers"]!!.jsonArray.map { it.jsonPrimitive.content }
val prefixOf = { s: String -> s.substringBeforeLast("::") }
assertEquals(prefixOf(servers[0]), prefixOf(servers[1]),
"two addresses on one ULA subnet should share a pseudonymous prefix")
assertNotEquals(prefixOf(servers[0]), prefixOf(servers[2]),
"a different ULA network must not collide with the first")
}
// RFC1918 stays readable, and this is the contrast that justifies it: a shared, meaningless
// prefix is topology; a unique random one is identity.
@Test
fun rfc1918StaysReadableUnlikeUla() {
val doc = json.parseToJsonElement(
"""{"run":{"id":"r"},"networks":[{"link":{"dns":{"servers":["192.168.1.1","10.13.102.1"]}}}]}"""
).jsonObject
val out = flat(anon(PrivacyLevel.BALANCED, doc))
assertTrue(out.contains("192.168.1.1"), "RFC1918 should survive: $out")
assertTrue(out.contains("10.13.102.1"), "RFC1918 should survive: $out")
}
} }