MoP-2-MoP – Mobile Private Microblogging

  • Marius Senftleben
  • Mihai Bucicoiu
  • Erik Tews
  • Frederik Armknecht
  • Stefan Katzenbeisser
  • Ahmad-Reza Sadeghi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8437)


Microblogging services have become popular, especially since smartphones made them easily accessible for common users. However, current services like Twitter rely on a centralized infrastructure, which has serious drawbacks from privacy and reliability perspectives. In this paper, we present a decentralized privacy-preserving microblogging infrastructure based on a distributed peer-to-peer network of mobile users. It is resistant to censorship and provides high availability. Our solution allows secure distribution of encrypted messages over local radio links to physically close peers. When redistributing messages, each peer re-randomizes encryptions to achieve unlinkability. Moreover, we show the feasibility of our solution using different synchronization strategies.


Microblogging Privacy Anonymity Censorship-resistance Mobility Peer-to-peer Delay-tolerant networking 



We thank the anonymous reviewers and our shepherd Urs Hengartner for their valuable comments. Mihai Bucicoiu was funded by the Romanian Ministry of Labour through grant POSDRU 76903.


  1. 1.
    Aschenbruck, N., Ernst, R., Gerhards-Padilla, E., Schwamborn, M.: Bonnmotion: a mobility scenario generation and analysis tool. In: ICST’10, pp. 51:1–51:10 (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aviv, A.J., Sherr, M., Blaze, M., Smith, J.M.: Evading cellular data monitoring with human movement networks. In: HotSec’10, pp. 1–9 (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baden, R.: LoKI: location-based PKI for social networks. SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 41(4), 394–395 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chaintreau, A., Hui, P., Crowcroft, J., Diot, C., Gass, R., Scott, J.: Impact of human mobility on opportunistic forwarding algorithms. IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput. 6(6), 606–620 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    De Cristofaro, E., Soriente, C., Tsudik, G., Williams, A.: Hummingbird: privacy at the time of twitter. In: S&P’12, pp. 285–299 (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    El Defrawy, K., Tsudik, G.: Alarm: anonymous location-aided routing in suspicious manets. IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput. 10(9), 1345–1358 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fanti, G., Ben David, Y., Benthall, S., Brewer, E., Shenker, S.: Rangzen: circumventing government-imposed communication blackouts. In: UCB/EECS-2013-128Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fonseca, E., Festag, A., Baldessari, R., Aguiar, R.L.: Support of anonymity in vanets - putting pseudonymity into practice. In: WCNC’07, pp. 3400–3405 (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Golle, P., Jakobsson, M., Juels, A., Syverson, P.F.: Universal re-encryption for mixnets. In: Okamoto, T. (ed.) CT-RSA 2004. LNCS, vol. 2964, pp. 163–178. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., Moon, S.: What is twitter, a social network or a news media? In: WWW’10, pp. 591–600 (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    McCord, M., Chuah, M.: Spam detection on twitter using traditional classifiers. In: Calero, J.M.A., Yang, L.T., Mármol, F.G., García Villalba, L.J., Li, A.X., Wang, Y. (eds.) ATC 2011. LNCS, vol. 6906, pp. 175–186. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McNamara, L., Mascolo, C., Capra, L.: Media sharing based on colocation prediction in urban transport. In: MobiCom’08, pp. 58–69 (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Perrucci, G.P., Fitzek, F.H.P., Widmer, J.: Survey on energy consumption entities on the smartphone platform, pp. 1–6, May 2011Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Reiter, M.K., Rubin, A.D.: Crowds: anonymity for web transactions. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur. 1(1), 66–92 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rhee, I., Shin, M., Lee, K., Hong, S., Chong, S.: Human mobility patterns and their impact on delay tolerant networks. In: HotNets’07 (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rogers, M., Saitta, E.: Secure communication over diverse transports: [short paper]. In: WPES’12, pp. 75–80 (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stanford MobiSocial project.
  18. 18.
    Su, J., Chin, A., Popivanova, A., Goel, A., de Lara, E.: User mobility for opportunistic ad-hoc networking. In: WMCSA’04, pp. 41–50 (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Weng, J., Lim, E.P., Jiang, J., He, Q.: Twitterrank: finding topic-sensitive influential twitterers. In: WSDM’10, pp. 261–270 (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhang, Y., Liu, W., Lou, W., Fang, Y.: Mask: anonymous on-demand routing in mobile ad hoc networks. IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun. 5(9), 2376–2385 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Financial Cryptography Association 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marius Senftleben
    • 1
    • 2
  • Mihai Bucicoiu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Erik Tews
    • 1
  • Frederik Armknecht
    • 3
  • Stefan Katzenbeisser
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ahmad-Reza Sadeghi
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.CASED/Technische Universität DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany
  2. 2.Intel ICRI-SC at TU DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany
  3. 3.Universität MannheimMannheimGermany

Personalised recommendations