Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Accessing interest groups from the same site #245

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Accessing interest groups from the same site #245

wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

xxia2021
Copy link

@xxia2021 xxia2021 commented Dec 8, 2021

Fixes #162

jeffkaufman
jeffkaufman reviewed Dec 8, 2021
View reviewed changes
FLEDGE.md Outdated
@@ -299,6 +299,7 @@ The arguments to `generateBid()` are:
'prevWins': [[time1,ad1],[time2,ad2],...],
}
```
* sameSiteInterestGroups: if the user is added to `interestGroup` on a single site, this argement contains a list of all other interest group objects added by that site; if the user is added to `interestGroup` on mutliple sites, this argument will be empty.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Empty as in the empty list?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

argement -> arguement

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fixed both, thanks Jeff!

@jeffkaufman
Copy link
Contributor

I think there is a potential leak here. Imagine I operate sites A and B. On site A I add users to two IGs: IG_BOTH and IG_A. On site B I also add users to two IGs: IG_BOTH and IG_B.

In generateBid for IG_BOTH, my sameSiteInterestGroups will be [] if the user visited both A and B, and [IG_A] or [IG_B] if not. This allows an advertiser to target based on information about more than one site.

(I don't know whether this leak is acceptable, but we should think about it.)

ardianp-google
ardianp-google reviewed Dec 8, 2021
View reviewed changes
FLEDGE.md Outdated
@@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ The arguments to `generateBid()` are:
'prevWins': [[time1,ad1],[time2,ad2],...],
}
```
* sameSiteInterestGroups: if the user is added to `interestGroup` on a single site, this argement contains a list of all other interest group objects added by that site; if the user is added to `interestGroup` on mutliple sites, this argument will be empty.
* sameSiteInterestGroups: if the user is added to `interestGroup` on a single site, this argument contains a list of all other interest group objects added by that site; if the user is added to `interestGroup` on mutliple sites, this argument will be a empty list.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit/typos:

  • Capital I for the first "if"
  • added by that site -> added on that site
  • Instead of the whole phrase "if the user ....", maybe just say "otherwise"?
  • mutliple -> multiple
  • a empty list -> an empty list

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

fixed, thanks.

@jeffkaufman
Copy link
Contributor

I think there is a potential leak here...

Actually, this leak exists today with joinCount. Sites can use a first party cookie to ensure they add a user to an interest group exactly once, and then joinCount will tell you how many different sides the user was seen on.

(A buyer could transfer even more information by having site i add a user to an IG exactly 2^i times. If joinCount is not noised then generateBid can see exactly which combination of sites the user visited.)

@xxia2021
Copy link
Author

It seems to me the most straightforward solution to address the leak is to restrict each IG to be associated with a single site.

@JensenPaul
Copy link
Collaborator

This pull request has been open for a long time but I don't think it addresses my comment. Can I ask that it close it until we have a solution to the issue that I raised?

@JensenPaul JensenPaul added the Non-breaking Feature Request Feature request for functionality unlikely to break backwards compatibility label Jun 23, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@ardianp-google ardianp-google ardianp-google left review comments

@jeffkaufman jeffkaufman jeffkaufman left review comments

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
Non-breaking Feature Request Feature request for functionality unlikely to break backwards compatibility
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Accessing Interest Groups from the Same Site in FLEDGE
4 participants
@xxia2021 @jeffkaufman @JensenPaul @ardianp-google