Browser API Execution Traces

• Browser API execution traces are sequential records of API calls that capture runtime behavior in browsers, revealing both benign operations and potential security threats.
• Dynamic instrumentation, trace alignment, and vectorized feature extraction are key methodologies used to analyze these traces for malware detection, fingerprinting, and forensic investigations.
• These traces enable large-scale behavioral clustering and security analysis, providing actionable insights for developing countermeasures against evasion techniques and privacy risks.

Browser API execution traces are sequential or aggregated records of browser API calls invoked at runtime by scripts executed within the web browser environment. These traces, which can be captured either at the JavaScript source level, the bytecode level, or via instrumentation in the browser engine, provide comprehensive visibility into the operational behavior of scripts—including benign web applications, extensions, fingerprinting scripts, malware, and phishing kits. The empirical recording and analysis of these traces underpins foundational and emerging methodologies in web security, privacy forensics, automated malware detection, large-scale behavioral clustering, and browser fingerprinting.

1. Foundations of Browser API Execution Traces

A browser API execution trace consists of ordered (or frequency-based) events representing each invocation of a browser API, typically by JavaScript running in the context of a web page, browser extension, or service worker. An execution event may encapsulate the API’s fully qualified name (such as window.navigator.userAgent or HTMLCanvasElement.toDataURL), the callsite script and function, the input parameters, timing information, and, in some methodologies, contextual metadata such as the originating DOM node or execution environment (foreground tab, service worker, content script) (Papadopoulos et al., 2018, Somé, 2019, Cabrera-Arteaga et al., 2019, Moreno et al., 28 Oct 2024).

Browser API traces can be collected dynamically by modifying runtime environments (e.g., instrumented Chromium via VisibleV8, forced execution with FV8, or sandboxed analysis in Fakeium), or statically inferred through abstract syntax tree (AST) parsing for symbol extraction (Pantelaios et al., 21 May 2024, Moreno et al., 28 Oct 2024, Guri et al., 31 May 2025). Traces can vary in granularity—from full bytecode logs spanning hundreds of thousands of instructions to normalized frequency vectors over selected APIs.

2. Methodologies for Trace Collection and Analysis

A survey of leading methodologies demonstrates both the diversity and sophistication of contemporary browser API execution trace analysis:

• Dynamic Instrumentation: Tools such as FV8 (Pantelaios et al., 21 May 2024) and Fakeium (Moreno et al., 28 Oct 2024) operate by intercepting API invocations during code execution, often within a V8 isolate or a patched browser. FV8 goes further by forcibly executing conditionally hidden code branches, thereby surfacing evasive behaviors. Fakeium injects Proxy-based hooks to monitor all property accesses and function calls without incurring resource-heavy browser automation.
• Trace Alignment and Comparison: STRAC (Cabrera-Arteaga et al., 2019) implements memory-efficient Dynamic Time Warping (DTW) to compare and align JavaScript V8 bytecode traces, supporting the recognition of semantically equivalent program executions subject to compiler and runtime non-determinism.
• Vectorized Feature Extraction: For large-scale behavioral clustering or semi-supervised learning, researchers extract vectors from traces, mapping occurrences of key API calls to high-dimensional sparse vectors (Bird et al., 2020, Nahapetyan et al., 16 Sep 2025). Clustering and similarity are then evaluated via Chebyshev or Jaccard distances, enabling effective grouping of scripts or pages with similar operational footprints.
• Co-occurrence Graphs and Temporal Analysis: FP-Radar (Bahrami et al., 2021) constructs weighted temporal graphs of API co-occurrences, using graph embedding and clustering to identify evolving families of browser fingerprinting behaviors.
• Specialized Attribute Logging: Platforms monitoring behavioral data (e.g., keystrokes and mouse events) rely on low-level event APIs (KeyboardEvent, MouseEvent), generating high-resolution records for biometric research and privacy analysis (Fan, 2019).

A summary table of select tool characteristics:

Tool/Approach	Trace Level	Focus Domain
FV8	Source/API/Bytecode	Evasion/malware, forced exec
Fakeium	API (via Proxies)	Obfuscated JS, scale analysis
STRAC	V8 Bytecode	Alignment, equivalence
VisibleV8	API	Behavior logging, phishing
FP-Radar	AST/API graph	Fingerprinting, longitudinal

3. Security, Privacy, and Attack Surface Implications

Browser API execution traces reflect not only legitimate application behavior but also offer deep visibility into malicious operations:

• Malware and Evasion Detection: Persistent and stealthy browser-based malware, such as that exemplified by MarioNet (Papadopoulos et al., 2018), abuses APIs (ServiceWorker, SyncManager, WebSocket, Battery API) to maintain background control and resource exploitation even after a tab or browser is closed. FV8 empirically demonstrates that by forcibly executing dormant code, more than 11% additional code coverage can be achieved compared to standard dynamic analyses, revealing 28 unique evasion categories, including previously unreported ones (e.g., crypto wallet and password path checks) (Pantelaios et al., 21 May 2024).
• Fingerprinting and Tracking: Both FP-Radar (Bahrami et al., 2021) and the WebAssembly fingerprinting paper (Guri et al., 31 May 2025) illustrate that traces containing patterns of API usage—especially those involving rendering, sensor, timing, and system information APIs—can be leveraged for highly accurate device and browser identification. For instance, WebAssembly-based timing side channels achieve less than 1% false positive rates in distinguishing Chromium-based browsers from others, even under user agent spoofing.
• Extension-mediated SOP Bypass and Data Exfiltration: EmPoWeb (Somé, 2019) traces communication paths (execution traces) linking message receipts in content scripts or background pages to privileged API calls, exposing vulnerabilities where web applications exploit extension messaging APIs to bypass Same-Origin Policy, read cookies, download files, or exfiltrate history and storage.
• Phishing Analysis and Kit Attribution: Automated clustering of phishing pages by their API trace signatures achieves high accuracy (Fowlkes-Mallows index 0.97) in linking disparate instances to common kits, regardless of superficial code obfuscation or hash randomization. Advanced phishing techniques, such as client IP-based selective rendering or multi-stage evasion logic, manifest clearly in execution trace analysis (Nahapetyan et al., 16 Sep 2025).

4. Practical and Research Applications

Browser API execution trace analysis underpins a range of real-world and research applications:

• Large Scale Web Analytics: Feature vector extraction and clustering allow researchers to map ecosystem-scale phenomena, such as the longitudinal evolution of fingerprinting APIs or the taxonomy of phishing kits deployed across hundreds of thousands of URLs (Bahrami et al., 2021, Nahapetyan et al., 16 Sep 2025).
• Automated Malware Family Classification: Embedding and recurrent encoding of execution sequences, as refined in neural architectures using BERT and GRU, enable accurate classification of malware traces and demonstrate transferability to browser-based traces with suitable adaptation (Huang et al., 2019).
• Forensics and Biometric Profiling: Collection and analysis of user input traces (keystroke, mouse dynamics) via standard DOM APIs, when paired with precise timestamping and feature extraction (e.g., bigram timing, mouse trajectory speed), support both biometric identification and privacy risk quantification in controlled studies (Fan, 2019).
• Debugging and Semantic Analysis: Trace alignment (e.g., STRAC) facilitates root cause analysis in debugging by identifying behavioral divergences in large, non-deterministic bytecode traces, isolating sections where semantic equivalence breaks down (Cabrera-Arteaga et al., 2019).

5. Limitations, Controversies, and Countermeasures

Trace-based monitoring and analysis, while powerful, are constrained by several technical and ethical factors:

• Code Coverage Gaps: Traditional dynamic analysis techniques may miss code paths guarded by sophisticated evasion checks, necessitating forced execution approaches such as those implemented in FV8. However, forced execution itself has practical limits (e.g., recursion depth, inability to simulate every environmental stimulus).
• Privacy Hazards: The very execution traces that empower security researchers can be exploited for persistent tracking, device fingerprinting, and user de-anonymization, especially when based on low-level performance or API call timing that is hard to obfuscate without breaking web compatibility (Guri et al., 31 May 2025). Mitigation recommendations include random delays in critical function calls and monitoring access to high-resolution timers.
• Obfuscation and Dynamic Code Generation: Tools such as Fakeium address dynamic obfuscation by intercepting API calls at runtime, but may still be circumvented by extremely sophisticated malware employing multi-stage code loaders or by leveraging synthetic user input gaps.
• Operational Overheads and Scalability: While advanced dynamic instrumentation tools offer negligible per-script overhead (e.g., Fakeium reports ~70 ms per script), scaling to ecosystem-level analyses (millions of scripts, extensions, or pages) may demand substantial computational resources and careful engineering of data pipelines (Moreno et al., 28 Oct 2024).
• Defensive Recommendations: Mitigation strategies include restricting service worker registration, capping their lifetimes, requiring explicit permissions for sensitive background execution, whitelisting or blacklisting persistent operations to trusted origins, incorporating static and dynamic trace analysis in browser and extension review pipelines, and considering design changes to browser APIs that reduce or obfuscate observable side channels (Papadopoulos et al., 2018, Somé, 2019, Guri et al., 31 May 2025).

6. Future Directions

Research continues to expand the methodological envelope for browser API execution trace analysis. Promising directions include:

• Order-sensitive and Hybrid Modeling: Incorporating sequence order and intra-correlation among API invocations, potentially with graph neural networks or improved recurrent attention architectures, to better model complex behaviors and obfuscation variants (Huang et al., 2019).
• Extended Instrumentation: Broadening the coverage of monitored API calls and runtime events (such as network stack, DOM changes, and hardware features) to capture a finer granularity of behavioral signals (Bird et al., 2020, Nahapetyan et al., 16 Sep 2025).
• Longitudinal and Cross-Platform Studies: Systematic, multi-year analyses of API usage evolution and cross-correlation of traces between desktop, mobile, and IoT browser variants to preempt emergent threats and standardization pitfalls (Bahrami et al., 2021).
• Real-time and Adaptive Mitigation: Employing live, trace-based anomaly detection and countermeasure deployment, possibly aided by semi-supervised learning to surface novel fingerprinting or exploitation mechanisms (Bird et al., 2020, Moreno et al., 28 Oct 2024).

A plausible implication is that future browser designs will increasingly need to integrate trace awareness, both to defend users and to provide researchers with meaningful signals for threat attribution, while continually negotiating the trade-offs between privacy, functionality, and security.

---

In summary, browser API execution traces constitute a critical empirical basis for understanding, monitoring, and defending against abuse in the modern web ecosystem. Their analysis enables advances in malware detection, privacy measurement, user and device identification, phishing kit attribution, and behavioral forensics. Ongoing and future work focuses on expanding coverage, accuracy, robustness against evasion and obfuscation, scalable deployment, and privacy-preserving browsing environments.