Though I was aware of most of this, the demonstration was really nicely put together. If you didn't know, it may make you feel paranoid, but it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you....
Though I was aware of most of this, the demonstration was really nicely put together. If you didn't know, it may make you feel paranoid, but it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.
Thing is, for me, I don't know what alternatives I have except to just stay off the web.
I'm curious if anyone has used Mullvad browser on it yet, besides me? It seems like it's not the case because it said I was the first and second visit, and basically all the data Mullvad gives it...
I'm curious if anyone has used Mullvad browser on it yet, besides me? It seems like it's not the case because it said I was the first and second visit, and basically all the data Mullvad gives it is spoofed. I thought all Mullvad browsers were supposed to present the same spoofed details though to make it hard to track off unique fingerprints. As far as I know it's the only browser that intentionally is set up to make it more difficult to have unique fingerprints.
Even with my normal Firefox browser, not Mullvad, it didn't have all details so at least some of it was obscured, but almost surely it would have a unique fingerprint that in theory could track me across sites that share the information. To me that's the key element, even if Firefox obscures some of the info, if there's some browser fingerprint database that companies sell this data to, then they can still create a profile of sites I visit, interests etc.
Overall cool site, but this particular statistical error bugs me. You can only get this result if you assume these groups aren't correlated, which they absolutely are. That's not to say the...
How rare that makes you
Each thing on its own is common. Watch how fast they multiply.
Overall cool site, but this particular statistical error bugs me. You can only get this result if you assume these groups aren't correlated, which they absolutely are.
That's not to say the premise of browser fingerprinting isn't real, it's just that their suggested uniqueness score is going to be off by a couple orders of magnitude.
I have written about finger printing before, it is quite a complex issue. It is good to raise awareness I suppose. This website does miss the mark a little bit in my opinion and is leaning a...
I have written about finger printing before, it is quite a complex issue. It is good to raise awareness I suppose. This website does miss the mark a little bit in my opinion and is leaning a little bit too much on the "spooky" part.
You came from tildes.net.
Seems spooky, but is normal referral behavior. Under normal circumstances is nice for websites to know where visitors are linked from.
Your User-Agent says Linux, but your installed fonts are Windows's. One of those is lying, and it isn't the fonts.
...
The User-Agent string is trivial to fake, so we corroborate it. Certain fonts only ship on certain operating systems, and yours are Windows's, not the Linux your User-Agent claims.
Yeah no, I just have windows fonts installed on my Linux machine.
You've got LaTeX's fonts installed. Academic papers, or a maths-heavy day job.
Not really, but okay ;)
First time here? I'll remember you now, no cookie required. Come back and I'll prove it.
Okay, sure
I've seen you before, you first showed up earlier today.
...
On your first visit I stored a random tag, not in a cookie, but across localStorage, IndexedDB, the Cache API and window.name at once. I never learned your name; I just recognised the tag, and counted.
So half of those are still "cookies" as far as I am concerned. I'd be more interested if they could recognize me without storing anything on my side as I can clear all of those.
I am not saying that fingerprinting is a real thing. It very much is. I am just not really vibing with this specific websites overall presentation and conclusions.
Funny enough, visiting the site with a default TOR instance still read out my correct screen resolution. I thought the entire point of leaving the TOR browser window in it's default state and not...
Funny enough, visiting the site with a default TOR instance still read out my correct screen resolution. I thought the entire point of leaving the TOR browser window in it's default state and not moving/resizing it was to spoof screen resolution tracking? Everything else was as I expected it to be.
Though I was aware of most of this, the demonstration was really nicely put together. If you didn't know, it may make you feel paranoid, but it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.
Thing is, for me, I don't know what alternatives I have except to just stay off the web.
If you use Firefox, some of your data will be spoofed and slightly wrong, making you slightly less identifiable.
I'm curious if anyone has used Mullvad browser on it yet, besides me? It seems like it's not the case because it said I was the first and second visit, and basically all the data Mullvad gives it is spoofed. I thought all Mullvad browsers were supposed to present the same spoofed details though to make it hard to track off unique fingerprints. As far as I know it's the only browser that intentionally is set up to make it more difficult to have unique fingerprints.
Even with my normal Firefox browser, not Mullvad, it didn't have all details so at least some of it was obscured, but almost surely it would have a unique fingerprint that in theory could track me across sites that share the information. To me that's the key element, even if Firefox obscures some of the info, if there's some browser fingerprint database that companies sell this data to, then they can still create a profile of sites I visit, interests etc.
Overall cool site, but this particular statistical error bugs me. You can only get this result if you assume these groups aren't correlated, which they absolutely are.
That's not to say the premise of browser fingerprinting isn't real, it's just that their suggested uniqueness score is going to be off by a couple orders of magnitude.
Maybe they have a bug?
I have written about finger printing before, it is quite a complex issue. It is good to raise awareness I suppose. This website does miss the mark a little bit in my opinion and is leaning a little bit too much on the "spooky" part.
Seems spooky, but is normal referral behavior. Under normal circumstances is nice for websites to know where visitors are linked from.
Yeah no, I just have windows fonts installed on my Linux machine.
Not really, but okay ;)
Okay, sure
So half of those are still "cookies" as far as I am concerned. I'd be more interested if they could recognize me without storing anything on my side as I can clear all of those.
I am not saying that fingerprinting is a real thing. It very much is. I am just not really vibing with this specific websites overall presentation and conclusions.
Funny enough, visiting the site with a default TOR instance still read out my correct screen resolution. I thought the entire point of leaving the TOR browser window in it's default state and not moving/resizing it was to spoof screen resolution tracking? Everything else was as I expected it to be.