Viewing profile — tomrittervg
tomrittervg
HN member- Joined
- Thu, Dec 31, 2009, 1:17 PM UTC
- HN karma
- 312
- Public activity
- 34 items
- HN profile
- View on Hacker News ↗
About tomrittervg
No profile information was provided.
Recent public activity
-
comment
Comment #48375686
For a time RFP - by itself - could be enabled by web extensions. (It might still be possible, I don't recall if we removed it.) But it's a footgun because it became even easier for…
-
comment
Comment #48360411
And to the point about Mozilla's protections lacking, I've corrected the record: https://ritter.vg/blog-webgl_renderer.html
-
comment
Comment #48359103
The Bugzilla bug is at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2036440 The breadth of responses here about people who can't reproduce this (or can) is one of the most frustrat…
-
comment
Comment #48359029
> Also by default addons.mozilla.org is a privileged site so of course they include google tracking in it and they get the proper fingerprint no matter what you have configured AMO…
-
comment
Comment #48358623
(n.b. I own these features in Firefox) There are three levels of protection: - ETP Standard (see [0] for the latest improvements we rolled out) - ETP Strict (we're working on thing…
-
comment
Comment #47871889
Mozilla is working on it. (I know you said 'Academic', but we publish papers sometimes too.)
-
comment
Comment #47871875
> Ultimately most fingerprinting technologies use features that are intended behavior Strong disagree. > IP address/cookies/useragent obviously are useful Cookies are an intended t…
-
comment
Comment #45902681
In this context "a unique fingerprint" means that your fingerprint does not match any other user's. When you visit Site A and B you give a fingerprint X that is the same on A and B…
-
comment
Comment #45902637
It's 'Suspected Fingerprinters' that controls the Fingerpritning Protection feature described in the blog post. But yes, naming and descriptions is hard and never seems to work. Bu…
-
comment
Comment #41808880
This is true, but adding a sandboxing to browsers has been a huge part in driving up the difficulty/cost of browser exploits, and driving down the frequency of their use. And also …
-
comment
Comment #41808849
The vulnerability did require JavaScript to trigger. I think it would be a labor of love and craftsmanship to exploit a content process today without using JavaScript.
-
comment
Comment #41500744
This is precisely how I feel about Binary Transparency
-
comment
Comment #18486897
Ah okay, I understand better. The (second) pseudocode you have is right (the second two 'hash()' should be 'hkdf()', and the first should be 'pbkdf()'.) The first is an alternate w…
-
comment
Comment #18452856
There are more details above but the short version is that it is possible to build extensions for other browsers that work with Firefox Sync. But the only one linked seemed to be f…
-
comment
Comment #18452807
From the RFC: "Its goal is to take some source of initial keying material and derive from it one or more cryptographically strong secret keys." In our case, the initial keying mate…
-
comment
Comment #18452746
I happen to also work on Firefox/Tor Browser's anti-fingerprinting work, so yea - we're trying to make improvements there too =) Containers is a big Firefox feature (exposed throug…
-
comment
Comment #18452671
I wasn't aware that any distribution (besides Tor Browser) was building Firefox (or anything really) reproducibly. There's debian's https://reproducible-builds.org/ effort, but I t…
-
comment
Comment #18447969
It is many folks', and we appreciate the feedback. Hopefully things will get better soon: https://github.com/mozilla/multi-account-containers/issues/3...
-
comment
Comment #18447964
There's a few children of this comment, noting this, but to tie things together from someone from Mozilla: - You can self-host your own sync server. It's not something we spend a l…
-
comment
Comment #18353939
Thanks! I filed https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1503872 When we have time we'll have to trace through what it's doing and what components of RFP are causing the failur…
-
comment
Comment #17962552
Safari by default has a stricter storage access policy by default for all third-party domains, which requires you to visit the domain as a first party first. So it's probably that …
-
comment
Comment #17951833
Thanks for diagnosing that for me, you're right blocking third party cookies does cause it to fail. Both tests are equally valid. I just gave one because trying to be exhaustive ab…
-
comment
Comment #17949625
I won't copy paste my reply from above, but rather link it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17949613
-
comment
Comment #17949613
Go to https://ritter.vg/misc/ff/fpi.html On first load it should say "There was nothing in local storage." Now go to https://rittervg.com/misc/ff/fpi.html On first load it should s…
-
comment
Comment #17210486
> An option could be to provide a webRTC-based node, but I am not sure how feasible that would be, after reading some comments here. I'll point you at FlashProxy ( https://crypto.s…