11–20 of 46 posts
Is there a way to easily change (some) browser plugins every five minutes, so fingerprinting becomes useless?
I'm sure there are various other extensions that do similar things that randomize the parameters of whatever is used to fingerprint you.
[0] https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/random-user-agent/...
https://github.com/delight-im/Secure-Firefox
But unfortunately, there are so many things that can contribute to identification of your browser, and many of them cannot reasonably be blocked. The important section of the Chromium list is "(2) Machine-specific characteristics". You need most of that, so you can't block or hide it.
Privacy is not easy. Not to mention the situation for non-technical users.
> for example, TCP/IP traffic will often reveal high-resolution system uptime data through TCP timestamps.
Is this something that's on by default? Dependent on OS? Not deeply familiar with the details of the TCP stack, but have never hard of something like this being exposed via TCP requests!
In Firefox, you can control a lot via the `about:config` directives. You can put all that into a `user.js` for portability and reference, like this: https://github.com/delight-im/Secure-Firefox But unfortunately, there are so many things that can contribute to identification of your browser, and many of them cannot reasonably be blocked. The important section of the Chromium list is "(2) Machine-specific characterist…
For instance:
> user_pref("network.cookie.cookieBehavior", 1);
If I remember correctly, this may break some sites.
> user_pref("dom.battery.enabled", false);
Questionable value for privacy / fingerprinting. If you plug-in your computer or pull the plug (a pretty common scenario), the site trying to identify you will suddenly think you're a different users.
> user_pref("general.buildID.override", "20100101");
Pointless since 20100101 is already the default used in the user agent string. Makes me think this list is severely outdated or the author doesn't know what he's doing.
> user_pref("browser.newtabpage.enabled", false);
Little impact on privacy (is this about the "somebody opens a new tab in my profile and sees what sites I frequently visit" scenario?), no impact on fingerprinting. The readme says "Impacts on user experience should be minimized, erring on the side of convenience." How does disabling the new tab page satisfy that?
https://panopticlick.eff.org/
In Firefox, you can control a lot via the `about:config` directives. You can put all that into a `user.js` for portability and reference, like this: https://github.com/delight-im/Secure-Firefox But unfortunately, there are so many things that can contribute to identification of your browser, and many of them cannot reasonably be blocked. The important section of the Chromium list is "(2) Machine-specific characterist…
Hidden prefs are hidden for a reason and can be a foot-gun. The warning when opening about:config is no exaggeration, and copying-and-pasting a bunch of hidden prefs from an untrusted source is not a good idea. For instance: > user_pref("network.cookie.cookieBehavior", 1); If I remember correctly, this may break some sites. > user_pref("dom.battery.enabled", false); Questionable value for privacy / fingerprinting. If…
If you feel uncomfortable in that section, feel free to avoid touching it. But if you know what you do, there are zero problems. Want to change your user agent? Do it there. No problems. The warning is for your average non-technical user, justifiably.
Well, perhaps you need to read up on those a little bit again.
> If I remember correctly, this may break some sites.
Sure, everything may break some sites. But this is about blocking third party cookies, which blocks not a single site I know (Do you know a popular one?) while being one of the most effective measures against tracking (which uses fingerprinting) out there.
> Questionable value for privacy / fingerprinting. If you plug-in your computer ...
Sure, agreed for privacy.
> Pointless since 20100101 is already the default used in the user agent string
Yes, since late 2015 only, and keeping a default hardly does any harm. By the way, try outputting `navigator.buildID` in your JavaScript console -- oops, not even this setting helped. The real ID is right there. So it's not as easy as you might think.
> is this about the "stranger opens a new tab in my profile and sees what sites I frequently visit" scenario?
No. If I remember correctly, the "new tab" page is about the ads.
https://panopticlick.eff.org/
It's quite surprising that my disposable virtual machine's firefox in Qubes OS is unique among all tested so far...
Qubes isn't designed to blend into all other users; it's designed to make you unlinkable to your other Qubes instances.
A better experiment would be to run the test in two of your Qubes instances. Hopefully they will both be unique.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hidden prefs are hidden for a reason and can be a foot-gun. The warning when opening about:config is no exaggeration, and copying-and-pasting a bunch of hidden prefs from an untrusted source is not a good idea. For instance: > user_pref("network.cookie.cookieBehavior", 1); If I remember correctly, this may break some sites. > user_pref("dom.battery.enabled", false); Questionable value for privacy / fingerprinting. If…
> The warning when opening about:config is no exaggeration If you feel uncomfortable in that section, feel free to avoid touching it. But if you know what you do, there are zero problems. Want to change your user agent? Do it there. No problems. The warning is for your average non-technical user, justifiably. Well, perhaps you need to read up on those a little bit again. > If I remember correctly, this may break some…
I feel very comfortable touching hidden prefs in Firefox. That's not my point. My point is that random users stumbling upon your github page may not know what they're doing.
> Sure, everything may break some sites. But this is about blocking third party cookies, which blocks not a single site I know (Do you know a popular one?)
I quickly googled this for you, found this:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=849948
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5272069
https://getsatisfaction.com/getsatisfaction/topics/bad_user_...
https://planapple.uservoice.com/knowledgebase/articles/50965...
> No. If I remember correctly, the "new tab" page is about the ads.
The new tab page displays frequently visited sites. In new profiles without a browsing history, it would also suggest sites, some of which would be "sponsored" (i.e. ads). If I remember correctly, Firefox would pick the ads locally without leaking information about you. So what's the privacy impact? Also, it doesn't even do that anymore: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/12/firefo...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The warning when opening about:config is no exaggeration If you feel uncomfortable in that section, feel free to avoid touching it. But if you know what you do, there are zero problems. Want to change your user agent? Do it there. No problems. The warning is for your average non-technical user, justifiably. Well, perhaps you need to read up on those a little bit again. > If I remember correctly, this may break some…
> If you feel uncomfortable in that section, feel free to avoid touching it. I feel very comfortable touching hidden prefs in Firefox. That's not my point. My point is that random users stumbling upon your github page may not know what they're doing. > Sure, everything may break some sites. But this is about blocking third party cookies, which blocks not a single site I know (Do you know a popular one?) I quickly goo…
Right, "1292 days ago". Now that we've just talked about information that is out-of-date.
> Blocking 3rd party cookies breaks surprisingly few things
Agreed. A comment from the post that you linked to.
Disqus being one of the few exceptions that don't work (because it's embedded as a third-party on first-party sites), personally, I can live with that. Everybody has to decide for themselves. If some setting doesn't work, it can simply be undone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you feel uncomfortable in that section, feel free to avoid touching it. I feel very comfortable touching hidden prefs in Firefox. That's not my point. My point is that random users stumbling upon your github page may not know what they're doing. > Sure, everything may break some sites. But this is about blocking third party cookies, which blocks not a single site I know (Do you know a popular one?) I quickly goo…
> I quickly googled this for you, found this Right, "1292 days ago". Now that we've just talked about information that is out-of-date. > Blocking 3rd party cookies breaks surprisingly few things Agreed. A comment from the post that you linked to. Disqus being one of the few exceptions that don't work (because it's embedded as a third-party on first-party sites), personally, I can live with that. Everybody has to deci…
Just like e.g. Facebook Login and github accounts, right?
> personally, I can live with that. Everybody has to decide for themselves. If some setting doesn't work, it can simply be undone.
Except that the list that you promoted here has no detailed documentation and doesn't put users in the position to make an informed decision.