Live data from Hacker News

Browser Fingerprint Detector

fingerprint.goldenowl.ai

11–20 of 70 posts

Re: Browser Fingerprint Detector

#11
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

.ai is a ccTLD. Being AI related is not a factor to get one.

But they are considerably more expensive than more common TLDs, so if you’re getting one you presumably want it specifically and understand the association users will make.

Or it could be that the .com domain was already registered and unavailable, so they started browsing the other TLDs to see where they could find something and felt like .ai is new/hip/trendy

Re: Browser Fingerprint Detector

#12
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

.ai is a ccTLD. Being AI related is not a factor to get one.

But they are considerably more expensive than more common TLDs, so if you’re getting one you presumably want it specifically and understand the association users will make.

Maybe, but there are still many reasons to get one and it does not make anybody less legitimate than AI startups (which was the parent’s point).

Besides, they do sell AI-related services.

Re: Browser Fingerprint Detector

#14
> Fingerprint Collection Failed

> This can happen due to several reasons:

> [...] JavaScript Errors: When any of the 24+ fingerprint collection methods throws an error [...]

So when any of the browser APIs it exploits aren't available, it just fails instead of using that as a datapoint in itself. I'm unimpressed.

Re: Browser Fingerprint Detector

#16

Perhaps I'm missing it but does it explain what aspects of your setup contribute the most to your score or suggest remedial actions? I wasn't that surprised to find that my standard setup is highly fingerprintable (for one, I use Firefox which alone is enough to single me out in a crowd) but I also tried using a vanilla Chromium install via a popular commercial VPN and still got a rating of 100%.

I'm curious as well. Ran a stock Vanadium config with Mullvad enabled, and got 100%. Maybe Vanadium isn't as focused on fingerprinting as I'd thought.

Re: Browser Fingerprint Detector

#18
I recently wrote about the limits of these kinds of fingerprinting tests. They tend to overly focus on uniqueness without taking into account stability. Moreover sample size is often really small which tends to artificially make a lot of users unique

https://blog.castle.io/what-browser-fingerprinting-tests-lik...

Re: Browser Fingerprint Detector

#20

Perhaps I'm missing it but does it explain what aspects of your setup contribute the most to your score or suggest remedial actions? I wasn't that surprised to find that my standard setup is highly fingerprintable (for one, I use Firefox which alone is enough to single me out in a crowd) but I also tried using a vanilla Chromium install via a popular commercial VPN and still got a rating of 100%.

Running Chrome will make you highly fingerprint-able since it has so many APIs that can identify your hardware and software configurations directly or indirectly. It doesn’t help you “blend in” at all.
Post reply on HN