• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    106 months ago

    Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 183,996 tested in the past 45 days.

    :(

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    66 months ago

    16.47 on Cromite. But most of the identify information is not even true, almost everything is spoofed. User agent, timezone, operating system, browser name, screen size and color depth, device, even the battery percentage

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    11
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Despite having strong protection according to these results, I always get unique fingerprinting from them. Which is scary.

    Edit: Now I tried Tor on my desktop and got:

    Within our dataset of several hundred thousand visitors tested in the past 45 days, only one in 628.7 browsers have the same fingerprint as yours. Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys 9.3 bits of identifying information.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          06 months ago

          It might have a side effect but it’s still unrelated and useless for the purpose at hand.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              16 months ago

              That’s side effects, the difference is irrelevant anyway.

              I insist because I think it’s important to understand this, both for you and for people reading these comments. The whole point of fingerprinting is to be able to track users without relying on cookies or IP. Changing IP does not protect against fingerprinting. I don’t want people to be mislead by your comment and think they are going to avoid tracking by just taking a better VPN.

              You can read more here:

              https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/about#browser-fingerprinting

              “Browser fingerprinting” is a method of tracking web browsers by the configuration and settings information they make visible to websites, rather than traditional tracking methods such as IP addresses and unique cookies.

              And you can check the source code to see there is no mention of IP address:

              https://github.com/EFForg/cover-your-tracks/blob/master/fingerprint/fingerprint_helper.py

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  16 months ago

                  It’s not worthless but it’s on only an indication, an example.

                  Isn’t the score change similar to the one you have when toggling Apple safebrowsing? (whatever that is)

                  A probable explanation is that your VPN client is somehow changing some of your browser settings. The VPN client, not the VPN itself.

                  Just check the detailed results to see what’s changed between the two. Whatever it is it could be changed manually, it’s does not require a VPN to change. But you probably don’t want to change it because your score with a VPN is worse than without.

                  But this has nothing to do with a VPN being the best or the worse.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    16 months ago

    If I tried twice and I got a unique id both times, does it mean Firefox is covering my track ?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      16 months ago

      Idk, but I have the same. Scrolling through the tracking methods the only ones with high uniqueness were hash of canvas fingerprint and hash of webGL for me. According to it I still have strong protection Firefox + ublock on mobile though

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      16 months ago

      if it ran the test again, I’d say yes. but if it just reloads the result page, doesn’t mean anything

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    10
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Huh mullvad browser got me the lowest overall. 10.44 bits and a non-unique fingerprint.

    Compared against:

    • Firefox with arkenfox user.js (macOS)
    • Tor (macOS and android)
    • Vanadium (android)
    • Cromite (android)
    • Mull (different than mullvad) (android)

    I do a vast majority of my browsing on my phone, unfortunately. Vanadium scored the best (on mobile), but it not having extensions (dark reader is a must) and the navigation bar not being movable to the bottom of the screen keeps me on Mull.

    I don’t love using mullvad for day to day browsing as I can’t whitelist specific cookies to retain. Don’t love having to re 2fa daily.

  • @[email protected]OP
    link
    fedilink
    36 months ago

    After disabling extension “I still don’t care about cookies” on Librewolf, I went from 17.48 bits unique fingerprint to 16.48 nearly unique one.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    106 months ago

    12.67 from Safari/iPhone, without changing any settings. This is my most commonly used browser

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    36 months ago

    Interesting, this is a cool test! Unsurprisingly, my setup is rather unique.

    One thing that stood out to me is that it failed to detect my adblocker. Also, my screen size alone is unique: 1 in 181697 of this 181697 browsers tested.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    526 months ago

    If you have canvas randomisation turned on (firefox) you’ll always be unique but also not traceable between sessions.

    • fmstrat
      link
      fedilink
      English
      106 months ago

      Yup, canvas is heavily weighted in this test based on the results.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        36 months ago

        I found this in about:config, defaults to true apparently: privacy.resistFingerprinting.randomDataOnCanvasExtract

        But you have to enable privacy.resistFingerprinting for it to work first. I enabled that and now the EFF test says “randomized” for the hashes but also Lemmy went from dark to light theme somehow.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          26 months ago

          privacy.resistFingerprinting breaks a lot more than just themes. Many of the weird problems reported in Firefox (and forks) are just from enabling it.

          It has some pros but also TONNES of cons. Everything from a completely blank page to wrong timestamps to poor textures and so much more. Sometimes you will be flagged as a bot and prompted with literally infinite puzzles, thus effectively banning you from a website.

          Some of these problems get fixed but new ones also get born. I personally use it but I also expect breakage and worse performance.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            15 months ago

            Well if anything breaks I suspect my add/script blockers first and in like 9/10 cases that’s correct. Had turned fingerprinting resistance on since making that comment three weeks ago, and so far I didn’t run into any problems beyond theming. Although I admittedly only frequent a small set of websites.

  • ...m...
    link
    fedilink
    3
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    9.3 bits / 1:628.3
    (ipadOS / safari)

    …how do they quantify 3/10 of a bit?..

    • @[email protected]OP
      link
      fedilink
      4
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      They probably give entropy value, average number of, yes or no, questions that are needed to identify You. (Guess all the information that your browser provided)

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    46 months ago

    I misread the title as “Cover your taxes” and got really excited to earn about tax avoidance tips. Legal ones obviously.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      76 months ago

      Same result here. I’m using Gnome-web, which is already pretty niche, so that probably really lowers my score.