←back to thread

348 points giuliomagnifico | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0.975s | source
Show context
ekjhgkejhgk ◴[] No.46244716[source]
OT on Tor:

Recently this link was on HN[1]. It ranks your browser on regular tracking and fingerprinting separately. "Tor without JS" was the only option I found to be completely fingerprint resistant. Even Tor "with JS on strict settings" ranked it as only "partly fingerprint resistant". (Interestingly firefox without JS never returns)

Scary stuff.

I'd like to hear other people's experiences/experiments here.

[1] https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/

replies(9): >>46244951 #>>46245164 #>>46245404 #>>46245460 #>>46245479 #>>46246168 #>>46246185 #>>46246384 #>>46248377 #
monerozcash ◴[] No.46245460[source]
Regular OS X safari: Our tests indicate that you have strong protection against Web tracking.

>Your browser fingerprint has been randomized among the 378,837 tested in the past 45 days. Although sophisticated adversaries may still be able to track you to some extent, randomization provides a very strong protection against tracking companies trying to fingerprint your browser.

>Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys at least 18.53 bits of identifying information.

Anyway, this test doesn't really communicate the results very well. Yes, Tor browser stands out. No, it's not easy to differentiate between different Tor browser users via this kind of fingerprinting.

replies(2): >>46245685 #>>46245689 #
1. losvedir ◴[] No.46245689[source]
Huh, I use a "stock" (I think?) MacOS Safari and got "Your browser has a nearly-unique fingerprint" and "Partial protection" for ads and invisible trackers.

Did you change a setting or add an ad blocker or something?

edit: I feel like someone with a username "monerozcash" must have some customization to your browsing experience, that maybe you don't even remember doing...

replies(2): >>46245716 #>>46250622 #
2. monerozcash ◴[] No.46245716[source]
No, on this device literally the only customization I have is the RECAP browser extension. And even RECAP only runs on whitelisted websites.
replies(1): >>46246273 #
3. Aerbil313 ◴[] No.46246273[source]
It’s probably precisely because his browser is not customized that it’s not easily fingerprintable, because stock Safari has privacy protections and users generally don’t change anything.

I got a very similar result on unmodified iOS Safari, randomized among 380k users and conveying 15.5 bits of information. I only have the Dark Reader extension.

replies(1): >>46247321 #
4. ekjhgkejhgk ◴[] No.46247321{3}[source]
I'm downloading safari right now.

EDIT: just saw I need to download playonlinux or wine. Forget about it.

5. reshlo ◴[] No.46250622[source]
The randomisation features were significantly improved in Safari 26. Is that the version you have?