On Librewolf i got 16.48 bits of information, on TOR browser 10.32 bits, but on Tails I managed to get only 9.3 bits.
Default Google Chrome embedded on Android with nothing configured and googled up.
17 bits.
this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2024
169 points (100.0% liked)
Privacy
32442 readers
972 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
It constantly gives me 17.5 bits on several browsers firefox, nyxt, gnu icecat, librewolf...
Number of bits can also depend on your UI scaling, resolution and timezone.
9.3 bits / 1:628.3
(ipadOS / safari)
...how do they quantify 3/10 of a bit?..
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)
With Vivaldi
Didn't know Vivaldi had this capability, I just used it because it was the only decent browser with an on/off sidebar till zen
Not only the sidebar, you can tweak almost everything to your like.
13
I’m unique :) this ain’t great
its ok if your fingerprint changes on every browser startup
...as long as you are blocking tracking cookies, and aren't on a session with a website that's tracking you.
Otherwise, you just have a nice unique hash in your cookies. A password manager could help here.
A password manager? Could you explain why?
Cookies and other ways of keeping a session upright are kept by the browser. So unless you're mad enough to copy cookies between devices, they prove you're on the same device.
Using a password every time you log in, and letting your browser wipe everything on shutdown does not show websites wether you're on yhe same or another device.
@Boomkop3 @broken_chatbot Do you mean not keeping browser history actually makes big difference? I do that for few years but wasn't sure how much it really helped.
That does not matter, cookies and other local web storage can though
If you have canvas randomisation turned on (firefox) you'll always be unique but also not traceable between sessions.
How do you turn on canvas randomisation in Firefox? I can't seem to find anything about it.
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.
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.
Yup, canvas is heavily weighted in this test based on the results.
With browser settings that actually let me use the internet in a way that's not overly cumbersome and annoying, I get 16bits or something and a "nearly unique fingerprint"
Block any and all ads, then it doesn't matter that they have your data if they can't make money off of it (they still will do that by creating data aggregates but you can't control that)
"Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 183,614 tested in the past 45 days.
Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys at least 17.49 bits of identifying information."
Chat am I cooked?
Same result here. I'm using Gnome-web, which is already pretty niche, so that probably really lowers my score.
Am I wrong to assume trying to blend in is a worse and contradictory strategy than trying to actively protect yourself from tracking?
If you want to not be unique, use default setting chrome without adblock. Your browser will look just like anybody else's, but they will literally know who you are.
On the opposite side of the spectrum, you lock everything down and spike as a very special browser and... that's all they know.
Privacy vs. anonymity
Right. The question is whether they can attach what they know to an identity. Depends on your threat model which goal you need to achieve.
Not what I meant: https://github.com/arkenfox/user.js/wiki/3.3-Overrides-%5BTo-RFP-or-Not%5D#-fingerprinting
"If you do nothing on desktop, you are already uniquely identifiable - screen, window and font metrics alone are probably enough - add timezone name, preferred languages, and several dozen other metrics and it is game over. Here is a link to the results of a study done in 2016 showing a 99.24% unique hit rate (and that is excluding IP addresses).
Changing a few prefs from default is not going to make you "more unique" - there is no such thing."
Basically making yourself less unique is impossible so there's no sensible tradeoff to be made (other than in the context of Tor and Mullvad Browser).
But then they can know a lot more since they don't even need to drop a cookie to track you. But that's a different threat model.
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.
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.
12.67 from Safari/iPhone, without changing any settings. This is my most commonly used browser
Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 183,996 tested in the past 45 days.
:(
Within our dataset of several hundred thousand visitors tested in the past 45 days, only one in 91389.5 browsers have the same fingerprint as yours.
Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys 16.48 bits of identifying information
Doesn't look good. How do you make it so that your browser doesn't have a fingerprint at all?
You can't not have a finger print. You can a best try and look like everyone elses.Sadly the free market won't care and as such you won't blend with normal users. Still you can try and look like ever one else in the privacy community
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›