• refalo ( refalo@programming.dev ) 
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      12 days ago

      This is actually much worse for privacy than leaving everything stock, because a site can tell you aren’t downloading or running any javascript, and that immediately puts you in an extremely tiny bucket of people it needs to differentiate from, making any differences visible via IP/TCP/TLS/HTML/CSS much more unique.

      And yes, fingerprinting is possible with just HTML and/or CSS… I would argue even moreso without JS.

  • crenquis ( crenquis@lemmy.today ) 
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    13 days ago

    The receipt

    Putting it together: roughly 1 in 132.1 million browsers look like yours. None of this used a cookie

    Second visit: We’ve met before

    I’ve seen you before, you first showed up earlier today. This is visit number 2. And you came straight here, no link, no search. You remembered the URL by heart. That is almost sweet.how?

    And you cleared some of it, 2 of my hiding places were empty when you arrived. I restored them from the ones you missed. This is what tracking looks like without cookies.how?

  • tyler ( tyler@programming.dev ) 
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    12 days ago

    Almost all of the data it showed me was inaccurate, whew. Firefox doing a good job there.

    That helps less than you’d think, fingerprinting doesn’t need to be accurate,

    incorrect, it needs to be very accurate if it’s actually going to track you. If you block tracking scripts and all a website can do is fingerprint you then they’re getting nothing besides “you read this article” or “you visited this page” with no way to sell that data. noticeably the ad sales section was almost completely empty for me. If a single bit of my information changes the previous fingerprint was completely useless.

    also this site is just making shit up 😂

    output when I typed a single letter at a type with half a second between each, and quit the sentence as soon as it said I could:

    Your typing rhythm is steady and practised, you spend a lot of time at a keyboard.how? You type at about 45 words a minute.how?

    output when I typed full speed

    Your typing rhythm is uneven, hunt-and-peck, or you were distracted.how? You type at about 105 words a minute.how?


    Timezone America/Denver 0.8% of people - 1 in 297,619

    is just laughably incorrect though. maybe it’s based on how many people have actually visited the site like that? but most people have multiple devices, if not a work computer and cell phone at minimum. that would mean only 150k people have America/Denver as their time zone, when the reality is probably 10-15 million, so this number is actually more like 1 in 20-30million


    firefox nicely randomizes output between runs, so it was 16core the first time, 8 core the second time.


    finally this “1 in x” is just laughably wrong. it always says 1 in 133.2 million, even if I give it more data like the size of my screen (which is 1 in tens of millions).

    not saying that fingerprinting doesn’t work, it obviously does, but this site is shit and doesn’t prove that point at all.

  • Damage ( Damage@feddit.it ) 
    link
    fedilink
    Italiano
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    12 days ago

    First time here, and you typed the link in yourself, bold. Either way, I’ll remember you now. That’s rather the point.how?

    nope, clicked a link on lemmy