1 |
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> Michael Mol wrote: |
3 |
>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Michael Hampicke <gentoo-user@××××.biz> wrote: |
4 |
>>>> There is actually a huge amount of information available, giving a high |
5 |
>>>> level of pseudo-uniqueness. There was a web site that showed you how |
6 |
>>>> much it could glean from even an anonymous session, but I can't remember |
7 |
>>>> where is was. Somewhere like the EFF. |
8 |
>>> |
9 |
>>> I guess you mean https://panopticlick.eff.org/ |
10 |
>>> |
11 |
>> |
12 |
>> My results from work: |
13 |
>> |
14 |
>> Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 1,939,102 tested so far. |
15 |
>> |
16 |
>> Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that |
17 |
>> conveys at least 20.89 bits of identifying information. |
18 |
>> |
19 |
> |
20 |
> |
21 |
> Funny, I get exactly the same thing except add one to the large number. |
22 |
> I guess you tested before I did. How does one avoid this but still |
23 |
> have sites work? |
24 |
|
25 |
Well, I just went to the same site using a Chrome 'incognito' browser, |
26 |
and got this: |
27 |
|
28 |
Within our dataset of several million visitors, only one in 969,560 |
29 |
browsers have the same fingerprint as yours. |
30 |
|
31 |
Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that |
32 |
conveys 19.89 bits of identifying information. |
33 |
|
34 |
|
35 |
It looks like the biggest culprits appear to be the available font |
36 |
list and the browser plugin set. Stick to as close-to-core a set of |
37 |
fonts as possible, and that'll likely help. Also disable any plugins |
38 |
you don't need. (FWIW, using the incognito window reduced the number |
39 |
of bits listed in both "Browser Plugin Details" and "system Fonts", |
40 |
and reduced the visible volume of data for "Browser Plugin Details" by |
41 |
about a third.) |
42 |
|
43 |
-- |
44 |
:wq |