| 1 |
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 09:34:56AM -0500, Michael Mol wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> >>> I guess you mean https://panopticlick.eff.org/ |
| 4 |
> >> |
| 5 |
> >> My results from work: |
| 6 |
> >> |
| 7 |
> >> Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 1,939,102 tested so far. |
| 8 |
> >> |
| 9 |
> >> Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that |
| 10 |
> >> conveys at least 20.89 bits of identifying information. |
| 11 |
> >> |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > Funny, I get exactly the same thing except add one to the large number. |
| 15 |
> > I guess you tested before I did. How does one avoid this but still |
| 16 |
> > have sites work? |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Well, I just went to the same site using a Chrome 'incognito' browser, |
| 19 |
> and got this: |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Within our dataset of several million visitors, only one in 969,560 |
| 22 |
> browsers have the same fingerprint as yours. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that |
| 25 |
> conveys 19.89 bits of identifying information. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I get almost the same numbers with just using NoScript and Flashblock. (And |
| 28 |
the above result when I allow the Java applet and JavaScript). |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
This backs me up in using noscript and flashblock. Sometimes I doubt myself |
| 31 |
when I get asked once more why I would use NoScript in times when most of the |
| 32 |
web relies on JS. I then say that privacy and comfort is more important to me |
| 33 |
than having to allow JS on a site from time to time. (Even though some sites |
| 34 |
obviously don't work without it, such as video portals, most of them still do, |
| 35 |
albeit some gt a borked layout from it). |
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Gruß | Greetings | Qapla' |
| 38 |
I forbid any use of my email addresses with Facebook services. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
The power of water is so great, that even the strongest man cannot hold it. |
Archives