1 |
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Frank Steinmetzger <Warp_7@×××.de> wrote: |
2 |
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 09:34:56AM -0500, Michael Mol wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>> >>> I guess you mean https://panopticlick.eff.org/ |
5 |
>> >> |
6 |
>> >> My results from work: |
7 |
>> >> |
8 |
>> >> Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 1,939,102 tested so far. |
9 |
>> >> |
10 |
>> >> Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that |
11 |
>> >> conveys at least 20.89 bits of identifying information. |
12 |
>> >> |
13 |
>> > |
14 |
>> > |
15 |
>> > Funny, I get exactly the same thing except add one to the large number. |
16 |
>> > I guess you tested before I did. How does one avoid this but still |
17 |
>> > have sites work? |
18 |
>> |
19 |
>> Well, I just went to the same site using a Chrome 'incognito' browser, |
20 |
>> and got this: |
21 |
>> |
22 |
>> Within our dataset of several million visitors, only one in 969,560 |
23 |
>> browsers have the same fingerprint as yours. |
24 |
>> |
25 |
>> Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that |
26 |
>> conveys 19.89 bits of identifying information. |
27 |
> |
28 |
> I get almost the same numbers with just using NoScript and Flashblock. (And |
29 |
> the above result when I allow the Java applet and JavaScript). |
30 |
> |
31 |
> This backs me up in using noscript and flashblock. Sometimes I doubt myself |
32 |
> when I get asked once more why I would use NoScript in times when most of the |
33 |
> web relies on JS. I then say that privacy and comfort is more important to me |
34 |
> than having to allow JS on a site from time to time. (Even though some sites |
35 |
> obviously don't work without it, such as video portals, most of them still do, |
36 |
> albeit some gt a borked layout from it). |
37 |
|
38 |
FWIW, I'm not using NoScript or Flashblock, only an Adblock. And |
39 |
Chrome blocked the Java applet both in the normal and incognito modes. |
40 |
|
41 |
|
42 |
-- |
43 |
:wq |