Slashdot Mirror


Nevercookie Eats Evercookies

wiredmikey writes "Anonymizer, Inc. has developed Anonymizer Nevercookie, a free Firefox plugin that protects against the Evercookie, a javascript API built and made available by Samy Kamkar (same guy who brought you the Samy Worm and XSS Hacking to Determine Physical Location) who set out to prove that the more you store and the more places you store it, the harder it is for users to control a Web site's ability to uniquely identify their computer. The plugin extends Firefox's private browsing mode by preventing Evercookies from identifying and tracking users."

91 comments

  1. And so another battle rages by Anonymusing · · Score: 5, Funny

    In development now: ForeverEverCookies, then NeverNeverCookies, then SuperCantTouchThisCookie, then ImGonnaEatYourDamnCookiesForBreakfast.

    --
    Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
    1. Re:And so another battle rages by angiasaa · · Score: 1

      Alas, no NeverEverCookies. :)

      --
      Geekism is your _only_ God!
    2. Re:And so another battle rages by Toe,+The · · Score: 1

      I can't wait for the merger with the Firesheep arms race.

      NeverSheep, EverBlack, DoubleNeverFireCookieSheep, FrenticEverFireBlackCookie, and eventually... OhYeah? and Yeah! And maybe YoMamma too.

    3. Re:And so another battle rages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Willow: Damn love spell. I have tried every anti-love spell spell I could find.
      Anya: Even if you find the right one, the guy would probably just do an anti-anti-love spell spell... spell.

    4. Re:And so another battle rages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't foget the MCHammerCookie.

    5. Re:And so another battle rages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And of course, NeverGonnaGiveYouUpCookies.

    6. Re:And so another battle rages by werfu · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ho yeah, Cookie on cookie action!

    7. Re:And so another battle rages by tom17 · · Score: 5, Funny

      then SuperCantTouchThisCookie,

      Then Stop-HAMMERTIME!Cookie

    8. Re:And so another battle rages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NeverGonnaGiveYouUpCookies development forked a while ago.
      You now have the choice between NeverGonnaLetYouDownCookies and NeverGonnaSayGoodbyeCookies.

    9. Re:And so another battle rages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah?

    10. Re:And so another battle rages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will the next "evercookie" be called NeverSayNeverCookie?

    11. Re:And so another battle rages by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

      LMAO!!!

    12. Re:And so another battle rages by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

      The cookie monster will get you!

    13. Re:And so another battle rages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two girls, one cookie.

    14. Re:And so another battle rages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where's my scrumdiddlyumptious cookie?

    15. Re:And so another battle rages by hoytak · · Score: 1

      Just use NeverCookie -9.

      --
      Does having a witty signature really indicate normality?
  2. Vaporware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The company says that Nevercookie will be available as a free download later this month.

    Premature story.

    1. Re:Vaporware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, Slashdot is usually about 1-6 months late reporting anything, so no doubt this was released quite a while ago.

  3. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    As an Anonymous Coward, I'm really getting a kick out of this plugin.

    1. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see how. It's not been released yet.

  4. Coming later this month by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I look forward to reading this exact same story, except with details, in less than a month.

    --
    I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
    1. Re:Coming later this month by FudRucker · · Score: 1

      and a link to get the NeverCookie, I was disappointed when I got to the part where it is not available yet.

      or maybe hopefully in the firefox "addons" dialog box will offer it for download, because I want this NeverCookie and I wont forget it

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    2. Re:Coming later this month by unixan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I look forward to reading this exact same story, except with details, in less than a month.

      I anticipate reading this exact same story, except with less details, yet again in a year. I coin this the secondary Slashdot effect.

      --
      This signature intentionally left unblank.
    3. Re:Coming later this month by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3, Funny

      Less than a month? You must be new here. I look forward to the same story tomorrow. If I'm lucky, the next day too. :P

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  5. virtual machines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I do almost everything in VMs since it keeps my computer cleaner. My web browsing VM starts from scratch each time I load it (with a random MAC address inside the VM). Only the bookmarks get exported and imported. Evercookie doesn't stand a chance with me.

    To further improve the situation, I have privoxy chained to squid. My iptables rules don't allow the user that runs the VMs to connect to the internet at all, not even dns. Only a connection to the local privoxy proxy which strips all ads and other annoying things.

    It took a while to set this up for sure, but it is secure and most importantly an enjoyable browsing experience.

    1. Re:virtual machines by Whalou · · Score: 1

      Nice setup. I think it would be a curious experience to take a look at your pron collection... :)

      --
      English is not this .sig mother tongue...
    2. Re:virtual machines by leuk_he · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You are unique Just like everyone else

      please tell me how unique you are there... (me: one in 627,021 browsers have the same fingerprint as yours.)

      Since you have a special setup i wonder if you can really hide in the crowd.

    3. Re:virtual machines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow! You are a bit obsess by security/anonymity! ;)

    4. Re:virtual machines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Within our dataset of several million visitors, only one in 418,016 browsers have the same fingerprint as yours.

      Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys 18.67 bits of identifying information.

      Although it is clearly wrong. It says I don't have javascript or cookies enabled. I do. I am also running chrome in an XP VM.

      Funny thing about chrome is that Google will never allow ad blockers, but they allow http proxies. All of my ad blocking is done at that level since it applies to all of my web browsers in all of my VMs, in addition to the computers my family uses. Why would I want an ad blocking plugin when a proxy works so much better?

    5. Re:virtual machines by el_tedward · · Score: 1

      I've been thinking about doing something similar in my dorm room, just haven't had the time between random internet surfing and classes. Hadn't looked into privoxy before. :)

      Mind if I ask what OS you're using for your web browsing VM?

    6. Re:virtual machines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually I am obsessed with virtual machines. I am like a child with a room full of toys when I play with VMs. Also I absolutely hate ads. I only started watching TV when I got a tivo several years back, and I only started using graphical browsers when I started blocking ads with privoxy.

      I am certainly an odd person, but I think you and other posters are assuming a bit too much. The porn collection comment did get a laugh out of me though.

    7. Re:virtual machines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Within our dataset of several million visitors, only one in 627,080 browsers have the same fingerprint as yours.

      I attribute this to the fact that I'm using Opera on Debian.

    8. Re:virtual machines by jcl-xen0n · · Score: 1

      "Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 1,254,152 tested so far." Geh, that's not especially promising...

    9. Re:virtual machines by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That page has got to be faulty. Go to the main link, http://panopticlick.eff.org/ - the results are staggeringly different. That tells me I'm unique out of everyone (>1.2 million) whereas the link given in GP says I'm 1 out of around 85k.

      --
      I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
    10. Re:virtual machines by apparently · · Score: 1

      So, what's the OS & hardware setup? And how long does it take for you to start your VM + Browser?

    11. Re:virtual machines by stg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How does Google disallow Ad Blockers? I've been using AdBlock on Chrome for several months now... (before that I just used a filtering proxy)

      I think it's been available since January.

    12. Re:virtual machines by lxs · · Score: 1

      I'm a unique and beautiful snowflake apparently. That's what I get for running Opera on Win2K.

    13. Re:virtual machines by clang_jangle · · Score: 1

      Within our dataset of several million visitors, only one in 418,016 browsers have the same fingerprint as yours.

      Using Opera 10.63 in FreeBSD 8.1, cookies and JS for whitelisted sites only plus using privoxy I get:
      Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 1,254,192 tested so far.

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    14. Re:virtual machines by GNious · · Score: 1

      I ran this with
      1) Firefox, OSX 10.6
      2) Lynx, Ubuntu Server 10.4

      Except User Agent and ACCEPT headers, they come up with identical stats ....

      Meanwhile, the Lynx is more unique than the Firefox ...

    15. Re:virtual machines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Chrome in XP for random nonsense like Slashdot. Firefox with noscript in a linux VM for gmail and banking etc.

      The host OS is linux of course since I am using iptables to control the VM network activity. I am using qemu with the user mode networking option. With KVM acceleration it is amazing. Near native speeds.

      I'm also going to reply to the person who posted below you right now so I don't need to get a new IP address again. Why bother with a live cd? That is not convenient at all. I am not a political prisoner, just a nerd having fun with VMs. I like leaving javascript on when ads are blocked. Also you need to remember that there is no added complexity to a random mac address. The script I use to start my qemu VM has "macaddr=`randmac`" in it and there we go, new mac address each time. Why not? I just have a python script named randmac in /usr/local/bin that generates a random mac address for me each time. I was surprised to find that XP doesn't even care about this. It still sees it as the same nic and everything.

    16. Re:virtual machines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That page has got to be faulty. Go to the main link, http://panopticlick.eff.org/ - the results are staggeringly different. That tells me I'm unique out of everyone (>1.2 million) whereas the link given in GP says I'm 1 out of around 85k.

      The difference is that the previously posted link does not include &js=yes param, where as the link on the main page does.

      What this param does is sniff you out using javascript (or not, obviously)

    17. Re:virtual machines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I am the original poster. It says I am unique, but clearly the script has a bug in it. For example it says that my user agent of "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/7.0.517.44 Safari/534.7" is 1 in 14093.54. Very unlikely.

      Also I am using stock chrome in stock XP SP3, yet my plugins are 1 in 418108.33 and my fonts are 1 in 553.54. Both are very unlikely. Remember that this is not a worn in XP install. It is virgin (up to date) XP SP3 with chrome installed in it. Hell when I update it, I update the virgin without chrome version of it, and then install chrome in that. I use backed qcow2 images in qemu so that I can always step back to the most virgin version of it when I update it.

      None of this is done to prevent tracking or cookies. I just want to prevent malware infections. This uniqueness and cookies stuff is interesting, and I love the EFF, but their site appears to lie to you to make you scared.

    18. Re:virtual machines by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Mine says:

      "Within our dataset of several million visitors, only one in 48,245 browsers have the same fingerprint as yours."

      Vanilla XP install, FF, Noscript, etc. Better than I would have thought. Hmmm.

      Lol. I switched to IE8 (default config) and got:

      "Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 1,254,460 tested so far."

      Open Source bias?

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    19. Re:virtual machines by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      The test is a lie, refreshing it again tells me I'm still unique.

    20. Re:virtual machines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I started the VM off from scratch and went back and now I am one in 2327.42 for the (same) user agent. 1 in 139386.78 for the (same) plugins, and 1 in 553.37 for the (same) fonts. Only the fonts number is similar to last time, yet the entire situation is the same. Same fonts, plugins, and user agent. I call shenanigans.

    21. Re:virtual machines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just a reminder for everyone - in Firefox as well as other browsers, you can set your user agent. In effect, the browser lies to the servers, claiming to be whatever you TOLD it to be. "Today, you are Internet Explorer, and we are running on Windows XP. Tomorrow, you can be Opera, running on ArchLinux. Yes, we'll just keep our javascript and flash enabled, we'll just change who we are, alright?"

      And, of course, Firefox answers, "Sure thing, Boss!"

    22. Re:virtual machines by couchslug · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I just use Linux for most of my surfing, but light VMs are very easy to set up and worth doing for the education.

      I like Portable VirtualBox for Windows use because I can make a self-extracting .rar of the complete program with VMs for backup:

      http://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/portable-virtualbox.html

      Grab a light Linux distro like DSL (small download, speedy performance), and install to VM from the .iso:

      http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/

      You can then play with MANY operating systems, and if they screw up, delete their VM. If you have bigger problems, reload by extracting the backup. :)

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    23. Re:virtual machines by sigmoid_balance · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Isn't it better to be more common that to be more unique? Setting the USER-AGENT to something randomly generated will make you unique, but it's it better to "blend in" than to "stand out" ?

    24. Re:virtual machines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could have sworn that he claimed to store a portion of the cookie in the bookmarks, but I guess it was just your browser history.

      I wouldn't put it past him to be working on storing them in the bookmarks though, so I wouldn't be so smug.

    25. Re:virtual machines by gozar · · Score: 1

      I wonder how well that does against https://panopticlick.eff.org/ ...

      --
      What, me worry?
    26. Re:virtual machines by mobets · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think being unique would be fine as long as you are differently unique every time.

      --

      It was me, I did it, I moved your cheese
    27. Re:virtual machines by golf2 · · Score: 1

      I'm all for a sensible amount of anonymity - what are you up to that requires such a setup?!

    28. Re:virtual machines by WoOS · · Score: 1

      Well, switch all your cookies and javascript off and it changes.
      The second time *I* was told there was only one other browser with same fingerprint.

      I guess with cookies/supercookies it simply stores you have been there before in your browser.

    29. Re:virtual machines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is all about having fun with VMs and avoiding malware to me. Privacy isn't the point of it. I don't use tor obscure my IP address in any way, and am logged in to gmail during all of this so it would be quite clear who I was if there was any kind of investigation, but I'm not up to anything that would require that.

      But as far as malware goes, I can get infected all the time and never notice it unless it can infect my bookmarks. I like that. I can enjoy full javascript/flash etc on any web site, and when it comes time to upgrade from a 0-day vulnerable version of chrome/flash to one that is updated, I will always roll back to a virgin unbrowsed state and then upgrade fresh from there. Only extremely sophisticated malware would be able to keep infecting me (it would need to find a hole in the VM software).

      Also I like that my XP VM is firewalled by linux's iptables. No malware will be able to even communicate with the outside world unless it does it through my http proxy which I watch. It isn't as simple as rooting XP and then disabling the XP firewall. I disabled that already myself.

      To each their own I guess. I find it very fun to play around with. Also it should be good experience in case I want a job that requires high security on employee desktops. Google got owned by an adobe exploit for example. This stuff can get pretty serious.

    30. Re:virtual machines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GP link omits the default &js=yes parameter, so it disables javascript which means a lot of the tests group in the 25% that try the test without javascript.

  6. One hopes... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I hope that this "Nevercookie" addresses the issues raised by "Evercookie" in a systematic way, rather than just defeating Evercookie point-by-point.

    Evercookie's creator explicitly noted that his work was a simple proof of concept, cooked up fairly quickly, as a way of raising the issue of covert persistent data storage on the web. He further noted that people who actually do evil for a living are probably at least as creative as he is, and have a whole lot more time to work on the problem. Simply defeating Evercookie, as released, will probably save you from a few of whatever the analytics world's equivalent of a script-kiddie is; but will do next to nothing against the issues that Evercookie was designed merely to demonstrate...

    1. Re:One hopes... by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Like most common cold "remedies" it's a treatment for the symptom, not the disease.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    2. Re:One hopes... by PRMan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're right, we should kill all marketers... ;-)

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    3. Re:One hopes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      https://panopticlick.eff.org/ still would need to be addressed.

    4. Re:One hopes... by gabbott · · Score: 2, Informative

      Check out how it works here: http://www.anonymizer.com/learningcenter/#lc_labs I used nevercookie as sort of a fitness test, but it wasn't designed to only defeat evercookie, it was designed to address the larger problem of tracking via all kinds of local storage mechanisms.

  7. Cross-browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A cross-browser, multi-platform, open source tool is BleachBit to delete evecookies, but for Firefox, this looks like

  8. Obligatory PDP joke by schmidt349 · · Score: 1

    Please, just one cookie, I promise I'll go away!

  9. Are Chrome Users Still Defenceless? by turkeyfish · · Score: 1

    What about Chrome? Why are its users still without a defense? Is this company policy?

    I may have to switch back to Firefox. I'm getting crushed by spam using Chrome.

    1. Re:Are Chrome Users Still Defenceless? by bberens · · Score: 1

      I'm honestly curious what you mean by this. What kind of spam are you experiencing? I pretty much only use Chrome these days and haven't noticed anything.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    2. Re:Are Chrome Users Still Defenceless? by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can't stand browsing without Noscript, and there is no equivalent for Chrome. That's pretty much it for me.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    3. Re:Are Chrome Users Still Defenceless? by eln · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Chrome is made by Google, which is essentially a data mining company. Why would you expect them to have any desire to help their users eliminate these sorts of tracking cookies?

    4. Re:Are Chrome Users Still Defenceless? by jgagnon · · Score: 2, Informative
      --
      Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
    5. Re:Are Chrome Users Still Defenceless? by Nimey · · Score: 0

      You can tell Chrome to never execute Javascript, then it will pop up a clickable icon at the right end of the address bar allowing you to run JS on a site that uses it.

      It's not a complete equivalent, but it'll do in a pinch.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    6. Re:Are Chrome Users Still Defenceless? by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Why would google need a tracking cookie? They've already got you using their browser. They could just hardware any tracking they want directly into the browser.

    7. Re:Are Chrome Users Still Defenceless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Well, depends on what you mean by 'defense'.

      Private browsing has issues (see: http://blogs.pcmag.com/securitywatch/2010/08/university_study_finds_problem.php), so evercookie isn't really needed to track non-geeks.

      Personally I skip the whole thing and run an instance of my browser of choice (chrome) in an chroot-jailed sandbox when I need a private browsing. After I finish browsing I wipe the sandbox clean and that is that. The only thing I really use incognito mode for is when I need to be logged in on two accounts from the same provider at the same time.

      For anyone who's interested on how to set it up:
      http://www.howtoforge.com/safe_mirror_unionfs_chroot details the basic technique, though I use aufs2 because I've modified it to run without a separate user and unionfs doesn't unmount properly in that situation.

    8. Re:Are Chrome Users Still Defenceless? by bberens · · Score: 1

      If it helps, I use Adblock and Flashblock extensions in Chrome and almost never see any ads at all. I used to use noscript on FF but haven't (yet) found the need to disable javascript on Chrome.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
  10. Just use a tiny, liveCD & no HDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just use a tiny, liveCD & no HDD. Don't hook up a HDD at all.

    MAC addresses don't go over the internet due to networking, just javascript can do that, so disable it by default and only enable it for the 5 sites you actually support.

  11. Different than "Supercookies"? by PPCAvenger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    From the end of the article, " Specifically, Nevercookie prevents abuse to both the Adobe Flash Local Storage Object (LSO) and Microsoft's Silverlight Isolated Storage (MIS)." "

      Doesn't BetterPrivacy already eliminate LSOs and other stored data?

      I don't have Silverlight so I don't know if it eliminates that data but unless these "Evercookies" are somehow different than "Supercookies" you can eliminate this issue right now.

    1. Re:Different than "Supercookies"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're different and worse. If I recall correctly, evercookies utilize 7 different techniques to store cookies...
          - traditional
          - LSO
          - MIS (there's your better privacy)
          - HTML 5 local storage
          - CSS: visited "feature"/bug

      That's...all the ones I recall off the top of my head. Not bad for an AC though. I just remember I knew of two techniques that he didn't use which I'm not posting here. Because some of us do make a living off of cookies.

      Captcha: munition. That's what this is about. The browser and W3C could fix this, but they've no incentive. All it'd take is a simple standard for browser plugins and their API. Never gonna happen though.

  12. Re:Islam - the religion of peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    You idiot! You're not allowed to tell the truth about Islam in public! Terrorist sympathisers will mod you down to oblivion!

  13. Cookies! on a Browser! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sick of these motherfucking cookies on this motherfucking browser

    1. Re:Cookies! on a Browser! by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      Yo dawg, I herd you like cookies, so I put a nevercookie in your browser so you can eat cookies while it eats cookies.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
  14. Re:NeverEndingCookie! by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    Obligatory:

    Click Around - Look at what you see ...
    On the Web - spammers, you and me. ...
    Underneath the good sites, lies a host of sites unbound
    by the rules of ethics, making hell all around!

    They track you with the
    Never-Ending Cookieeeeeeeee

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  15. duke by skywatcher2501 · · Score: 1

    wait wait, vaporware.. never.. associations coming in.. DukeNukemForNever!!!

  16. duke by skywatcher2501 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    hmm vaporware.. never ever.. associations coming in.. DukeNukemForNever!!

  17. His location attack... by metrix007 · · Score: 1

    Was not XSS, but based on insecure session ID generation. http://samy.pl/phpwn

    --
    If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
  18. Nevercookie will never show. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Folks,

    I think we'll see Duke Nukem Forever and the Bitboys Oy's "Glaze3d" video card before we'll ever see this "Nevercookie".

  19. Re:Nice try... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice try, Steven R. Williamson of 1228 Red Oak Lane, Springfield, Illinois, with bike lock combination 4321.

    *rapidly immerses hard drive in vat of corrosive acid*

  20. hey guys by gabbott · · Score: 5, Informative

    My name is Geoff and I created "nevercookie". I'm a researcher at Anonymizer. I can assure you all that it is not vaporware, it works and has been pretty thoroughly tested, it's just that marketing wants to brand it and make it all slick before we release it to the general public (which should be in a week or two). I've sent out a few beta versions for friends in the security field to test out, and I might be able to send out a few more if anyone is interested in field testing it early (I'll ask my boss). To address concerns about how it works, it's pretty simple actually. When private browsing mode in firefox is initiated, the external data storage of Flash and Silverlight is quarantined (this is done because the browser normally can't touch these things cause they are browser independent, this is the most obvious place that an evercookie can respawn from (unless you clean it manually)). Then a clean, temporary user profile is spawned for the current browsing session, eliminating any lingering cached data. There's actually a decent explanation here: http://www.anonymizer.com/learningcenter/#lc_labs

  21. Re:Islam - the religion of peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How was this offtopic troll-feeding modded UP?

  22. Who are the web sites by Stan92057 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Who are the web sites that use theses cookies? why do they remain unnamed? I think that knowledge is just as important as making blocking software.

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
  23. Don't forget about computers sharing our IP ad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think that most of us who hold an active pro-privacy position regarding browser-based-tracking are ignoring one very fatal giveaway to our privacy -- our families' computers that are also sharing our internet connection. We geeks may delete all OUR cookies, LSOs, enable NoScript, adblock Plus, etc., on OUR computers, but when your wife (the one that thinks NoScript/flashblock is too much trouble) goes broadcasting your IP on facebook while you are surfing Slashporn^Wwikipedia, then you delete your cookies, while she doesn't. A week later, your modem has a new IP, you have a clean browser, your wife has the same unclean brwoser from last week. Now, if any one of the sites (say a large unnamed advertising agency that was showing ads on both websites) that you two visited are sharing IP and browser info, they can link her computer through time due to the browser's history/cookies/LSO/etc and then link your computer to her's due to the shared internet connection, and presto... they will be able to uniquely identify your computer-now from your computer-one-week-ago.

  24. Oblig. Plug by 0xG · · Score: 1

    I don't have this problem because I use Adblock Plus!

    --
    A pox on web designers who feel that window.innerWidth == screen.availWidth
  25. javascrip. by leuk_he · · Score: 1

    Yes i use the firefox Noscript to only run javascript from trusted sources. I was not aware that the link needed that extension.

    Because i am paranoid enough to disable javascript (and disbaleing javascript is also effective against a lot of evercookie stuff)

    PS PLease note that if you run the link multiple times you might seem to get less unique, because your setup is detected twice that way.