Slashdot Mirror
How Identifiable Are You On the Web?
An anonymous reader writes How identifiable are you on the web? This updated browser fingerprinting tool implements the current state of the art in browser fingerprinting techniques(including canvas fingerprinting) to show you how unique your browser is on the web.
Good food for thought when three-letter agencies talk about "mere metadata."
I haven't seen a /. effect for a long time.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Always have been, and always will, for as long as light echos through space and time. But nobody really cares who I am. They know who I am, nevertheless.
I am the walrus.
User agent 0.95% "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/39.0.2171.71 Safari/537.36"
Google serves my computer ads for mens watches, it serves my wifes computer, on the same NAT, (the same PC, same screen resolution) ads for shoes. Both have cookies blocked and flash is disabled by default. Mine also blocks lots of google sites, yet I have yet to find a way to block doubleclick. Our browsers are both set to tell sites to "do no track". Neither of us uses Google for search these days, switching to Duck Duck Go.
So the fingerprinting is enough for Google to send us personalized adverts.
Now if someone can tell me the full list of domains I need to block to prevent DoubleClick (also from Google) from serving ads, I'd appreciate it.
First, the simplest of script blockers completely prevented the home page from loading at all.
Second, when I allowed the site in my script blocker, it was slow as hell to load.
But Third, and more to the point: EFF's Panopticlick has been around for a long time now, and it's far better.
Below are the results I got. Really? So I'm the only person who speaks English, running Chrome on Windows 7, in the Central time zone? If that's enough to identify me, then I'm feeling pretty exposed.
Google, on the other hand, can probably tell me my life history, with all the data they have on me.
Yes! (You can be tracked!)
34.59 % of observed browsers are Chrome, as yours.
22.54 % of observed browsers are Chrome 39.0, as yours.
58.71 % of observed browsers run Windows, as yours.
40.04 % of observed browsers run Windows 7, as yours.
26.96 % of observed browsers have set "en"as their primary language, as yours.
1.09 % of observed browsers have UTC-6 as their timezone, as yours.
You have the only browser out of 11099 with this fingerprint.
"Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 4,789,097 tested so far.
Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys at least 22.19 bits of identifying information."
The next step after being able to block the reporting of tracking data is spoofing it.
... of course they know who you are. You need an IP to send and receive information, just the nature of making a connection leaves a trail all by itself. Next it's not that hard to develop mathematical techniques to analyze text and language in posts since they can analyze that most people have limited memory and interest by nature of them being finite beings and can simply build profiles by simply combining all the little tiny bits of different info into some unique ID if they wanted to.
The nature of our technology has augmented our ability to see and detect so much it's increasingly difficult to hide anymore. I shudder to think how small cameras are becoming and how they will be all pervasive where it matters. We're basically moving into a "tripwire" society where hidden and not so hidden automated track wherever you go what you do and all that data can be stored, analyzed, etc.
HTH
Without JS it can't even check if cookies are enabled, do not track flag is set, AdBlock is used. Not very impressive
Standard Mozilla behaviour last time this question came up is to include a list of fonts that your browser can display; I don't know whether other browsers do the same, or if they've changed it, but it's the kind of "feature" that hopelessly breaks your chances of non-uniqueness if you've ever installed fonts.
My work laptop has a font that's the Official Corporate-Branded font for $DAYJOB's corporate logo. Almost every Windows machine at my company has that (at least, every physical machine and the virtual machines running on the hosted virtual desktop cloud; there may be some lab machines that don't, and maybe some contractors, etc.) You might work for a smaller company that does the same. In my case, I've installed all sorts of other random fonts, either to see what they looked like, or simply because back in the 80s of course you wanted Elvish and Dwarvish fonts on your computer, or because I wanted a better monospaced programming font than the default MS one or Courier New.
Lots of other things leak information as well (cookies, etc.), but fonts are a quick and dirty way around identifying people who block those.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Their sample size is 11-thousand. According to my results, 1-in-6 computers are running Linux!
This is absurd, unscientific to the extreme, fear-mongering.
In your example, based only on the statistics you provided, there were 11099x0.0109 or 120 people in the central time zone *in their sample*, which is the sample size of UTC-6 users.
Their data is useless.
In comparison, https://panopticlick.eff.org/i... has almost 5-million in their database. This is somewhat more helpful.
"You have the only browser out of 11325 with this fingerprint."
According to that site "[I] Can Be Tracked!" because my fingerprint is the same as 11,775 others. That number seems to be generated only by people visiting the site meaning the pool would most likely be larger.
Obviously Browser Fingerprinting is a real thing, but that site seems to be geared toward hyperbole than actually educating.
What do you know I wrote a novel
GIven most of the data is what's reported by a browser, why don't browsers filter the data?
Especially if "Do Not Track" is set to on - why don't they limit the data to send back?
Fonts - Microsoft released 6 fonts for the web over a decade ago - just report those 6 across all platforms and maybe a few standard system ones (you can get this from the User-Agent anyways). Make it whitelist of fonts.
Sure, some data is gathered through plugins, but I thought many are now click-to-run so you can't get that data unless you specifically run those plugins.
Is there a reason why browsers like Firefox return everything?
https://panopticlick.eff.org/ says my browser alone provides 15.87 bits of identifying information, but my browser is rather mainstream (Safari 8.0.2). The site says my total browser fingerprint conveys "at least 22.19 bits", but the vast majority (15.87 bits) came from Safari 8.0.2. The likely reason Safari is said to provide so much discrimination is that https://panopticlick.eff.org/ has been tallying web browsers for years but Safari 8.0.2 was an update provided just a few days ago. In the scheme of things, Safari 8.0.2 isn't nearly so unique and will appear more mainstream over time, before being phased out by the next Safari update. I would suggest panopticlick needs to programmed to use an (approximate) distribution of browser versions for the current date.
Metadata completely recognizes a user. It's better than this thing.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Somebody took that link out back and fed it a fist full of Valium. It's not dead, but it's comatose.
I have the same nick/password on several sites. Including, but not limited to, /., soylentnews, fark, ultimate-guitar, ars-technica, a couple dating sites, a gay dating site, a site dedicated to midget transvestites, and petitions.whitehouse.gov. Feel free to track me.
Dang, I should change the latter. Some of the petitions I sign could be embarrassing.
That said, I assume the original article meant something more subtle. I wouldn't know, the link is dead to me.
It's not using WebGL which has tons of device dependent data and on Chrome even has which GPU / Driver you're using
They've got me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XBase
I just tried https://panopticlick.eff.org on my iPad and Windows PCs. The Windows PC was uniquely identifiable with Firefox or IE but the iPad came out as 1 in 24 million. Looks like there is an advantage to Apple's locked down standardised platform.
Yes, like many, my result was "Unique". I noticed that one item being measured was browser resolution. Since I was running my browser at less than full screen and the exact window size is a low entropy parameter, I decided to try again after maximizing my browser window. As expected, the result was a lower uniqueness score. That led me to wonder if some technique like modifying the exact size of the browser window by a few pixels each time it's refreshed might help somewhat to hide from these evil trackers. Perhaps modifying other parameters like which extensions are enabled or what fonts are installed on each refresh might confuse them even more.
... or something equivalent like disabled scripting.
It does give usefull feedback at least. :)
if you are a firefox user you can install this addon to fake the info collected
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/blender-1/
Why does it share any meta data at all.
As others have noted, the EFF Panopticlick is the better service.
I just spent far too much time playing around with this, on an extended lunch break. I note the following things:
- You had better disable explicit tracking services (Ghostery), or it all doesn't matter anyway.
- Fonts are a big factor. Fonts are identified through Flash. There is a configuration file "mms.cfg" that can disable this. The location of this file depends on your operating system and on your browser - it took me a good half-hour to find it for my particular configuration.
- However, even after disabling fonts, and even using a "user-agent switcher" to look like a Windows/Chrome combination (instead of Linux/Chrome), I was still uniquely identifiable. The biggest factor were my language preferences, the list of plugins, and the precise browser version. Refusing to report system fonts was also pretty important :-/
In short, there's not much way around it - if you include other information available, like your IP address, you will be uniquely identifiable, and trackable across websites.
What is missing from this picture: Browsers provide an "incognito" mode. This mode needs to be extended to provide only absolutely essential information to the server. The server needs to know roughly what level of standards support you have (e.g., "Mozilla/5.0"), and what language to send content in (one language, not a list with weights). Everything else could be omitted, and virtually all websites would work perfectly.
Go a step farther and disable JavaScript in incognito mode, to prevent explicit sniffing. That will disable more websites, but if those sites start losing traffic, they'll offer versions that don't require JS.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
I AM SPARTACUS!
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Native browser methods allow detection of adblock. ClarityRay does that. It nullifies AdBlock (and adblock's done a great job at that itself being paid off to NOT DO ITS JOB by default in fact, by advertisers).
A better option? Right here (custom hosts files you have total easy control over vs. regex work or dns rules tables etc. locally) -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
APK
P.S.=> Hosts work and do TONS of things that adblock never could for more speed, security, reliability, & more vs. more types of threats online by far... apk
"You have the only browser out of 19771 with this fingerprint."
APK
P.S.=> User agent 0.1% "Opera/9.80 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64) Presto/2.12.388 Version/12.17
Accept 0.92% "text/html, application/xml;q=0.9, application/xhtml+xml, image/png, image/webp, image/jpeg, image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, */*;q=0.1"
Connection 17.51% "close"
Content encoding 61.80% "gzip, deflate"
Content language 0.19% "en-US,en;q=0.9"
List of plugins 10.83% "no JS"
Platform 10.83% "no JS"
Cookies enabled 10.83% "no JS"
Do Not Track 10.83% "no JS"
Timezone 10.83% "no JS"
Screen resolution 10.83% "no JS"
Use of local storage 10.83% "no JS"
Use of session storage 10.83% "no JS"
Canvas 10.83% "no JS"
WebGL 10.83% "no JS"
List of fonts 10.83% "no JS"
Screen resolution 10.83% "no JS"
Language 10.83% "no JS"
Platform 10.83% "no JS"
Use of AdBlock 10.83% "no JS"
(NOTE: Especially the LAST ONE, since native browser methods allow detection of plugins like "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" (crippled by default as it is NOT doing its job since it sold out to advertisers & horribly inefficient on RAM + CPU) - So, in lieu of that? Well, I opted to create my OWN solution using something you already have natively built into the IP stack itself, in custom hosts files, that does more by far & far more efficiently for users for added speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity online -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... & it works, better than ANY other *SINGLE* solution by itself, bar-none... )
... apk
A FREE hosts program adds speed, security, & reliability, doing more, more efficiently vs. addons + fixes DNS' redirect security issues:
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?o...
---
A.) Hosts do more than:
1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... )
2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects e.g. /. beta).
C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less "moving parts" complexity
D.) Hosts files yield more:
1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs DGA, & Fastflux + dynDNS botnets)
4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).
---
* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).
* Addons = more complex + slow browsers in messagepassing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray's destroying Adblock.
* Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption + excessive cpu use too (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)
Instead, work w/ a more capable native kernelmode part you already have - hosts (An integrated part of the ip stack)
APK
P.S.=> "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"
...apk
Can adblock or ghostery do 15 things hosts files can for more speed, security, & reliability:
1.) Secure you vs. known malicious sites/servers (beyond malicious adbanners - see 2 thru 6 below next)
2.) Secure you vs. downed DNS servers aiding reliability
3.) Secure you vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns servers
4.) Protect you vs. fastflux using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
5.) Protect you vs. dynamic dns using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
6.) Protect you vs. domain generation algorithm using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
7.) Speed you up for websurfing not only by adblocking but also hardcoding favorite sites
8.) Get you past a dnsbl you may not agree with
9.) Keep you off dns request logs
10.) Do all of those things and block ads (better than adblock) more efficiently in cpu cycles and memory usage
11.) Work on ANY webbound application (think stand-alone email programs, for example).
12.) Give you direct, easily notepad/texteditor controlled data for all of the above
13.) Block out trackers
14.) Block spam mails sources
15.) Block phishing mails sources
"?"
* Simple YES or NO answers will do for repliers to this - that's all.
APK
P.S.=> The ANSWER ="NO" to each enumerated item above as far as "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" (crippled by default & 'souled-out' defeating it's very base purpose) is concerned -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
So, *IF* you feel like doing things LESS efficiently as well -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... ontop of doing less than hosts do (by far) with more complexity + from a slower mode of operations (usermode with more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode, also starting up w/ the IP stack itself, before REDUNDANT inefficient addons even BEGIN to operate, & as the 1st resolver queried by the OS as well)?
That's illogical: I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make them drink!
... apk/b
Turns out I'm only one in 22,473. Maybe if I switch to Firefox I can once again be 1 in a million...
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
First, the flippant comment:
I find it astonishing that in this day and age when apparently they can track everything I do, want, and own online without my permission, my ATM still asks me WHAT LANGUAGE I want to use? Seriously? After I've answered that once, it's done. I'm not changing my native language guys. Offering it subsequently is doing a favor only for the foreign-language dude that steals my card.
Second, the serious one:
a) the site itself is fairly vague and misleading:
"Yes! (You can be tracked!)
36.34 % of observed browsers are Chrome, as yours.
27.11 % of observed browsers are Chrome 39.0, as yours.
55.61 % of observed browsers run Windows, as yours.
39.77 % of observed browsers run Windows 7, as yours.
59.03 % of observed browsers have set "en"as their primary language, as yours.
5.51 % of observed browsers have UTC-6 as their timezone, as yours.
You have the only browser out of 24041 with this fingerprint."
I call bullshit on that. You're telling me I'm the only english-language individual running chrome on windows 7 in the UTC-6 timezone? Absolute nonsense.
b) when you pull the 'more details" then it starts to get more plausible, where the specific list of addons I use is rather unique, but they go down to asserting that my browser is 'identifiable' due to WebGL output - really, are vendors doing this to fingerprint my browser (as is implied) or is this more of a forensic "if I was stupid enough to send a ransom note from my browser, the FBI could eventually confirm that it came from my machine if they had physical possession of it and some weeks"?
That's two different contexts of "unique", surely?
-Styopa
See subject-line: *IF* you MUST use a proxy? That allows for hosts...
As far as new entries for hosts for sites that are either ads or known bad in some form? The security community provides them as they are VERIFIED bad (not just speculation), & I provide the automation for the rest -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...
* Hosts SPEED UP the system by:
Blocking out malware/malscripted sites.
Blocking out Known sites-servers/hosts-domains that are known to serve up malware (especially "fastflux" types, the predominant design that uses host-domain names vs. IP addresses (far easier to 'kill' in the latter is why)).
Blocking out Bogus DNS servers malware makers use (via fastflux + rogue DNS servers).
Blocking out Botnet C&C servers.
Blocking out Bogus adbanners that are full of malicious script content for security, & regular ones for more bandwidth.
Blocking out known PHISHERS.
Blocking out TRACKERS.
Blocking out SPAMMERS.
Getting you back speed/bandwidth you paid for by blocking out adbanners + hardcoding in your favorite sites (faster than remote DNS server resolution).
Added reliability AND SPEED via hardcoded favorite sites (vs. downed or misdirect/poisoned DNS servers - since most are NOT patched vs. the Kaminsky flaw).
Custom hosts files work on ANY & ALL webbound apps (browser plugins do not).
Custom hosts files offer a better, faster, more efficient way, & safer way to surf the web & are COMPLETELY controlled by the end-user of them.
APK
P.S.=> And, "There ya go" - Hosts do FAR MORE for added speed, security, & reliability than adblock or ghostery (even local DNS) for less RAM + CPU used & from a faster level of operations in kernelmode (vs. layering on more messagepassing overheads into an already SLOWER usermode browser) -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... & you're welcome to *TRY* to disprove those points (good luck, you'll need a miracle)... apk
That hosts can for more speed, security, reliability, & more:
1.) Secure you vs. known malicious sites/servers (beyond malicious adbanners - see 2 thru 6 below next)
2.) Secure you vs. downed DNS servers aiding reliability
3.) Secure you vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns servers
4.) Protect you vs. fastflux using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
5.) Protect you vs. dynamic dns using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
6.) Protect you vs. domain generation algorithm using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
7.) Speed you up for websurfing not only by adblocking but also hardcoding favorite sites
8.) Get you past a dnsbl you may not agree with
9.) Keep you off dns request logs
10.) Do all of those things and block ads (better than adblock) more efficiently in cpu cycles and memory usage
11.) Work on ANY webbound application (think stand-alone email programs, for example).
12.) Give you direct, easily notepad/texteditor controlled data for all of the above
13.) Block out trackers
14.) Block spam mails sources
15.) Block phishing mails sources
"?"
* Simple YES or NO answers will do for repliers to this - that's all.
APK
P.S.=> The ANSWER ="NO" to each enumerated item above as far as "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" (crippled by default & 'souled-out' defeating it's very base purpose) is concerned -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
So, *IF* you feel like doing things LESS efficiently as well -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... ontop of doing less than hosts do (by far) with more complexity + from a slower mode of operations (usermode with more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode, also starting up w/ the IP stack itself, before REDUNDANT inefficient addons even BEGIN to operate, & as the 1st resolver queried by the OS as well)?
That's illogical: I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make them drink!
... apk
"YOU WOULD HAVE TO WHITELIST TO ACCESS THEM @ ALL (you're talking a practically never ending battle there))."
For the love of Pete, did you not read my original post?
For casual exceptions to the whitelist you use a free filtering proxy. My example was Startpage.com/ix-quick. You don't need to update your whitelist except for sites that you have an ongoing relationship with.
Once again, I *do* this. It's mostly a set-and-forget. And the great thing about it is that if some new tracker/adfarm thing comes along I don't have to do anything about it - it's already filtered.
A.
...bringing you cynical quips since 1998
I already ranted about fonts, but amiunique decided that my browser version (the one supported my the IT department at work) and time zone (UTF-8) and language (en-US) were enough to get uniqueness. Apparently everybody on the West Coast are running newer browsers :-)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Sorry, not chasing your moving goalposts. Use the solution that works for you - I do.
A.
...bringing you cynical quips since 1998
Yup, that's the right thing to do.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
But,
Are you unique?
Yes! (You can be tracked!)
47.07 % of observed browsers are Firefox, as yours.
3.74 % of observed browsers are Firefox 31.0, as yours.
19.73 % of observed browsers run Linux, as yours.
62.02 % of observed browsers have set "en"as their primary language, as yours.
15.47 % of observed browsers have UTC-5 as their timezone, as yours.
You have the only browser out of 26601 with this fingerprint.
Okay. Now what? Also 26601 "browsers" doesn't sound like a lot when you're talking about potential billions. Not a big sample. But what do you do now? I have my browser set to remember nothing, so you can't really track cookies across sites well or whatever.
I created APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o... to do the MOST comprehensive job possible (populating my custom hosts file from 12 reputable & reliable sources in the security community for that data) vs. botnets, malicious script housing sites, servers serving up malware, ad banner blocking (to get my speed/bandwidth I paid for back & to protect myself vs. maliciously scripted ads, trackers, phish/spam payloads, of which since 2004 there have been TONS), etc. - et al.
To stop IP Address based attacks & tracking etc. (vs. domain-subdomain names that hosts uses, by far the most used vs. ip addresses due to fastflux &/or dynamic DNS using botnets, which use host-domain names to skirt by firewalls by changing IP addresses on domain/host names)?
I did a firewall ruleset for Windows -> hhttp://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5117369&cid=46916145 to shear away trackers & such that you DON'T see (like you do ads for instance).
* It works... evidently, SO WELL, that someone couldn't disprove my points validly in this exchange & downmodded this same post, both here http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... AND HERE too http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... which says WORLDS on the validly & strength of this post (as well as hosts combined with firewalls).
APK
P.S.=> I use another tool by NIRSOFT to monitor these things: Network Latency Viewer, which does the same thing (it was useful for populating that firewall rules list in the 2nd link above). In the end - Good choices on your part by-the-by, & "Great Minds Think Alike"... apk
I countered your points validly, point-by-point, here http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... that's not "moving goalposts" as you accused me of falsely either - it's scoring SO WELL on MY end, you can't compete.
My point on PRIVOXY (which can use hosts with itself & is a proxy) surprise you here http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... ?
Don't let it: I've taken on 1000's on hosts vs. browser addons, DNS, etc. & I've never, EVER, been caught "short-handed" being unable to show weaknesses in them vs. hosts + firewalls (using what you already have that works with less moving parts complexity added on, & less resources consumed too).
LASTLY: Downmodding my posts MINUS VALID JUSTIFICATIONS (like proving me wrong) isn't helping your case here http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... or herehttp://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=6395793&cid=48601443 and here http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... AND HERE TOO http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... either (& don't even *TRY* tell me "it can't be done" - it's easy to do with multiple registered account sockpuppets here on /. especially - goes on like mad here).
APK
P.S.=> However - I'll agree, to each his own (my "own" just happens to be more efficient & does more for you, WITH LESS resources consumed, no less - using what you already have natively, with less chance for breakdown/exploit, & complexity)... apk
On a Ubuntu 14.04 install, Chrome's most unique component was WebGL. On a Macbook Pro (Mavericks), it was the list of plugins, followed by the font list. For both, the Canvas was shared with less than 1%
Curiously, Do Not Track is reported as "yes" for Ubuntu, but "1" for Safari.
Seems to be up, finally.
... 7 different versions of browsers on my system, they would not know they were the same person on the same computer. (And I have 3 other computers plus a couple of tablets.)
Of course I am unique from their sample, I used an unreleased test version of a browser - I had to be unique. However, that version of tracking is useless as I have
Does that mean I am, what, 40 different people according to them?
See Comment Subject.
But most of my "uniqueness" seems to be about the fact that I'm a Mac user, using Safari. They also extracted a lot of fonts. What I wonder is, how useful is this information if I'm blocking ads and trackers, tossing cookies regularly, and using a VPN? To whom would it be useful?
(I'm not being rhetorical)
-- sudon't
Air-ride Equipped
Maybe not, this site claims I'm one in 33K, while Panopticon marks me as one in 5M. Both report the list of plugins as most identifying and the only difference I see in the reported data is that Panopticon also lists all the old Java plugins.
For more speed, security, & reliability if you go thru a proxy or not.
* There IS privoxy though - it is a proxy system that works WITH hosts files (you're using the wrong proxy apparently, forcing you into inferior CRIPPLED BY DEFAULT "solutions" like "AlmostALLAdsBlocked" that can't do 1/15th as much as hosts do for added speed, security, & reliability).
APK
P.S.=> Period (& you KNOW it, as I know it, as does anyone reading, seeing you can't validly prove my points on that much wrong here -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... )... apk
Compared to hosts in a 15++:1 ratio favoring hosts here http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... - all you have to do is show adblock doing more for added speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity to an extent - that's all: FUNNY YOU CAN'T MANAGE THAT, ever... lol!
Vs. IP based threats/trackers, I use (again) what I already have natively, in firewall rules-> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
IP based threats are far less used, but vs. them firewalls which you already have, do work!
(Still, hosts take over MOST of it since host-domain names are more used by "bad guys", & hosts work vs. "fastflux" &/or dynamic dns using botnets, which blow by firewalls by changing IP addresses on host-domain names - hence WHY hosts are even more valuable than firewalls).
I use what I ALREADY NATIVELY HAVBE vs. stupidly "adding on more" that's inefficient as hell, ala adblock eating 100% CPU & 4++gb of RAM -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & crippled by default, sold out to NOT DO ITS JOB-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
* I have put up, you haven't (you still can't prove almostalladsblocked does more than hosts and with less).
APK
P.S.=> Fact: hosts do more with less, no questions asked, & you're inability to prove me wrong here http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... proves that easily... apk
See subject & YOU HAVE NO CONTROL OVER THEM (you said it yourself).
AdBlock can't do as much as hosts can, period http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... or you would've proved my 15++ points in favor of hosts over adblock WRONG by now (& you can't obviously).
In fact, I've PROVEN (with YOUR HELP no less) that Hosts also do MORE with less (far less than 100% CPU use flooring & 4++ gb of RAM used like "almostALLAdsBlocked" -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... ) & hosts aren't SOLD-OUT TO NOT DO THEIR JOB RIGHT (like Adblock) -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
* Unemployable? Chump, I've done things the fool likes of you will *NEVER* manage in this field, so keep working (it's "noble work" you're doing, wageslave: Making others rich while you make peanuts & work 60++ hrs. a week for them to do so, selling your life away, lol!)
APK
P.S.=> My money works for ME, making me more money (I haven't HAD to be anyone's wageslave for years now) - I've run my OWN business , successfully, for nearly a decade now (unlike a wageslave like you, lol)... apk
A FREE hosts program adds speed, security, & reliability, doing more, more efficiently vs. addons + fixes DNS' redirect security issues:
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?o...
---
A.) Hosts do more than:
1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... )
2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects e.g. /. beta).
C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less "moving parts" complexity
D.) Hosts files yield more:
1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs DGA, & Fastflux + dynDNS botnets)
4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).
---
* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).
* Addons = more complex + slow browsers in messagepassing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray's destroying Adblock.
* Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption + excessive cpu use too (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)
Instead, work w/ a more capable native kernelmode part you already have - hosts (An integrated part of the ip stack)
APK
P.S.=> "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"
...apk
Can Ghostery (advertiser owned) do 15 things hosts files can for more speed, security, reliability, & more:
1.) Secure you vs. known malicious sites/servers (beyond malicious adbanners - see 2 thru 6 below next)
2.) Secure you vs. downed DNS servers aiding reliability
3.) Secure you vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns servers
4.) Protect you vs. fastflux using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
5.) Protect you vs. dynamic dns using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
6.) Protect you vs. domain generation algorithm using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
7.) Speed you up for websurfing not only by adblocking but also hardcoding favorite sites
8.) Get you past a dnsbl you may not agree with
9.) Keep you off dns request logs
10.) Do all of those things and block ads (better than adblock) more efficiently in cpu cycles and memory usage
11.) Work on ANY webbound application (think stand-alone email programs, for example).
12.) Give you direct, easily notepad/texteditor controlled data for all of the above
13.) Block out trackers
14.) Block spam mails sources
15.) Block phishing mails sources
"?"
* Simple YES or NO answers will do for repliers to this - that's all.
APK
P.S.=> The ANSWER ="NO" to each enumerated item above as far as Ghostery ('souled-out' defeating it's very base purpose) is concerned -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
So, *IF* you feel like doing less for security, speed, reliability, & even anonymity (ghostery can't touch hosts on all of those) ontop of doing less than hosts do (by far) with more complexity + from a slower mode of operations (usermode with more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode, also starting up w/ the IP stack itself, before REDUNDANT inefficient addons even BEGIN to operate, & as the 1st resolver queried by the OS as well)?
That's illogical: I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make them drink!
... apk
...throws me under the bus.
I can install blendin in an attempt to look generic, but fucking cunt flash makes it all meaningless by telling anyone who asks what my real OS is.
And then there's the fonts, and apparently my timezone. This is the kind of shit that nobody needs to know.