EFF launches browser "fingerprinting" app: panopticlick
in [Freeware]
|
From: UnsteadyKen on 29 Jan 2010 11:30 Wheel said... > Firefox: unique - 191,279 > 17.55 > Iron: unique - 191,755 > 17.55 > IE: unique - 191,828 > 17.55 > Avant: unique - 192,592 > 17.56 > Opera: one in 207 > 7.69 > Chrome: -Unique 203,975 > 17.64 Safari: -Unique 204,135 > 17.64 IE8: -Unique 204,235 > 17.64 SlimBrowser: -Unique 204,313 > 17.64 Off by One: -Unique 68,288 > 16.06 -- Ken O'Meara http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/
From: Slarty on 29 Jan 2010 12:09 On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 16:24:54 -0800, Craig wrote: > I tried out panopticlick <https://panopticlick.eff.org/> and was > presented with: > >> Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 160,945 >> tested so far. >> >> Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that >> conveys at least 17.3 bits of identifying information. >> >> The measurements we used to obtain this result are listed below. You >> can read more about the methodology here, and about some defenses >> against fingerprinting here. >> >> Help us increase our sample size > > fwiw, Firefox presented me with this warning when I clicked on your link "This Connection is Untrusted" etc. I went no further at this time. In which case why should I trust them to assess anything on my PC? Having read the rest of this thread the 'assessment' seems usless at best, very suspicious at worst. Good luck. Cheers, Roy
From: hummingbird on 29 Jan 2010 12:14 On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:53:23 +0000, Wheel wrote : > KristleBawl wrote: > > Wheel expressed an opinion: > >> KristleBawl wrote: > >>> Wheel expressed an opinion: > >> > >>>> Firefox: unique - 191,279 > 17.55 > >>>> Iron: unique - 191,755 > 17.55 > >>>> IE: unique - 191,828 > 17.55 > >>>> Avant: unique - 192,592 > 17.56 > >>>> > >>>> Opera: one in 207 > 7.69 > >>> > >>> Firefox: unique - 193,818 > 17.56 > >>> > >>> Second try (cookies blocked) > >>> > >>> Within our dataset of several hundred thousand visitors, only one in > >>> 97,095 browsers have the same fingerprint as yours. > >>> > >>> Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that > >>> conveys 16.57 bits of identifying information. > >> > >> Looking at the numbers, and its increment rate, 2 x 97,095 = 194,190 > >> This suggests your first was unique and your second is total tested > >> divided by 2. > >> > >> Cookies are always turned off for me, hence, I don't think cookies > >> have a significant effect on the numbers. > > > > Right, I meant cookies were blocked both times, so the site couldn't > > know it was my second time through cookies. > > > > Interesting that I lost a bit, though. ;-) > > I won't disclose my dodgy mathematical methods, but... I predict 15.72 > at 200,000 on your third attempt, assuming your still unique. :) My headers are quite unique, not easily cloned. They are substantially unique. hb -- ·http://groups.google.com/group/alt.comp.freeware/msg/9fa1e38a8800c050 ·http://groups.google.com/group/alt.comp.freeware/msg/35104fe00bdf1ebf "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident" (Arthur Schopenhauer)
From: Dave U. Random on 29 Jan 2010 12:23 Bear Bottoms wrote: >>> I got the exact same thing. Go figure. >>> >>> >> Hrmmm. >> >> Well, twice is coincidence. Thrice... If anyone else tries this, >> please post your results. <https://panopticlick.eff.org/> >> >> tia, > > I tried it again and got this...an additional .01 bits...wonder what > changed since I last tested it a few minutes ago.: One thing should be obvious... you visited the site before. The fact that you connected from the same IP alone could account for the difference. In other words your testing methodology is completely fubar. To even begin to get meaningful results you'd have to connect the exact same machine in the exact same "state", multiple times, from IP addresses in different IP blocks. It's a near impossible task. You could virtualize and take care the "same machine/state" part pretty thoroughly (even that's questionable depending on what they're actually gathering as data), but unless you physically move the machine about you have to proxy. There's no such thing as a totally transparent proxy. They all "color" your surfing in some way. In theory you could use something like a VMWare snapshot and move from hotspot to hotspot, but it's a pretty sure bet that the people who supply the pipe to your library are the same people who supply the coffee shop down the street. Or you'll only have a small number of actual providers to choose from in your area. And even if you live in some metropolis where there's umpteen hundreds of actual providers, they'll *all* geolocate back to your region at the very least. So... unless you have lots of time and gas money, or specific knowledge of precisely what information is being gathered and how it's analyzed, anything posted to this thread regarding perceived anomalies on subsequent visits would seem to be little more than misleading assumptions.
From: za kAT on 29 Jan 2010 12:32
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 14:40:05 GMT, Franklin wrote: >> I tried it again and got this...an additional .01 bits...wonder what >> changed since I last tested it a few minutes ago.: > > You think your browser is indestructible? It wears out a little, every > time you use it. :-) I die a little, every time I read a Bottoms post :( -- zakAT(a)pooh.the.cat |