EFF's Panopticlick 2.0 Launches with Tracker Protection Tests

Re:EFF's Panopticlick 2.0 Launches with Tracker Protection T... by legind on Thursday December 17, 2015 @01:30PM (#10753303)

"For day-to-day use, the best options are to run tools like Privacy Badger or Disconnect that will block some (but unfortunately not all) of the domains that try to perform fingerprinting, and/or to use a tool like NoScript for Firefox, which greatly reduces the amount of data available to fingerprinters."

https://panopticlick.eff.org/about#defend-against

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:EFF's Panopticlick 2.0 Launches with Tracker Protection T... by rocky1138 on Thursday December 17, 2015 @02:08PM (#10753648)

Will blocking them at the HOSTS file level decrease exposure as well? My gut says yes, but I wanted to check.

Also, does this test check for that and/or give points for that?

Here is the HOSTS file I use to block ads: http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.txt

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:EFF's Panopticlick 2.0 Launches with Tracker Protection T... by XzetaU8 on Thursday December 17, 2015 @03:40PM (#10754361)

If you're on Linux i recommend 'Hosts-Update'[1], it's a bash script that generates a Host file from multiple sources:

http://adaway.org/hosts.txt http://hosts-file.net/ad_servers.txt http://malwaredomains.lehigh.edu/files/justdomains http://pgl.yoyo.org/adservers http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/hosts http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.txt http://www.malwaredomainlist.com/hostslist/hosts.txt

[1]: https://github.com/zant95/hosts-update

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:EFF's Panopticlick 2.0 Launches with Tracker Protection T... by legind on Thursday December 17, 2015 @03:45PM (#10754402)

Yes, our test does work for that and various hosts-based blockers are supported (like AdAway for Android, for example). In order for our test to give accurate results, the host-based blocker has to add our simulated trackers to its block list, which some lists may not have done yet.

[ Parent | on HN ]