Re:Googlebot’s JavaScript random() function is deterministic
by nordsieck on Wednesday February 07, 2018 @11:42AM
(#16325715)
IMO, one of the most difficult fingerprinting attacks to defend against is the installed fonts list. I wish incognito mode only made a standardized list of fonts available.
Re:Googlebot’s JavaScript random() function is deterministic
by cpeterso on Wednesday February 07, 2018 @12:36PM
(#16326292)
Firefox is experimenting with a font whitelist as part of upstreaming of Tor features into Firefox trunk. These features are controlled by the privacy.resistFingerprinting pref. resistFingerprinting has some webcompat issues, but Mozilla is considering a subset of the protections for Privacy Browsing mode, similar to Tracking Protection. Here is the work-in-progress bug:
Re:Googlebot’s JavaScript random() function is deterministic
by cosmie on Wednesday February 07, 2018 @12:27PM
(#16326205)
I wonder if the fontSettings section of the Chrome extensions API[1] can be used to defend against that. By randomly and deliberately poisoning that info for when in Incognito mode (or even regular browsing).
Re:Googlebot’s JavaScript random() function is deterministic
by blattimwind on Wednesday February 07, 2018 @01:39PM
(#16326871)
Why does that feature even exist?
Re:Googlebot’s JavaScript random() function is deterministic
by fbdjskajxb on Wednesday February 07, 2018 @02:28PM
(#16327273)
So dessigners can make adjustments depending on what fonts are available.
Re:Googlebot’s JavaScript random() function is deterministic
by blattimwind on Thursday February 08, 2018 @09:28AM
(#16332183)
Is there any website actually using it for that purpose? Usual CI policies would be "actively disinterested" in it.
Re:Googlebot’s JavaScript random() function is deterministic
by aarongolliver on Friday February 09, 2018 @11:12AM
(#16341330)
Any website with a rich text editor would use it.
Going to extreme measures to be untraceable is like wearing a Ghillie suit to the airport.