News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Et Tu, Procter and Gamble? by CyberRabbi on Saturday April 10, 2021 @01:33PM (#26763278)
They cannot block IP address, screen res, battery level, time zone, just to name a few.
Re:Et Tu, Procter and Gamble? by tinus_hn on Saturday April 10, 2021 @03:25PM (#26764271)
Apple can bin battery level so it doesn’t contribute to fingerprinting, IP addresses are dynamic and shared and screen resolution and time zone are shared by millions of others.

Why would tracking companies be grasping for straws like boot up time if these other obvious things are so effective and impossible to block?

Re:Et Tu, Procter and Gamble? by CyberRabbi on Saturday April 10, 2021 @04:32PM (#26764883)
Those are just a few examples, the surface area is obviously massive (100s if not 1000s). We both know that. The reality is that iOS was not designed with this attack vector in mind. Here is yet another one I just randomly thought up “install date of app” https://stackoverflow.com/questions/39255403/get-date-of-whe... now imagine what a dedicated developer could design.
Re:Et Tu, Procter and Gamble? by tinus_hn on Saturday April 10, 2021 @04:40PM (#26764947)
Sorry, it’s not difficult or forbidden to remember user identity in your own app. It’s about sharing that identity between apps.

And by the way, there is absolutely nothing stopping Apple from reporting your app was installed on January 1st, 1970.

Re:Et Tu, Procter and Gamble? by CyberRabbi on Saturday April 10, 2021 @05:45PM (#26765424)
> And by the way, there is absolutely nothing stopping Apple from reporting your app was installed on January 1st, 1970.

I doubt Apple would do that but I think you are very much missing the point. These one-off patches are not effective at scale, there are literally 100s if not 1000s of information leaks of this type that indeed are observable across multiple apps. App install date was just one that I pulled from thin air that required no thought. A dedicated engineer could easily solve this problem.