Nicolas

Projet de vie en #permaculture dans le Sud Ouest

  • Panopticlick
    https://panopticlick.eff.org

    Is your browser configuration rare or unique? If so, web sites may be able to track you, even if you limit or disable cookies.

    Résultat pour moi :

    Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 4,103,324 tested so far.

    Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys at least 21.97 bits of identifying information.

    #navigateur #vie_privée #tracking

    • Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 4,103,438 tested so far.

      Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys at least 21.97 bits of identifying information.

      Ça parait donc tout à fait standard : )

    • We identified only three groups of browser with comparatively good resistance to fingerprinting: those that block JavaScript, those that use TorButton, and certain types of smartphone. It is possible that other such categories exist in our data. Cloned machines behind rewalls are fairly resistant to our algorithm, but would not be resistant to fingerprints that measure clock skew or other hardware characteristics.

      https://panopticlick.eff.org/browser-uniqueness.pdf

    • Idem.

      Vu tout ce qu’il teste (tous les plug-ins avec leurs numéros de version et de sous-version), c’est un peu normal. Avec ça, il n’y aurait que 2 machines ayant la même configuration que moi parmi les 4M testées.

      En ne prenant que ma config (MacOS, Safari, etc.), ça monterait à 56 machines.

      Testé sur un portable PC, ma config (plug-ins) est unique, mon user-agent (hors plug-ins), beaucoup moins : un peu moins de 1200 machines similaires.

      Impressionnant ! il suffit donc d’avoir un site attractif et d’enregistrer tout le monde… Ou plusieurs en variant les domaines d’intérêt.

      #surveillance

      In this sample of privacy-conscious users, 83.6% of the browsers seen had an instantaneously unique fingerprint, and a further 5.3% had an anonymity
      set of size 2. Among visiting browsers that had either Adobe Flash or a Java Virtual Machine enabled, 94.2% exhibited instantaneously unique fingerprints and a further 4.8% had fingerprints that were seen exactly twice. Only 1.0% of browsers with Flash or Java had anonymity sets larger than two.

      Encore plus impressionnant : le changement rapide de ces infos identifiantes (succession des versions) n’empêche pas l’identifiabilité

      Unfortunately, we found that a simple algorithm was able to guess and follow many of these fingerprints changes. If asked about all newly appearing fingerprints in the dataset, the algorithm was able to correctly pick a “progenitor” fingerprint in 99.1% of cases, with a false positive rate of only 0.87%.

    • Ah la vache, les polices de caractères du système semblent un élément déterminant du fingerprinting... Si t’aime la typographie... beware !

      Chez moi, j’ai :

      Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 4,104,460 tested so far.

      Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys at least 21.97 bits of identifying information.

    • même avec #tor_browser je suis assez bien fliqué… mais visiblement c’est la variable ci-dessous qui m’identifie le plus, or elle change dès qu’on resize le navigateur :

      Screen Size and Color Depth        22.29+ bits