Browser Fingerprint Test

NotAHappyBunny · #1 05-19-2011

hi

don't know what to make of this but

https://panopticlick.eff.org/

apparently my browser is uniquely identifiable with at least 20.56 bits of identifying information.

GrannyT · #2 05-20-2011

Phew - something else we are going to have to get to grips with?

bali · #3 05-20-2011

now this is make my mental dropped

NotAHappyBunny · #4 05-20-2011

i made a new browser profile and retested, the similarities were slightly less - so it may be worth making a browser profile per-acc if using one machine.

BiN4RY · #5 05-20-2011

This test called a Java applet to complete the test. You can easily make yourself stealthy by blocking all javascripts on the site.

EDIT:

Yep, the web page got stuck on "Please wait..."

NotAHappyBunny · #6 05-20-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by BiN4RY

This test called a Java applet to complete the test. You can easily make yourself stealthy by blocking all javascripts on the site.

will eb and pp sites run without java enabled?

BiN4RY · #7 05-20-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotAHappyBunny

will eb and pp sites run without java enabled?

You can, but the web pages will be broken as heck. Keep in mind that JScripts are made to expand the capabilities of websites as the major goal, not to track you.

NotAHappyBunny · #8 05-21-2011

hi

i re-ran the page with "NOScript" blocking scripts. It gave off a smaller reading minus some fingerprints - plug-in details was not present, tme, screen resolution, font, supercookie test.

ShadyOne · #9 05-21-2011

None of this info is unique enough. Too generic.

GrannyT · #10 05-21-2011

ShadyOne - would the fact that we use different user profiles and different IPs negate any consequence of this?

NotAHappyBunny · #11 05-21-2011

hi
no i did a test - the only way to make the results differ is to create browser profiles in FF and have different settings/plug-in's installed - Personally Im not going to bother - just turn of the Java Applets using the no-script app, they cant even get yr screen size/resolution just browser type

GrannyT · #12 05-21-2011

So, please bear in mind my brain cells work a lot slower than most on this forum, is this a threat or not?

ShadyOne · #13 05-21-2011

Differnt Firefox profiles with different settings would give different information.

But it is still not what I would define a fingerprint as.

GrannyT · #14 05-21-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShadyOne

Differnt Firefox profiles with different settings would give different information.

But it is still not what I would define a fingerprint as.

And so................? (Is it a threat?)

ShadyOne · #15 05-21-2011

My philosophy with stealth is different to this. I am not paranoid

I have followed all the basic stealth steps and started selling, instead of shaking back and forth in the corner of the room chanting eBay backwards.

If I get linked to any accounts then I will take it from there and analyse what I have done. This is easier when you haven't done a thousand things to be safe, especially when doing things that you do not even fully understand. I can afford to do this, I understand that not every seller wants to and would rather do whatever they can.

GrannyT · #16 05-21-2011

Cop out!!!

I wont worry for now

ShadyOne · #17 05-21-2011

^ Well as you can see, I spend more time on the biggest steps within stealth, anyone will tell you that this sort of browser info is Gen and Eric.

Indisputably unique/similar information is what you need to worry about.

NotAHappyBunny · #18 05-21-2011

Hi GT

I am paranoid so I have probably researched to excess. The quicker I get back on eb the better, I am cracking myself & the family up.

The browser test is a experiment - so not many ppl in the world have actually run the test - that's why the results are alarming.

But after further reading - if the Java Applet is allowed to run and all properties are visible it's possible it could be used as a linking case builder for eb or pp. I think they must be really gunning for you for them to perform such a thorough investigation in the suspected linked accounts.

The results paper states (after much technical and to be honest alarming reading) "The least unique desktop browsers often have JavaScript disabled (per-haps via NoScript). " and "NoScript is a useful privacy enhancing technology that seems to reduce fingerprintability."

Hope that helps
ps: sorry for freaking you out

GreenBean · #19 05-21-2011

This info is already known.

You are going into Tin Hat country again IF you start to panic.

Follow the guidelines established by aspkin. Follow them as closely as possible.

Ignore the call of the Dark Side by panicking about java scripts etc.

NotAHappyBunny · #20 05-21-2011

I know - the sooner im back up the better - im just driving myself mad imagining eb and pp being as smart as the FBI

GreenBean · #21 05-21-2011

There's one BIG thing in your favour, bunny. aspkin is cleverer than ebay/paypal.

Try not to forget the hours & hours of research he has put into this forum. Stuff happens, we post about it, We find a work around. aspkin leads the charge

I think it is good you post your concerns. After all we needs all learn.

When we learn, we beat ebay

**aspkin** · #22 05-21-2011

I'm a freakin' genius! Tell'em GB!