3 ms·

I don't understand the risk of the window-size issue. If I am running a normal Windows installation(say, Windows 7 Home) on a commonly-sized screen (say, 1366x

I don't understand the risk of the window-size issue. If I am running a normal Windows installation(say, Windows 7 Home) on a commonly-sized screen (say, 1366x768) and have a normal sized taskbar, no odd widgets, toolbars, or other screen-space taking things, it seems I am only reducing the anonymity pool to those other users with the same features, which I suspect is more than 4. For a non-persistent live-boot situation such as Tails, I would expect the risk to be even lower. What am I missing, if anything? Was there some legal situation in which browser window size was used to de-anonymize someone that warrants the attention to browser window size? I understand it's another layer of protection, defense-in-depth and all, but it seems to be getting a disproportionate amount of attention.

pc86 11y ago
You're exactly right. However, the concern comes from those who aren't using a commonly-sized screen with a normal taskbar, etc. That's precisely why certain versions of the Tor browser only resize to certain sizes/dimensions. If (for example) you've got a vertical taskbar on a 4k monitor the pool will be much lower. Add in one other slip up, such as visiting a low-traffic website you've visited outside of Tor, and you've got a huge vulnerability for deanonymization. As far as legal, I don't think there has ever been such a case, no. However, it definitely opens someone up to parallel construction, and there are always certain agencies for which a legal case is not necessary their end goal (CIA, NSA, etc).