5 ms·

VPNs don't help here. https://panopticlick.eff.org https://panopticlick.eff.org https://gist.github.com/joepie91/5a9909939e6ce7d09e29 https://gist.github.com/

VPNs don't help here. https://panopticlick.eff.org https://panopticlick.eff.org https://gist.github.com/joepie91/5a9909939e6ce7d09e29 https://gist.github.com/joepie91/5a9909939e6ce7d09e29

fragsworth 7y ago
According to panopticlick, Chrome is 100% secure in incognito mode.
- some_furry 7y ago
  That's really cool! Who knew Chrome was doing so well? The second article CiPHPerCoder linked seems to be more focused on the VPN marketing aspect. A more interactive approach might be https://faq.dhol.es/@Soatok/cryptography/which-vpn-service-will-protect-me-from-hackers https://faq.dhol.es/@Soatok/cryptography/which-vpn-service-w...
- DesiLurker 7y ago
  its because google wants exclusive access to your browsing data.
- Forbo 7y ago
  Are there differences in how Chrome and Chromium handle incognito? Chromium appears to have a pretty unique fingerprint. https://ibb.co/9ZB3Yxr https://ibb.co/9ZB3Yxr
- kube-system 7y ago
  What do you mean by 'secure'? I just ran panopticlick in a fresh installation of Chrome on Windows in incognito mode. It returned a near-unique fingerprint with >14 bits of estimated entropy. Of course, that makes total sense, because many of the factors that can identify your system have little to do with the browser, but are determined by the underlying system: fonts, display, date/time information, graphics fingerprints, etc.
- FabHK 7y ago
  Hmm, according to panopticlick, my Chrome provides about 70 bits of identifying information. There are about 2^33 people. I don't feel incognito.
  - mastre_ 7y ago
    70 bits? That's a ton. I'm at: 17.62 Chrome 75.0.x normal (non-incognito) 16.62 Chrome 75.0.x incognito 15.62 FF 68.0.1 (Private doesn't seem to make a diff, I get the same score) Seems like in Chrome, at least, the most offending (most unique) "characteristic" is HTTP_ACCEPT Headers, which looks something like text/html, */*; q=0.01 gzip, deflate, br en-US,en;q=0.9,fr-FR;q=0.8,f... If there is a good way to control this (FF does a much better job -- could be tied to plugins and such tho), one could further reduce the number of identifying bits. Chrome seems to do better (less unique) in both Hash of canvas fingerprint and Hash of WebGL fingerprint. I've summarized the main differences I see below, seems like combining the best of Chrome w/ the best of FF would result in even better privacy: https://i.imgur.com/QQQ6R85.png https://i.imgur.com/QQQ6R85.png Edit: I think Chrome's HTTP_ACCEPT Headers is like that because I've installed/enabled many languages in it for l10n testing. I'm removing them now, which should make Chrome get a better score than FF.
    - FabHK 7y ago
      FWIW, I've not taken the number quoted by the website ("at least x bits", which appears to be the maximum of the per-characteristic numbers, which sort of assumes that the characteristics are fully dependent (such that knowing further characteristics does not tell you anything beyond that one maximally informative characteristic)), but the sum of the per-characteristic numbers (which sort of makes the opposite assumption that the characteristics are fully independent, and knowing all the other characteristics does not reduce the information added by any one characteristic). So, the true number is somewhere in-between.
  - stallmanifold 7y ago
    In my experience the biggest entropy generator with browser fingerprinting in system fonts. I ran Panopticlick against both my Firefox browser instance (running Ghostery, uBlock Origin, and Privacy Badger) against a Chromium instance running no plugins and both cases yielded 17 bits from browser fingerprinting. It makes me curious whether system fonts are a major source of privacy leakage.
semi-extrinsic 7y ago
So this is really interesting: On Panopticlick with Firefox Mobile, with Ghostery plugin active in a normal tab I get 18 bits of info, in a private tab I get 17 bits, but the best is a private tab with Ghostery paused - then I get 16 bits, and equal results on the other parts. Are privacy plugins really redundant in this day and age? Or is the test too incomplete to reflect their value?
jammygit 7y ago
Panopticlick won’t work at all on brave on mobile. Maybe a good sign?

VPNs don't help here. https://panopticlick.eff.org https://panopticlick.eff.org https://gist.github.com/joepie91/5a9909939e6ce7d09e29 https://gist.github.com/joepie91/5a9909939e6ce7d09e29

fragsworth 7y ago

According to panopticlick, Chrome is 100% secure in incognito mode.

some_furry 7y ago
That's really cool! Who knew Chrome was doing so well? The second article CiPHPerCoder linked seems to be more focused on the VPN marketing aspect. A more interactive approach might be https://faq.dhol.es/@Soatok/cryptography/which-vpn-service-will-protect-me-from-hackers https://faq.dhol.es/@Soatok/cryptography/which-vpn-service-w...
DesiLurker 7y ago
its because google wants exclusive access to your browsing data.
Forbo 7y ago
Are there differences in how Chrome and Chromium handle incognito? Chromium appears to have a pretty unique fingerprint. https://ibb.co/9ZB3Yxr https://ibb.co/9ZB3Yxr
kube-system 7y ago
What do you mean by 'secure'? I just ran panopticlick in a fresh installation of Chrome on Windows in incognito mode. It returned a near-unique fingerprint with >14 bits of estimated entropy. Of course, that makes total sense, because many of the factors that can identify your system have little to do with the browser, but are determined by the underlying system: fonts, display, date/time information, graphics fingerprints, etc.
FabHK 7y ago
Hmm, according to panopticlick, my Chrome provides about 70 bits of identifying information. There are about 2^33 people. I don't feel incognito.
- mastre_ 7y ago
  70 bits? That's a ton. I'm at: 17.62 Chrome 75.0.x normal (non-incognito) 16.62 Chrome 75.0.x incognito 15.62 FF 68.0.1 (Private doesn't seem to make a diff, I get the same score) Seems like in Chrome, at least, the most offending (most unique) "characteristic" is HTTP_ACCEPT Headers, which looks something like text/html, */*; q=0.01 gzip, deflate, br en-US,en;q=0.9,fr-FR;q=0.8,f... If there is a good way to control this (FF does a much better job -- could be tied to plugins and such tho), one could further reduce the number of identifying bits. Chrome seems to do better (less unique) in both Hash of canvas fingerprint and Hash of WebGL fingerprint. I've summarized the main differences I see below, seems like combining the best of Chrome w/ the best of FF would result in even better privacy: https://i.imgur.com/QQQ6R85.png https://i.imgur.com/QQQ6R85.png Edit: I think Chrome's HTTP_ACCEPT Headers is like that because I've installed/enabled many languages in it for l10n testing. I'm removing them now, which should make Chrome get a better score than FF.
  - FabHK 7y ago
    FWIW, I've not taken the number quoted by the website ("at least x bits", which appears to be the maximum of the per-characteristic numbers, which sort of assumes that the characteristics are fully dependent (such that knowing further characteristics does not tell you anything beyond that one maximally informative characteristic)), but the sum of the per-characteristic numbers (which sort of makes the opposite assumption that the characteristics are fully independent, and knowing all the other characteristics does not reduce the information added by any one characteristic). So, the true number is somewhere in-between.
- stallmanifold 7y ago
  In my experience the biggest entropy generator with browser fingerprinting in system fonts. I ran Panopticlick against both my Firefox browser instance (running Ghostery, uBlock Origin, and Privacy Badger) against a Chromium instance running no plugins and both cases yielded 17 bits from browser fingerprinting. It makes me curious whether system fonts are a major source of privacy leakage.

semi-extrinsic 7y ago

So this is really interesting: On Panopticlick with Firefox Mobile, with Ghostery plugin active in a normal tab I get 18 bits of info, in a private tab I get 17 bits, but the best is a private tab with Ghostery paused - then I get 16 bits, and equal results on the other parts. Are privacy plugins really redundant in this day and age? Or is the test too incomplete to reflect their value?

jammygit 7y ago

Panopticlick won’t work at all on brave on mobile. Maybe a good sign?