4 ms·

It doesn't work in FireFox 85.0 x64 on Windows. I went to the site, did the demo, my number was A5 94 D6 7E 4A DE and when I came back in private mode it was 51

It doesn't work in FireFox 85.0 x64 on Windows. I went to the site, did the demo, my number was A5 94 D6 7E 4A DE and when I came back in private mode it was 51 ED 26 D8 66 FC.

power78 6y ago
Same with Samsung Internet on Android
lordofgibbons 6y ago
Same on Firefox on linux. I got a fingerprint on one tab, and when that finished, I opened a new tab and ran the demo again - which gave me a new fingerprint ID. Running privacy badger and ublock origin
- crashdelta 6y ago
  That's it, I'm running Privacy Badger as well!!!
- rubyist5eva 6y ago
  Firefox blocks supercookies by default. It's not your addons.
fergbrain 6y ago
Same on Safari in iOS (latest version as of this date).
gibspaulding 6y ago
I can't tell from your post if you are surprised by this or just pointing it out for others who would prefer to avoid this sort of tracking, but just to be clear, this is by design: https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2021/01/26/supercookie-protections/ https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2021/01/26/supercookie-pro...
- crashdelta 6y ago
  The creator of supercookie.me made it sound like all versions of FireFox were vulnerable.
  - circularfoyers 6y ago
    It may have been their intention, after reading the bugzilla report they made[1]. > I also think that it would have been appropriate to notify about the ulterior motive behind this defect report at the latest when the paper got published. This underhanded approach of reporting a defect just leaves a bad taste, really. The behavior may be an actual defect in the classical sense, but I'm just wondering what would have happened, had this been addressed "in time" by the developers. It would seem that the researchers would then have triumphantly proclaimed that all major browsers are prone to their newly found attack. Must be somewhat disappointing that it didn't get fixed "in time" to make it into the paper that way [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1618257 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1618257
    - blendergeek 6y ago
      Honestly, this is a big deal here. A "security researcher" attempted to _introduce new vulnerabilities_ into a major open source project just so that they could report these vulnerabilities later. How scammy can research get?
      - rosstex 6y ago
        Lol, this is downright wild.
      - astrobe_ 6y ago
        This is perhaps related to the topic of an article that was posted here a few weeks ago, which was about CVE databases adopting some sort of charter because of a trend to use CVE reporting as a way to stuff one's resume.
      - barnaclejive 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
msk-lywenn 6y ago
You don't even need to come back with incognito mode. At least for me, just pressing the "try again" button gives me a different ID. (Firefox 85, windows)

It doesn't work in FireFox 85.0 x64 on Windows. I went to the site, did the demo, my number was A5 94 D6 7E 4A DE and when I came back in private mode it was 51 ED 26 D8 66 FC.

power78 6y ago

Same with Samsung Internet on Android

lordofgibbons 6y ago

Same on Firefox on linux. I got a fingerprint on one tab, and when that finished, I opened a new tab and ran the demo again - which gave me a new fingerprint ID. Running privacy badger and ublock origin

crashdelta 6y ago
That's it, I'm running Privacy Badger as well!!!
rubyist5eva 6y ago
Firefox blocks supercookies by default. It's not your addons.

fergbrain 6y ago

Same on Safari in iOS (latest version as of this date).

gibspaulding 6y ago

I can't tell from your post if you are surprised by this or just pointing it out for others who would prefer to avoid this sort of tracking, but just to be clear, this is by design: https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2021/01/26/supercookie-protections/ https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2021/01/26/supercookie-pro...

crashdelta 6y ago
The creator of supercookie.me made it sound like all versions of FireFox were vulnerable.
- circularfoyers 6y ago
  It may have been their intention, after reading the bugzilla report they made[1]. > I also think that it would have been appropriate to notify about the ulterior motive behind this defect report at the latest when the paper got published. This underhanded approach of reporting a defect just leaves a bad taste, really. The behavior may be an actual defect in the classical sense, but I'm just wondering what would have happened, had this been addressed "in time" by the developers. It would seem that the researchers would then have triumphantly proclaimed that all major browsers are prone to their newly found attack. Must be somewhat disappointing that it didn't get fixed "in time" to make it into the paper that way [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1618257 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1618257
  - blendergeek 6y ago
    Honestly, this is a big deal here. A "security researcher" attempted to _introduce new vulnerabilities_ into a major open source project just so that they could report these vulnerabilities later. How scammy can research get?
    - rosstex 6y ago
      Lol, this is downright wild.
    - astrobe_ 6y ago
      This is perhaps related to the topic of an article that was posted here a few weeks ago, which was about CVE databases adopting some sort of charter because of a trend to use CVE reporting as a way to stuff one's resume.
    - barnaclejive 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

msk-lywenn 6y ago

You don't even need to come back with incognito mode. At least for me, just pressing the "try again" button gives me a different ID. (Firefox 85, windows)