3 ms·

Very useful table. But it would be very helpful if the table of test results were furnished with a glossary that: (a) explains the function and workings of eac

Very useful table. But it would be very helpful if the table of test results were furnished with a glossary that: (a) explains the function and workings of each item under test, and, (b) also explain how said item is a threat to one's privacy, etc. (how it leaks one's info). This ought to be important, for many users wouldn't have a clue what some or even many of those functions do and it wouldn't be expected as such that they do (given that the internal working of browsers is a specialized business). Second, I tried to send feedback to this effect but could not as I'm not a Twitter user (it seemingly being the only of sending feedback to PrivacyTests.org). It is highly annoying that such groups don't have alternative more neutral methods of feeding back such information, especially so in this instance given PrivacyTests.org's stance on privacy (that being its primary reason for being). Perhaps someone with a Twitter account who thinks similarly could send them my feedback and or send them this link. Edit: Re results, I was rather surprised to see how poorly Tor featured in the tracking department, it failing every test. I'd have thought tracking failures would be deemed a significant security risk. Would someone like to comment on this? (BTW, I've little need of Tor's security, although I've used it on occasions, thus I can't claim I'm very familiar with it.)

arthuredelstein 5y ago
Hi -- thanks for the comments! > it would be very helpful if the table of test results were furnished with a glossary that: There is some explanation for each test -- to see these explanations, you need to click on category titles, test titles, or test results themselves. But I take your point that these annotations need to be expanded and easier to find. > I tried to send feedback to this effect but could not as I'm not a Twitter user (it seemingly being the only of sending feedback to PrivacyTests.org). Actually in the upper-right corner of each page there is a link to an email address for feedback (contact@privacytests.org). And github issues are also welcome. I gather these links could be made more clear. :) > I was rather surprised to see how poorly Tor featured in the tracking department, it failing every test. The tracking content section results actually stem from Tor Browser's approach: Tor Browser currently does not block any third-party content from loading in a page. Rather it prevents tracking by various policies, including always using the Tor network, providing full state partitioning, and providing strong fingerprinting resistance. Generally speaking, third-party trackers are prevented from tracking users by these measures. However, I think blocking of trackers could offer defense in depth in Tor Browser, in case any of the other measures fails.
- hilbert42 5y ago
  Thank you for your reply on all points. On the matter of testing browser exploits etc. it seems to me there's no decent comprehensive list of exploitable browser functions that's easily comprehensible to normal users as well as being easily accessible. I reckon that a link on your homepage to a well organized table etc. that lists browser function names, their description or explanation thereof together with their various exploits (description, modus operandi, notes, links to more info etc.) in an easily readable format would be very worthwhile as would also draw users to your site for that reason alone. When there, they'd also find the browser tests. (There's any amount of stuff on the web about browsers, exploits etc. but I've not seen one that's comprehensive in that it brings all three aspects into one place.) About Tor, I would certainly agreed with you. Bootstrapping with fallback security makes sense. If there's any argument then make it optional at the click of a button, etc. In a way, your test results have acted as a review and I reckon that's a good thing. Frankly, I'm horribly disenchanted with most browsers and we need a site that reviews most of them in an objective and comprehensive way. Perhaps in the future you might consider doing this by reviewing browsers in the light of your tests.

arthuredelstein 5y ago

Hi -- thanks for the comments! > it would be very helpful if the table of test results were furnished with a glossary that: There is some explanation for each test -- to see these explanations, you need to click on category titles, test titles, or test results themselves. But I take your point that these annotations need to be expanded and easier to find. > I tried to send feedback to this effect but could not as I'm not a Twitter user (it seemingly being the only of sending feedback to PrivacyTests.org). Actually in the upper-right corner of each page there is a link to an email address for feedback (contact@privacytests.org). And github issues are also welcome. I gather these links could be made more clear. :) > I was rather surprised to see how poorly Tor featured in the tracking department, it failing every test. The tracking content section results actually stem from Tor Browser's approach: Tor Browser currently does not block any third-party content from loading in a page. Rather it prevents tracking by various policies, including always using the Tor network, providing full state partitioning, and providing strong fingerprinting resistance. Generally speaking, third-party trackers are prevented from tracking users by these measures. However, I think blocking of trackers could offer defense in depth in Tor Browser, in case any of the other measures fails.

hilbert42 5y ago
Thank you for your reply on all points. On the matter of testing browser exploits etc. it seems to me there's no decent comprehensive list of exploitable browser functions that's easily comprehensible to normal users as well as being easily accessible. I reckon that a link on your homepage to a well organized table etc. that lists browser function names, their description or explanation thereof together with their various exploits (description, modus operandi, notes, links to more info etc.) in an easily readable format would be very worthwhile as would also draw users to your site for that reason alone. When there, they'd also find the browser tests. (There's any amount of stuff on the web about browsers, exploits etc. but I've not seen one that's comprehensive in that it brings all three aspects into one place.) About Tor, I would certainly agreed with you. Bootstrapping with fallback security makes sense. If there's any argument then make it optional at the click of a button, etc. In a way, your test results have acted as a review and I reckon that's a good thing. Frankly, I'm horribly disenchanted with most browsers and we need a site that reviews most of them in an objective and comprehensive way. Perhaps in the future you might consider doing this by reviewing browsers in the light of your tests.