8 ms·

I skimmed the article and looks like they didn't try to compare the font from two different PCs. I think it may be a uniquely generated/procedural font, identif

I skimmed the article and looks like they didn't try to compare the font from two different PCs. I think it may be a uniquely generated/procedural font, identifying a specific installation.

sschueller 4y ago
If they are so hell bent of forcing users to pay stop offering a free version.
- squarefoot 4y ago
  That would equal to fishing without a bait on the hook:)
monkeydust 4y ago
For what possible intention though?
- pjerem 4y ago
  You render this font in a web canvas that your js can interpret. Boom, fingerprinted. That's amoral but that's really clever.
  - umeshunni 4y ago
    but why?
huhtenberg 4y ago
Ha, excellent point. You could potentially leak any small piece of information by encoding it in glyph shapes. Should be enough capacity for something like MachineGUID.
alophawen 4y ago
Instead of spreading ridiculous claims, why won't you just confirm your hypothesis? All it takes is 2 ip:s and two downloads of their installer and compare checksums. https://download.teamviewer.com/download/TeamViewer_Setup.exe https://download.teamviewer.com/download/TeamViewer_Setup.ex... 4440facac7b7bf11478a0368ce448adc732d97ae TeamViewer_Setup.exe
- cabirum 4y ago
  The font can be generated after installation. I don't have Windows near me to rub tests myself.
  - alophawen 4y ago
    It's not. It is embedded in the installer with a sha1 of 692a2bd8cce1c4ac62f7cd505907aa8e21ab3b69, which you would have known had you actually studied the suspicious file at hand, rather than just go with the narrative posted in the blog.
    - asojfdowgh 4y ago
      its a comment section / blog post, not a paper that needs violent peer review
      - dingleberry420 4y ago
        I appreciate someone actually checking things for themselves, instead of just joining the rage party.
    - jonnycomputer 4y ago
      You might be right, but your comments fail the "common decency" standard.
      - alophawen 4y ago
      - dymk 4y ago
        Well, they’re right, and they did the work to verify they were right, as opposed to the other people in this thread blindly making assumptions. They care more about the truth than the other posters. Makes them more decent than the others, in my book.
d2wa 4y ago
It is not unique per system. As mentioned in the article, the font only changes version number between TeamViewer updates.
- turtleman1338 4y ago
  How do you know? The font number does not matter as the website wont see that. To check uniqueness of the fonts you would need to actually compare the content of installed font, not only the name. It would be totally possible that the installer is packed with the font, but dynamically alters it before actually installing it.
  - d2wa 4y ago
    The version number is part of the font name (e.g. “TeamViewer15”). Websites can apply a list of known font names to an element and see which are available based on whether a test element changes size after applying the font.

I skimmed the article and looks like they didn't try to compare the font from two different PCs. I think it may be a uniquely generated/procedural font, identifying a specific installation.

sschueller 4y ago

If they are so hell bent of forcing users to pay stop offering a free version.

squarefoot 4y ago
That would equal to fishing without a bait on the hook:)

monkeydust 4y ago

For what possible intention though?

pjerem 4y ago
You render this font in a web canvas that your js can interpret. Boom, fingerprinted. That's amoral but that's really clever.
- umeshunni 4y ago
  but why?

huhtenberg 4y ago

Ha, excellent point. You could potentially leak any small piece of information by encoding it in glyph shapes. Should be enough capacity for something like MachineGUID.

alophawen 4y ago

Instead of spreading ridiculous claims, why won't you just confirm your hypothesis? All it takes is 2 ip:s and two downloads of their installer and compare checksums. https://download.teamviewer.com/download/TeamViewer_Setup.exe https://download.teamviewer.com/download/TeamViewer_Setup.ex... 4440facac7b7bf11478a0368ce448adc732d97ae TeamViewer_Setup.exe

cabirum 4y ago
The font can be generated after installation. I don't have Windows near me to rub tests myself.
- alophawen 4y ago
  It's not. It is embedded in the installer with a sha1 of 692a2bd8cce1c4ac62f7cd505907aa8e21ab3b69, which you would have known had you actually studied the suspicious file at hand, rather than just go with the narrative posted in the blog.
  - asojfdowgh 4y ago
    its a comment section / blog post, not a paper that needs violent peer review
    - dingleberry420 4y ago
      I appreciate someone actually checking things for themselves, instead of just joining the rage party.
  - jonnycomputer 4y ago
    You might be right, but your comments fail the "common decency" standard.
    - alophawen 4y ago
    - dymk 4y ago
      Well, they’re right, and they did the work to verify they were right, as opposed to the other people in this thread blindly making assumptions. They care more about the truth than the other posters. Makes them more decent than the others, in my book.

d2wa 4y ago

It is not unique per system. As mentioned in the article, the font only changes version number between TeamViewer updates.

turtleman1338 4y ago
How do you know? The font number does not matter as the website wont see that. To check uniqueness of the fonts you would need to actually compare the content of installed font, not only the name. It would be totally possible that the installer is packed with the font, but dynamically alters it before actually installing it.
- d2wa 4y ago
  The version number is part of the font name (e.g. “TeamViewer15”). Websites can apply a list of known font names to an element and see which are available based on whether a test element changes size after applying the font.