8 ms·
So many privacy nuts use Chrome and don't realize this: > What about Google Chrome? > I tried all of the above in Firefox. So I naturally tried to access the
by dcow 3y ago
So many privacy nuts use Chrome and don't realize this:
> What about Google Chrome?
> I tried all of the above in Firefox. So I naturally tried to access the same page in Google Chrome to see if I’d still be blocked. Thankfully, I wasn’t.
> But of course I wasn’t because Chrome doesn’t have the same privacy- and security-enhancing designs that Firefox does. Chrome will happily collect as much private information about me and my browsing history and share them with select parties, as needed. It also doesn’t resist fingerprinting or let me modify settings to the same degree that Firefox does because Chrome relies on those fingerprinting technologies to ensure that I am targeted by ads it deems necessary for me to see.
> Being blocked on Firefox and not blocked on Chrome also tells me that Cloudflare is blocking me based on the fingerprint (or lackthereof) of my browser. Everything about my connection is identical between the two requests, aside from the browser being used. It’s the same security certificates, same corporate VPN, same machine, even the same timeframe when I try to access the site.
If you care about anything these days, don't use Chrome.
- afavour 3y agoI’m no Google fanboy but I wasn’t satisfied with this: > Chrome will happily collect as much private information about me and my browsing history and share them with select parties, as needed What information does Chrome provide in this scenario that Firefox doesn’t? It feels like backward logic: it worked in Chrome therefore it must be because Chrome gave extra info. In reality it could be a whole bunch of things, something as mundane as Firefox being a rarer user agent so subject to more filtering. It strikes me that all of this is an inexact science. I've run into rate limit messages with sites before now that go away when I switch browsers, no matter what the browser is. I assume it's because, with the limited information given, the DDOS protection software assumes that same IP + different UA = different computer. I have no clue but I wasn’t persuaded that this specific scenario works with Chrome because it was giving away more information. At a bare minimum at least try a third browser!
- deadbunny 3y agoYou're conflating a downside of using Chrome and the reason they think Cloudflare blocked them.
- afavour 3y ago> So I naturally tried to access the same page in Google Chrome to see if I’d still be blocked. Thankfully, I wasn’t. > But of course I wasn’t because Chrome doesn’t have the same privacy- and security-enhancing designs Maybe I’m missing something but it seems the conflation was by the article author, not me?
- tmpX7dMeXU 3y agoNo. And there’s still the central issue of the author really hand-waving the specifics of their accusations about Chrome. It really seems to come down to “Google bad”. To be clear, I don’t even use Chrome, in part because “Google bad”. This just isn’t intellectually honest.
- factormeta 3y agoseems like the author mentioned that in FireFox disabling "privacy.resistFingerprinting" worked. So looks like Chrome by default is allowing the server to collect Fingerprinting. If cloud flare is using that, then it is a big red flag.
- waithuh 3y agoOf course they are. Thats the whole point of the 'Integrity Check'. Besides, almost every website you visit collects your fingerprint nowadays.
- semiquaver 3y agoThe opposite. enabling the flag fixed the issue although it broke other sites. > Eventually, I found some suggestions that if you’re using Firefox you can disable the privacy.resistFingerprinting option in the about:config page. But that was already listed as false for me when I got stuck, so I switched the value to true just to see if that would do anything. > And that worked!
- jbdigriz990 3y agoWhen I started having this problem logging into a certain credit card co.'s website beginning with about Firefox 105.0.2 on Fedora 38, I was told by their apparently outsourced customer service that I had to use Chrome, which I don't have installed there and couldn't try. Yeah, they wanted me to use LogMeIn so they could fix the problem, too. Right. Firefox on Android was still working, though, loathe as I am to put passwords of any significance on my phone. Doesn't directly address your question, which I'd like to know the answer to as well.
- tmpX7dMeXU 3y ago[flagged]
- edmundsauto 3y agoWhy would they load balance based on user agent? I can’t think of a scenario where that was a reasonable solution.
- waithuh 3y agoMaybe back when standarts where on shaky ground and different versions of the same content was made? I too cant see the performance advantage of it. Deprioritizing less mainstream browsers to mess with the nerds?
- edmundsauto 3y agoAhhh yes I remember those days... if you wanted to use advanced IE-only features, send to one codebase, if you wanted broader compatability, send to another. Similar to how mobile websites used to work. Thanks for the ideas! Any other hypotheses?
- danShumway 3y ago> Completely reasonable and expected response from customer support Absolutely not, it is not reasonable or expected that a credit card company launch a website that doesn't work with Firefox. > Back in the day, my university would load balance based on the browser being used. What on earth?
- brandon 3y agoI don't mean to support or refuse the author's main points or analysis, but you might like to know that the Chrome team is currently working towards shipping the Topics API. I have strong opinions about it but I will try not to editorialize. My high-level understanding is that they're going to run an ML model over your browsing history (locally on your device) to build a list of "topics" that you care about. Sites you browse can use the Topics API to pull a set of these interests from the browser to show you "relevant" ads. Mozilla has taken a negative position against this standard. https://privacysandbox.com/proposals/topics/ https://privacysandbox.com/proposals/topics/ https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/622 https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/622
- afavour 3y agoHow is that relevant to the topic?
- Santosh83 3y agoYou asked: >> Chrome will happily collect as much private information about me and my browsing history and share them with select parties, as needed > What information does Chrome provide in this scenario that Firefox doesn’t?
- afavour 3y agoKey words: "in this scenario" Is Cloudflare using an as yet unshipped API as part of DDOS protection?
- smolder 3y agoNo, the idea is they're abusing existing APIs for fingerprinting purposes that Firefox privacy settings disallow --canvas font rendering difference detection, detecting your GPU model, and things of that nature. But this new API demonstrates that Google is not on the consumers side when it comes to limiting tracking/data gathering ability, as the new API is explicitly for fingerprinting.
- LoganDark 3y agoA third browser... like what? Chrome and Firefox are all that exist now, unless you have access to a Mac with Safari.
- waithuh 3y agoits time to pull out lynx again.
- mdwalters 3y agoMy "third" browser is GNOME Web, however, I uninstalled it thanks to performance issues. I installed Chrome from Flathub, but with limited permissions, which I only use for cross-browser testing. My main browser is Firefox.
- quaddo 3y agoCheck out Vivaldi...?
- LoganDark 3y agoYou mean "Chromium with extra steps"? I know it's a fork, but the actual engine is still mostly Chromium.
- silisili 3y agoThere are a handful of Webkit based browsers out there, though none that popular except for Safari. But yes, 3 is all we're left with outside of a few bespoke projects...
- LoganDark 3y agoHonestly the SerenityOS browser (+ its Linux port, Ladybird) is probably the funniest. I wonder if that passes CloudFlare...
- nextaccountic 3y agoServo seems to be more viable than Ladybird
- ayewo 3y agoChrome will indeed divulge more information than other browsers but only on the condition that you have opted-in for such collection. “The Chrome User Experience Report (CrUX) provides user experience metrics for how real-world Chrome users experience popular destinations on the web. This data is automatically collected by Chrome from users who have opted in, . . .” Taken from https://web.dev/crux-and-rum-differences/ https://web.dev/crux-and-rum-differences/
- afavour 3y agoIt's not a real time API, though. It's an aggregated dataset available via BigQuery. I don't think Cloudflare could use it as part of DDOS protection except in very vague ways.
- quest88 3y agoWhy would chrome give that information away? That's Google's most valuable resource.
- bayindirh 3y agoMaybe they're directly delivering your information for a price. From you to them, directly, via Chrome.
- morjom 3y agohttps://privacytests.org/ https://privacytests.org/ shows some good data what each browser lets through/exposes for websites.
- Fnoord 3y agoCaveat: (default settings) I harden my Firefox installations, and therefore this website comparison isn't useful.
- morjom 3y agoIt does have Librewolf and Mullvad listed, which are hardened Firefox forks. But its still not your exact scenario, my bad :)
- arendtio 3y ago@afavour: The topic isn't as simple as having a HTTP header with a unique identifier. Browser Fingerprinting is a complex process, that uses unintentional implementation details, like how things are rendered with different graphics drivers or details you can get from APIs that are intended for other purposes (like WebRTC). The site that morjom posted gives you a simple overview and Firefox is known for the privacy preserving features it comes with. However, you are right, that it is an inexact science as long as we don't know the logic of the Cloudflare implementation.
- BizarroLand 3y agoI've had sporadic issues with Firefox not working on work-related sites one day when the previous day it worked just fine. I have ublock, privacy badger, decentraleyes, canvas blocker, facebook disconnect, and duckduckgo privacy essentials installed. I would go through and disable each extension in order to see if it was the cause of the issue, and so far, every single time it has been duckduckgo privacy essentials that is breaking websites for me. I think I should remove it at this point, but who knows? Maybe it's protecting me from something that I don't see.
- rocho 3y agoWith Firefox you can toggle some settings that will make much harder to generate useful fingerprints. That's already a massive privacy difference.
- executesorder66 3y ago> So many privacy nuts use Chrome Really? That's news to me.
- dmix 3y agoWell, Chromium is quite popular with the security conscious on Linux. At least it was when I was using ArchLinux, they had some good custom build script versions.
- antonvs 3y agoSecurity conscious and privacy conscious aren't the same thing, although there's overlap. I can be concerned about the security of my system without caring about whether I'm being targeted for ads.
- ocdtrekkie 3y agoThis is untrue, but frequently misunderstood: Privacy and security are two facets of the same problem. If you don't have security, your privacy is at risk. If you don't have privacy, your security is at risk. Case in point: Many of those targeted ads contain malware. :)
- midasuni 3y agoDo you have any evidence of your claim.
- danShumway 3y agoEvidence of what? That malvertising exists?
- bcoates 3y agoSome particular build of Chromium and Chrome are vastly different systems. A lot of this is philosophical; The Mozilla way is to support standards and tut-tut at websites for doing overtly malicious things like looking at user-agent or asking for widevine, the Chromium way is to treat the web as a hostile actor and offensively subvert anti-user behaviors. Any modern browser that doesn't actively fingerprint as either most-common Chrome on a laptop, most-common Android browser, or most-common iPhone is written by such hopelessly naïve nerds that they shouldn't be trusted with user-facing software with real security considerations.
- shadowgovt 3y agoI care about accessing the sites I use quickly and efficiently, with a minimum of auth and compatibility dance. Since Chrome is so common that it's basically guaranteed to have been tested against the site I'm trying to access, I use Chrome.
- dmix 3y ago> If you care about anything these days, don't use Chrome. Or Cloudflare.
- warrenm 3y agofunny enough... I called out Cloudflare for the pariah it is, and got downvoted and flagged
- warrenm 3y agoand someone's come and done it again
- waithuh 3y agoI seriously never get people that love CF (or any company for that matter). Praising 1.1.1.1, giving it free advertising. CF is basically handing over your website in return for some less work on your part. I get the advantages of it (like less engineer credits wasted, less server maintaining work and probably cost, faster) but actively giving it free PR just doesnt fit right with me. Pay your bucks and sit. They are a Big Tech company, they dont need your prayers.
- Dalewyn 3y ago>CF is basically handing over your website in return for some less work on your part. The older you get, the more valuable being able to just dump your shit on other people becomes.
- waithuh 3y agoNo i totally get it, i can see myself doing the same compromise. I cant see myself recommending such practice, however.
- ghujiliooo 3y agoQuite the opposite for me. The older I get (42 now) the less patience I have for people who sacrifice freedom for convenience. You're ruining it for my children when you do this.
- jwatte 3y agoI don't quite understand the "ads it deems necessary for me to see" comment. You will always get ads on sites that serve ads. The thing the tracking might do, is change which particular ads you get. The right solution to that, is to use an ad blocker, and to pay for sites that have an ad-free alternative. Also, fingerprinting isn't always "bad" -- any business who takes credit cards online, wants to try to exclude people who will commit fraud (because they might have done it before.) Preventing fingerprinting, means you prevent certain anti-fraud, which means that you see higher prices and more friction doing commerce online, which also affects your experience. The connection is just much less direct.
- 3LazTjBv-f 3y ago> business who takes credit cards online, wants to try to exclude people who will commit fraud How bad is it nowadays? Can't you just enforce 3DS2?
- baq 3y agoTracking is establishing your identity. Try using a private mode Firefox via a VPN. Half of the web is completely unusable. You get put in unsolvable catchpa hell as punishment for being anonymous.
- amadeuspagel 3y agoTry walking into a real place with a mask on and you might also get treated less pleasantly.
- Zak 3y agoWalking into real places with a mask on has been normal for the past three years.
- amadeuspagel 3y agoOK, but not with a balaclava.
- Andrex 3y agoEasy to say don't use Chrome, harder to say don't use Cloudfare. And if we're taking things to task for monopolizing a market and being a threat to the future of the open internet, I'd say Cloudfare is and will always be a bigger threat. The moment the Cloudfare dictatorship becomes less benevolent, everyone is gonna feel it.
- rixthefox 3y ago> The moment the Cloudflare dictatorship becomes less benevolent…[] In my eyes they have already done that. ICYMI I highly suggest checking out their response and subsequent blog post around the Kiwifarms incident. That whole debacle was enough to prove to me they learned nothing and are going to continue down this path. I migrated web services and closed my account with them shortly after that whole thing. Cloudflare routinely ignores abuse reports for its network and takes no responsibility for the utter garbage being carried across their network. It’s almost comical how they so desperately cling to the claim that they are “just a dumb pipe” on one side of the house and on the other a “serious security vendor” who is “protecting the web” while blocking out users simply for the “crime” of trying to preserve their privacy. If they wanted to convince me they had the web’s best interest at heart they wouldn’t host half the sites they do. They would actually respond to abuse reports and take abusive websites offline rather than wait for it to hurt their bottom line and reputation before taking action but they don’t.
- whelp_24 3y agoWait, Cloudflare stopped being benevolent by NOT abusing their power enough? You have two different opinions one is that Cloudflare should respect privacy and one is that is should moderate the internet, these are fundamentally at odds.
- bombolo 3y agoWebsite owners can just stop using cloudflare though…
- Andrex 3y ago
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 3y agoThe heuristics used to attempt to differentiate between a so-called "bot" and a "human" are, IMHO, inadequate as long as there are "humans" that are allegedly mistaken for "bots" and blocked. "Use Chrome" is not a solution. A person using Firefox or some other non-Google software is still a "human". But not according to these brilliant "site protection" schemes. What level of false positives is acceptable. Using JS to "verify that this is not a bot" is a way to force users to enable JS and expose themselves to more advertising.
- sam0x17 3y agoFurthermore, all bots worth their salt as far as threats go enable js and do everything they can to appear like a normal browser.
- azalemeth 3y agoI'd love to know if puppeteer passed that test (probably). I have had exactly this problem many, many times and it is incredibly frustrating.
- 20after4 3y agopuppeteer passes the test if you run it from a machine that already has a good cloudflare reputation score. Try it from an AWS instance and it definitely fails 100% of the time. (I've tried it, that's how I know)
- sam0x17 3y agoThere are github projects that are forks of things like selenium and puppeteer that are specifically designed to avoid detection for things like scraping google search results, etc.
- tick_tock_tick 3y agoThat's fine as processing the javascript increases the coast at-least.
- 3y ago
- tim333 3y ago>If you care about anything these days, don't use Chrome. I care about a lot of real world stuff - human rights, wars, the environment, friends etc. I don't care if Chrome knows who I am and tries to show me ads which uBlock then blocks. There are more important things to worry about than privacy geekery.
- HenryBemis 3y agoFamous last words: "There are more important things to worry about than privacy". If you've read history (and maybe you have, or not) privacy is a human right. When privacy goes away, then everything else goes away. Ask anyone over 60 in Germany or Romania (that was not WITH the army or the Police/Security services) and they will tell you how nice life is without privacy. But hey, sure, 1) privacy doesn't matter, 2) you got nothing to hide, etc etc.
- account42 3y agoAds are used to manipulate people into doing things they would not otherwise do, which very much affects "real world stuff". Mostly into wasting money on useless crap, but also worse. What ads uBlock can block is limited by Chrome. What "ads" disguised as content you are shown is affected by what information Google collects and lets other people collect. The internet isn't a nerd safe space anymore - what goes on here often affects real people.
- neop1x 3y agoThis loop happened all the time for me in Kiwi Browser on mobile. I have a couple of fingerprint-reducing extensions installed there. I also use other extensions like Dark Reader to make website backgrounds pitch black to reduce OLED display drain and improve readability in darker environments. It appears to be better lately, happening more often while I am travelling and changing IPs, less when I am at home. Still it wastes time when it does the loop, it forces me to use unmodified Chrome, wasting more battery power and harming eyes at dark with those white backgrounds. Unfortunately more and more websites are proxying through CF, thinking they are 'protecting' their website. But CF acts like the chinese Great Firewall, deciding who can and cannot to access the site.