pes10k

5 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by pes10k 6y ago

   Its definitely true that you can key responses to request information beyond the URLs, but I think theres more to it than this: - Lots of tools don't allow you to block requests off those additional keys (Google's Manifest v3 for
2. 2.▲
   by pes10k 6y ago

   Again I wrote the piece but… Folks "who are well actually, you can already make URLs meaningless"'ing are missing the point of how practical web privacy tools work, including the ones you all have installed right now. There i
3. 3.▲
   by pes10k 6y ago

   Again random urls are just a demonstration of the problem. At root is private name resolution. What one bundle sees as asdf23f23g.js is different from what another bundle sees as asdf23f23g.js is different from what the web sees as asdf23f
4. 4.▲
   by pes10k 6y ago

   This is just super wrong. With WebBundles I can call 2 different things, in two different WebBundles https://example.org/good.js , and that can be different from what the wider web sees as https://example.org&#x2
5. 5.▲
   by pes10k 6y ago

   Will also add that all the other benefits (a single application package is great! signing things is great!) are true! But those do not hang on this aspect of WebBundles
6. 6.▲
   by pes10k 6y ago

   Disclaimer: I wrote the article. I'm not sure where the claimed confusion is above. The argument is: I want to include something like fingerprint2.js in my page. I know filter lists block it, bc users don't like it. W/o web b
7. 7.▲
   by pes10k 7y ago

   Hi, I do privacy research at Brave. Our fingerprinting protections are still being improved (our second round of FP defenses should hit nightly in Jan), but the comments here are wrong; our defenses are much better than Firefox and Chrome.