How anonymous is your browsing, /g/?

File: screenshot.10.png (83KB, 662x755px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 662x755px

Using google chrome

>>60247836
How many bits, anon? (In the full fingerprinting details section)

>>60247882
Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys at least 17.9 bits of identifying information.

File: Capture.jpg (142KB, 1093x863px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 1093x863px

>>60247882
What's more important the size of the fingerprint, or how unique it is?

>>60247961
They're the same thing. X bits of identifying information means 1 in 2^X browsers has the same fingerprint as yours. (It looks like they're doing some rounding because 2^11.17 is almost but not exactly 2304.42.)

>>60247967
Good go-lad! Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.

>>60247915
same here, unique fingerprint
wat do?
I'm thinking about writing a program that installs and uninstalls random fonts at every startup. Am I thinking right.

>>60247961
>11.17 bits
Good job anon.

>>60247967
>>60247915
>>60247836
Bad luck guys.

good addon to block fingerprinting on chrome?

>>60248059

apt-get remove chrome

>...unique among the 244,350 tested so far.
>17.9 bits of identifying information.
Not too surprising given my current choice of OS and browser.

>...only one in 122184.5 browsers have the same fingerprint as yours.
>16.9 bits of identifying information.
All it took was a simple User Agent change.

File: fingerprint.png (232KB, 867x788px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 867x788px

what do I win?

>>60248310

better font rendering

>>60248310
are you almost me?

>>60248338
blame windows 7

>>60248342
almost.
I'm right behind you.

>>60248363
Are you my couch?

>captcha: park park
oh shit what's the control word

>>60248097
>using apt-get instead of apt
>using dpkg-ish stuff in the first place
>not using purge
what is wrong with you?

>implying this means anything at all
Remind me why bother?

>>60248097
Good idea Rajesh I'll just use the sjw infested pile of shit known as firefox, sure is a great solution thanks!

>>60248460
stay mad chromecuck

>>60248413
I kinda agree with you because there are so many flaws.

>Hash of canvas fingerprint
>Hash of WebGL fingerprint
These can be spoofed using CanvasBlocker. Panopticlick doesn't know this so it can come across as unique even while true it's not identifying since you can change it at anytime. Personally I recommend setting it to persistent because changing value all the time on the same website is a dead giveaway you're spoofing it. I check the box to store the value and then I clear it whenever I switch browser profile (user agent and some other things).

>Time Zone
Maybe US time zone is less unique but it's going to look very weird if you live in Europe and use a US time zone. If it differs from geographic location I'd see it as a sign you're using a VPN or proxy.

>DNT Header Enabled?
Useless since no one respects it. Don't bother enabling it, using uBlock Origin is a better way to let them know you don't want to be tracked.

>HTTP_ACCEPT Headers
>Language
Once again English might be the least unique but as with the time zone this should match your country or else it actually makes you more identifiable.

>Platform
Doesn't say a lot unless the person is using Linux or BSD since they have a lower market share, but spoofing it is kinda trivial.

>User Agent
Browsers are updated very often today and the user agent changes with each major version. Even with the latest Chrome on Windows 7/10 (the most common browser and operating system) you'll score badly on this since your user agent makes up such a small part of all the people who have taken the test.

>Touch Support
Mostly just says whether you're using a (smart)phone or not. As long as it matches what you're actually using it doesn't say anything.

Lastly, 99% of all website today rely on a third-party website for tracking/ads so if you block that they only get basic information such as your HTTP headers, referers (unless you spoof/disable sending it) and some other things.

>>60249390
If you're spoofing the canvas ID then surely that means it's useless for identification, and an adversary can only use other identifiers instead? Even if they know you're spoofing it, its value is effectively zero bits to them, isn't it?