Re: Browser tracking

The browser on my not-incredibly-old ipod touch returned as unique, so
people who run that configuration apparently have not found this site.

Dillo currently returns one-in-~85000, with the user-agent being the
lion's share of that.

If we implement configurable user-agents, will we start getting code
optimised for other people, which we can't run?

On 9/10/14, eocene <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jorge wrote:
>>   This site is interesting. It gives kind of a score of web browser
>> trackability. [1]
>>
>>   @corvid, I thought you'd like to give it a look (AFAIR, you have
>> submitted
>> some standardizing to our HTTP querying in the past). It looks like
>> our HTTP_ACCEPT and "User Agent" are the most vulnerable to tracking.
>>
>>   It looks simple to provide some less unique alternatives in dillorc.
>
> Yes, this site was part of the impetus to work on the headers in March to
> make dillo resemble firefox more closely, and add deflate decompression
> and add keepalive.
>
> User-agent is a little misleading in that I have a current firefox
> user-agent string, and panopticlick says that's one in 2701.57 browsers,
> but no doubt it's rather more common among the visitors in
> September 2014 specifically.
>
> Somewhat related, I've been working on SSL in the browser, and
> https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/viewMyClient.html
> shows some more ways for browsers to reveal what they are.
>
>>   DISCLAIMER: this is just on little aspect of the privacy chain.
>> Most probably this is moot unless you're behind a TOR ring. YMMV.
>
> Indeed.
>
>>
>> [1] https://panopticlick.eff.org/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dillo-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.dillo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dillo-dev
>