On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote: > Michael Mol wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Michael Hampicke <gentoo-u...@hadt.biz> >> wrote: >>>> There is actually a huge amount of information available, giving a high >>>> level of pseudo-uniqueness. There was a web site that showed you how >>>> much it could glean from even an anonymous session, but I can't remember >>>> where is was. Somewhere like the EFF. >>> >>> I guess you mean https://panopticlick.eff.org/ >>> >> >> My results from work: >> >> Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 1,939,102 tested so >> far. >> >> Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that >> conveys at least 20.89 bits of identifying information. >> > > > Funny, I get exactly the same thing except add one to the large number. > I guess you tested before I did. How does one avoid this but still > have sites work?
Well, I just went to the same site using a Chrome 'incognito' browser, and got this: Within our dataset of several million visitors, only one in 969,560 browsers have the same fingerprint as yours. Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys 19.89 bits of identifying information. It looks like the biggest culprits appear to be the available font list and the browser plugin set. Stick to as close-to-core a set of fonts as possible, and that'll likely help. Also disable any plugins you don't need. (FWIW, using the incognito window reduced the number of bits listed in both "Browser Plugin Details" and "system Fonts", and reduced the visible volume of data for "Browser Plugin Details" by about a third.) -- :wq
