Re: Removing navigator.buildID?

On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Chris Pearce wrote: > It's not just Netflix that the media playback team has used > navigator.buildID in order to validate fixes; we've used it with other large > video sites too. It's invaluable for determining whether a bug has been > fixed in a build. Can we onl

Re: Removing navigator.buildID?

On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: > On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 11:15 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote: > > Taking a step back: is fingerprinting really a solvable problem in > > practice? At this point, are there a significant fraction of users > > who can't be fingerprinted pretty reliab

Re: Removing navigator.buildID?

On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 11:15 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote: > Taking a step back: is fingerprinting really a solvable problem in > practice? At this point, are there a significant fraction of users > who can't be fingerprinted pretty reliably? Inevitably, the more > features we add to the platform, the

Re: Removing navigator.buildID?

On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 7:21 AM, Kohei Yoshino wrote: > So the Battery Status API has just been removed, I think now is a good > time to think about navigator.buildID again, which bug [1] has been > inactive for a whole year. > > 4 years ago, Firefox 16 removed a minor version number from the use

Re: Removing navigator.buildID?

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote: >> If the concern is fingerprinting, perhaps it could be exposed only to >> sites that the user is logged into (assuming we have a good working >> definition of "logged in")? > > I think t

Re: Removing navigator.buildID?

The buildID changing rapidly provides a bigger, rather than a smaller, fingerprinting surface. ~ Gijs On 01/11/2016 08:09, Chris Pearce wrote: It's not just Netflix that the media playback team has used navigator.buildID in order to validate fixes; we've used it with other large video sites to

Re: Removing navigator.buildID?

It's not just Netflix that the media playback team has used navigator.buildID in order to validate fixes; we've used it with other large video sites too. It's invaluable for determining whether a bug has been fixed in a build. Can we only disable navigator.buildID in release builds? Don't users

Re: Removing navigator.buildID?

On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 10:54:11 AM UTC-4, Mike Taylor wrote: > On 10/31/16 9:16 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > > On Oct 31, 2016 16:02, "Mike Taylor" > > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On 10/29/16 9:21 AM, Kohei Yoshino wrote: > >>> > >>> I think now is a good time to thi

Re: Removing navigator.buildID?

On 10/31/16 9:16 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: On Oct 31, 2016 16:02, "Mike Taylor" mailto:mi...@mozilla.com>> wrote: On 10/29/16 9:21 AM, Kohei Yoshino wrote: I think now is a good time to think about navigator.buildID again Thoughts? Seems like we'd potentially end up breaking legacy sites

Re: Removing navigator.buildID?

On Oct 31, 2016 16:02, "Mike Taylor" wrote: > > > > On 10/29/16 9:21 AM, Kohei Yoshino wrote: >> >> I think now is a good time to think about navigator.buildID again >> Thoughts? > > > Seems like we'd potentially end up breaking legacy sites that sniff that to mean "isMozilla". > I suggest return

Re: Removing navigator.buildID?

On 10/29/16 9:21 AM, Kohei Yoshino wrote: I think now is a good time to think about navigator.buildID again Thoughts? Seems like we'd potentially end up breaking legacy sites that sniff that to mean "isMozilla". -- Mike Taylor Web Compat, Mozilla ___

Re: Removing navigator.buildID?

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote: > On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Chris Peterson > wrote: >> Alternately, buildID could be hidden behind a domain whitelist pref, seeded >> with sites working with Mozilla. If you are, say, a Netflix customer, they >> already know who you ar

Re: Removing navigator.buildID?

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Chris Peterson wrote: > Alternately, buildID could be hidden behind a domain whitelist pref, seeded > with sites working with Mozilla. If you are, say, a Netflix customer, they > already know who you are, so exposing your buildID to them is not much of a > trackin

Re: Removing navigator.buildID?

On 10/30/2016 2:27 AM, Pascal Chevrel wrote: IMO the builID is important for our community of nightly testers that report bug and need to indicate precisely in which build they found a regression, so keeping that information available via about:support and extensions such as Nightly Testers Tools

Re: Removing navigator.buildID?

about navigator.buildID Le 30 oct. 2016 à 18:27, Pascal Chevrel a écrit : > so keeping that information available via about:support and extensions such > as Nightly Testers Tools seems valuable for mozilla to me in a chrome context. Could it be kept without exposing it to Web content? -- Ka

Re: Removing navigator.buildID?

Le 30/10/2016 à 00:34, Nicholas Alexander a écrit : On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 7:21 AM, Kohei Yoshino wrote: So the Battery Status API has just been removed, I think now is a good time to think about navigator.buildID again, which bug [1] has been inactive for a whole year. 4 years ago, Firefox

Re: Removing navigator.buildID?

On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 7:21 AM, Kohei Yoshino wrote: > So the Battery Status API has just been removed, I think now is a good > time to think about navigator.buildID again, which bug [1] has been > inactive for a whole year. > > 4 years ago, Firefox 16 removed a minor version number from the use

Removing navigator.buildID?

So the Battery Status API has just been removed, I think now is a good time to think about navigator.buildID again, which bug [1] has been inactive for a whole year. 4 years ago, Firefox 16 removed a minor version number from the user agent string to mitigate fingerprinting [2][3]. However, th