Browser fingerprinting with NoScript

With recent revelations about browser fingerprinting, the race is on to find ways and means that will help reduce your browser’s fingerprint, and with it, make it difficult for it (and you) to be tracked.

After trying Panopticlick yesterday, a tool released by the Electronic Frontier Foundation to help users determine if their browser is safe against tracking and fingerprinting, I set out to find out how to make my browsers less unique to trackers.

For the very paranoid, the results are not good.

Under default settings, a browser like Mozilla Firefox and Iceweasel emit very unique fingerprints, as shown in the result of a Panopticlick test in Figure 1. “Default settings” implies that DNT (Do Not Track) is disabled, and cookies are accepted. Pay special attention to how many other browsers have the same fingerprint as the target browser.

Browser fingerprinting
Figure 1: Browser fingerprinting under browser default settings

Enabling DNT makes no difference to the result of the test.

Browser fingerprinting with DNT
Figure 2: Browser fingerprinting with DNT (Do Not Track) enabled

Even with DNT and cookies rejected globally, the browser still has a unique fingerprint which was even worse than when cookies were accept.

Browser fingerprinting no cookies
Figure 3: Browser fingerprinting with DNT (Do Not Track) enabled and cookies disabled

With Privacy Badger installed, still keeping DNT enabled and cookies rejected, the result is only as good as when DNT was enabled, which means not very good.

Browser fingerprinting with Privacy Badger
Figure 4: Browser fingerprinting with Privacy Badger installed

Throw NoScript in the mix, and your browser stands out like a sour thumb, which is counter to the expected result.

Browser fingerprinting with NoScript
Figure 5: Browser fingerprinting with Privacy Badger and NoScript plugins installed

On a KDE desktop, there’s an option in the System Settings that can be used to disable browser identification in Konqueror, the native KDE browser and file manager. It can also be used to give a fake identification to the browser.

 KDE Konqueror browser identification
Figure 6: KDE Konqueror browser identification

However, disabling sending browser identification is useless, as it still leaves your browser with a unique fingerprint.

fingerprinting test on Konqueror
Figure 7: Browser fingerprinting test on Konqueror

So despite all the browser tools and options that can be deployed and tweaked to give a browser a less unique fingerprint, nothing seems to make any real difference. And from what I’ve seen so far, the more plugins installed and the more options enabled/disabled, the more unique your browser becomes. It’s like getting your phone number on a “Do Not Call” list. To learn a bit more about this topic, the EFF has some suggestions here.

Related Post:  How to deploy OSSEC across a large network of systems from RPMs

Share:

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on pinterest
Pinterest
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn

Hola! Did you notice that LinuxBSDos.com no longer runs network ads?  Yep, no more ads from the usual suspects that track you across the Internet.  But since  I still need to pay to keep the site running, feel free to make a small donation by PayPal.

Subscribe for updates. Trust me, no spam!

Mailchimp Signup Form

Sponsored links

1. Attend Algorithm Conference, a top AI and ML event for 2020.
2. Reasons to use control panel for your server.
3. DHgate Computers Electronics, Cell Phones & more.

3 Responses

  1. If you are using the Firefox extension Random Agent Spoofer, your browser finger print will look highly distinctive. However, since the user agent will change to some other value every few minutes, the ability to track you through finger printing is greatly impaired.

  2. Extremely interesting article. Coincidentally, I took the Panopticlick test today with pretty much the same results that you outlined in your article. If only I could turn my system into a virtual Fort Knox! Seems like trackers are persistently against web surfers getting any kind of privacy! The internet means business…

  3. I run stock Debian Jessie but with a back-ported Iceweasel (currently version 43.0.2). My panopticlick number is 1 in 8600, so i think I’m as close to the norm as possible.

    I was getting numbers similar to those you outline in the article until I installed the following add-on’s:
    – Total Spoof
    – Privacy Badger
    – NoScript (using the default settings)

    I’m not sure if these also affect the numbers, but I’ve also installed these ad blockers:
    – uBlock Origin
    – Disconnect

    Here’s the Panopticlick output:

    Test Result
    Is your browser blocking tracking ads? ✓ yes
    Is your browser blocking invisible trackers? ✓ yes
    Is your browser accepting Do Not Track commitments? ✗ no
    Does your browser protect from fingerprinting? ✓ yes

    Note: because tracking techniques are complex, subtle, and constantly evolving, Panopticlick does not measure all forms of tracking and protection.

    Within our dataset of several million visitors, only one in 8632.85185185 browsers have the same fingerprint as yours.

    Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys 13.08 bits of identifying information.

    Hope this helps.
    Eddie

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Get the latest

On social media
Via my newsletter
Mailchimp Signup Form

Partner links

1. Attend Algorithm Conference, a top AI and ML event for 2021.
2. Reasons to use control panel for your server.
3. DHgate Computers Electronics, Cell Phones & more.
Hacking, pentesting distributions

Linux Distributions for Hacking

Experts use these Linux distributions for hacking, digital forensics, and pentesting.

Categories
Archives

The authors of these books are confirmed to speak during

Algorithm Conference

T-minus AI

Author was the first chairperson of AI for the U.S. Air Force.

The case for killer robots

Author is the Director of the Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence.

Why greatness cannot be planned

Author works on AI safety as a Senior Research Scientist at Uber AI Labs.

Anastasia Marchenkova

An invitation from Anastasia Marchenkova

Hya, after stints as a quantum researcher at Georgia Tech Quantum Optics & Quantum Telecom Lab, and the University of Maryland Joint Quantum Institute, I’m now working on superconducting qubit quantum processors at Bleximo. I’ll be speaking during Algorithm Conference in Austin, Texas, July 16 – 18, 2020. Meet me there and let’s chat about progress and hype in quantum computing.