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 <eocene at gmx.com> 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.
_______________________________________________ Dillo-dev mailing list Dillo-dev at dillo.org http://lists.dillo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dillo-dev