Hacker News Reader

Comment by monerozcash | Hacker News Reader

Regular OS X safari: Our tests indicate that you have strong protection against Web tracking.

>Your browser fingerprint has been randomized among the 378,837 tested in the past 45 days. Although sophisticated adversaries may still be able to track you to some extent, randomization provides a very strong protection against tracking companies trying to fingerprint your browser.

>Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys at least 18.53 bits of identifying information.

Anyway, this test doesn't really communicate the results very well. Yes, Tor browser stands out. No, it's not easy to differentiate between different Tor browser users via this kind of fingerprinting.

View on HN

Huh, I use a "stock" (I think?) MacOS Safari and got "Your browser has a nearly-unique fingerprint" and "Partial protection" for ads and invisible trackers.

Did you change a setting or add an ad blocker or something?

edit: I feel like someone with a username "monerozcash" must have some customization to your browsing experience, that maybe you don't even remember doing...

No, on this device literally the only customization I have is the RECAP browser extension. And even RECAP only runs on whitelisted websites.

It’s probably precisely because his browser is not customized that it’s not easily fingerprintable, because stock Safari has privacy protections and users generally don’t change anything.

I got a very similar result on unmodified iOS Safari, randomized among 380k users and conveying 15.5 bits of information. I only have the Dark Reader extension.

I'm downloading safari right now.

EDIT: just saw I need to download playonlinux or wine. Forget about it.

The randomisation features were significantly improved in Safari 26. Is that the version you have?

Could you clarify if that's with or without JS?

I have not disabled JS or made any other configuration changes on this device. Entirely stock Safari and entirely stock MacOS.

That's not really believable. I'm starting to think this website isn't very reliable.

No, it's believable. All this website is communicating to us that most MacOS Safari installs look the same.

It's not "install" that matter here. If two people have the same "install" but their browser windows have different sizes, they'll be distinguishable. Or any perperty that can be queried via JS.

Let me rephrase it: you believe it, I don't believe.

Browser window size and timezone are basically the only identifying details the page gets besides the fact that I use Safari on MacOS

For window size only 1 in 380326.0 browsers has this value.

For example, what does the section "time zone" and "time zone offset" read for you? You have JS on, so what did JS return on that point?

I'm downloading safari right now.

EDIT: just saw I need to download playonlinux or wine. Forget about it.

It gets my correct timezone.

> For window size only 1 in 380326.0 browsers has this value.

Sorry, who concluded that this is fingerprintin resistant? Does the website tell you that, or was this your conclusion? Because my reading is with a number that small, you're almost uniquely identifiable. Is it possible you're misunderstanding what the report is showing?

Would you be assed to continue this conversation elsewhere? I'd like to get to the bottom of this?

That's the website output.

Those two values are the only ones returned by the browser which are useful for fingerprinting beyond "stock safari". Window size being the biggest part of that, but window size tends to change fairly regularly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com