From 0578df4ea850d71ace36d92e28b015d9c84b611d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thorin-Oakenpants Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 04:09:19 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Updated 4.1 Extensions (markdown) --- 4.1-Extensions.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/4.1-Extensions.md b/4.1-Extensions.md index 30a003c..3bce5d6 100644 --- a/4.1-Extensions.md +++ b/4.1-Extensions.md @@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ This is not about the merits of randomizing vs lowering entropy: this is about u * note: RFP doesn't care if it can be detected, because all users are the "same" If you don't use RFP, then **you're on your own**. And don't rely on entropy figures from test sites. The datasets are not real world, very small, and tainted by both the type of visitors, and by their constant tweaking and re-visits which further poison the results and artificially inflate rare results: e.g. on Panopticlick [May 2020] - * e.g.: why are 1 in 6.25 (16%) results returning a white canvas (which is statistically only an RFP solution), and 1 in 6.16 (16%) returning a Firefox 68 Windows user agent, and yet Firefox (and Tor Browser) only comprise approx 5% worldwide, **in total** - actual ESR68 users on Windows would be far less than that. + * e.g.: why are 1 in 6.25 (16%) results returning a white canvas (which is statistically only an RFP solution), and 1 in 6.16 (16%) returning a Firefox 68 Windows user agent, and yet Firefox (and Tor Browser) only comprise approx 5% worldwide, **in total** - actual ESR68 users on Windows, and actual RFP users would both be a **tiny fraction** of that * e.g.: why are 1 in 1.85 (54%) results returning no plugins, when chrome (at 67% market share) and others by default reveal plugin data * remember: very, very, very few users use anti-fingerprinting measures