Git/firefox-user.js
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/arkenfox/user.js.git synced 2024-11-25 12:01:38 +01:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Updated 4.1 Extensions (markdown)

Thorin-Oakenpants 2020-05-21 04:09:19 +00:00
parent f9ac30d9d2
commit 0578df4ea8
1 changed files with 1 additions and 1 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
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