From f9ac30d9d2d6b78a43d074d4c5ed58b48172dda6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thorin-Oakenpants Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 12:14:11 +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 216a761..30a003c 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 user agent, and yet Firefox (and Tor Browser) only comprise approx 4% worldwide + * 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 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