Post #1334787

2026-04-15 20:53 UTC

Honestly. I think if tracking is disabled it should do the following: - anything screen dimension related including available height/width -> blocked (realistically java-script should never need to disclose this information outside of an internal function anyway) - User Agent: generalized (this usually already is the case) - Cookie status: kept the same as needed for functionality. - addon/plugin info: blocked - buildID: blocked - hardware concurrently: generalized instead of a set number (low end being request for permission by default Like there are many steps that can be done to help mitigate fingerprinting, its just getting vendors to actually do it. being said I had never known about the TLS fingerprinting option, I generally don't see that shown on the fingerprint detector sites, that's interesting.

Replies (2)

@FauxLiving@lemmy.world 2026-04-16 04:30

>being said I had never known about the TLS fingerprinting option, I generally don’t see that shown on the fingerprint detector sites, that’s interesting. There's also things like the SNI field which is a non-encrypted field which contains the requested domain name. Even if you use DNS over HTTPS to keep your information from leaking via ISP controlled DNS servers, they can still get the destination domain names from the SNI during the TLS handshake.

Open ##1334788
@FineCoatMummy@sh.itjust.works 2026-04-15 23:17

> its just getting vendors to actually do it. Good ideas... and yeah... the browser vendors have a financial incentive to build mechanisms to collect anything and everything. Javascript itself exposes so much more fingerprinting possibilies. That's also why I think it's so terrible for Google's Chrome to have like practically all the market share. G can now drive the whole web in a way that's good for them and bad for us.

Open ##1334789