From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: [emacs-w3m:13607] Re: Browser Fingerprinting Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 11:35:38 +0200 Message-ID: <20200417093538.GB3844@tuxteam.de> References: <87lfmx8frv.fsf@ebih.ebihd> <873694mu9f.fsf@fliptop.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> <20200417025514.5gotmp6vlvg3v25x@E15-2016.optimum.net> <87h7xio7dw.fsf@fliptop.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> <20200417085716.vbfkk5ibchc74ev5@E15-2016.optimum.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="PmA2V3Z32TCmWXqI" Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="36405"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Apr 17 11:36:17 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jPNPy-0009O3-Dt for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 11:36:14 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44656 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jPNPx-0007Kt-G8 for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 05:36:13 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:60191) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jPNPS-0007Kl-To for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 05:35:44 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jPNPR-0003Lb-Jp for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 05:35:42 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.tuxteam.de ([5.199.139.25]:50727) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jPNPR-0003Fu-3U for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 05:35:41 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tuxteam.de; s=mail; h=From:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:To:Date; bh=/gtYy3TeDAADyJFcHGwbWaObK7f+24h6xFJiwv9r32g=; b=uqppVtwoJlthz6dPLDoFIWtuiz4WPJ2PxUfFbA4LGkT7pjFu2N/ARLDK/eWmIuxtEhqaJMQ8lwEd40TByGNue+U5L2rds426hgCTk4q4lu9Dod9gt0/qM/mhmDlOD/hVrGKZb3UT03IzXzAH7/oUpyEADgxr0m+HSnQOwTMUf57w29/JJh4FSK7pOevp9SeObeu2wuZa353ltxocv2aGfobOXMq5bLulc/OHHQu1KCnV698uhr4fz/ee6AxG9HccohLPtjDtcICNJqVAR8FVY3eRPSkfZGU0D0xTIfK1S+oGrDD2xUkA5PQE3l0Pq+qyXiGeQ2cVdR3tL9J0NNNyOw==; Original-Received: from tomas by mail.tuxteam.de with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1jPNPO-0002X8-S5 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 11:35:38 +0200 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200417085716.vbfkk5ibchc74ev5@E15-2016.optimum.net> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 5.199.139.25 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "help-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.help:122860 Archived-At: --PmA2V3Z32TCmWXqI Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 04:57:16AM -0400, Boruch Baum wrote: > On 2020-04-17 10:15, Tomas Nordin wrote: > > The fields tested as browser characteristtics were > > ... >=20 > Thanks. Good to know. >=20 > > The most identifying characteristics is User Agent followed by > > HTTP_ACCEPT Headers. >=20 > Of course emacs-w3m and w3m have no choice but to send them, but ... >=20 >=20 > > Browsing the web with a text based browser is not a common thing to do, > > so from a browser fingerprinting point of view I guess the uniqeness is > > to be expected. >=20 > Right. That's why I suggested in my original e-mail... >=20 >=20 > "What might be more useful is to set variable w3m-add-user-agent to t, > and then set w3m-user-agent to some generic and popular user-agent > string." What I'd do is randomly select from a choice of, say, 100 popular browser strings. Bonus points if we manage to come up with a random schedule which is "just right" -- too much random and "they" [1] notice, too little random and they're not confused enough. Cheers [1] No, not some little grey men. Just the algorithms. Paid by the ad industry, so working for them... -- t --PmA2V3Z32TCmWXqI Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAl6ZeGoACgkQBcgs9XrR2kaGtgCfaCXw/wxxXI4olWR/WHyame5b CVsAn1dhQlC1YHkJU7TueNAKsgR3N1TD =qLbi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --PmA2V3Z32TCmWXqI--