Epic fail resistance 2 or why you should not get involved in privacy with FireFox plugins

    Good reading time, dear readers of Habr.

    In the appendix to Big Data resistance 1 and Epic fail resistance 1

    A very short note about two more nuances.

    Having invested all this knowledge and plug-ins, including substitution of fingerprints, we do not always take into account or then forget that, in addition to “ordinary” sites for which information about us is clearly superfluous, we visit, at least sometimes, payment systems where the “verification” is more serious.


    1. The uniqueness of the prints. Fingerprints will almost always be unique when they are replaced. This is also an imprint. Imprint of substitution.
    2. Comparison Substitution of Canvas and WebGL - will be different (i.e. the rendering process). And this is a “subtle but unequivocal hint” of the substitution used not only by users for privatization purposes, but also by scammers.

    Suggestion - all these plugins for browsers, such as CanvasBlocker, are also gradually being improved, but, IMHO, we use the payment systems, just in case, to be whitelisted to exclude the possibility of additional checks. And do not forget that these plugins are installed, in the case of "online banking / shopping" is not from the list.

    Sources :

    How anti-fraud systems work (IMHO - there is interesting information)
    Anti-fraud systems and how they work (general information)

    Yeah ... The note turned into grab bags, Sat arrived)))

    PSThe article implied that fingerprinting is detected, although if there were no serious violations, then they can (and even not always) ask for extra confirmation, etc. Plus - fingerprinting will slightly affect the level of trust and you will be paid a bit more attention.

    The rest, regarding the Security Council - I propose to pay attention to the competent and detailed user comments below, especially to the comment mm3 .

    Also popular now: