Thanks for your insight. On 10/6/2013 10:18 AM, Andrew Lewman wrote:
These white lists can easily be disabled, but then that conflicts w/ Tor's concept of damaging sites' acceptance of Tor (interesting point). However, fingerprinting NOT with standing, millions? of Firefox & other browser users, having Adblock Plus, Ghostery, etc., enabled, are never turned away from websites, AFAIK.Adblock whitelists certain advertising companies and ads themselves:
Just curious - by that analogy, should Fx, Chrome & others maybe disallow using extensions that block ads or other things, as it may cause some sites' non acceptance of browsers that allow such extensions? Could be wrong, but I'd bet if sites "reject" TBB, it might be because of several other reasons that come before blocking ads. But...
That brings up a good question. I assume that TBB freely gives up info to sites that use the query: "navigator.plugins" - where sites can query whether specific plugins are installed: |var isSupported = navigator.plugins['Shockwave Flash'];|... if users install any plugins.Users are free to install these addons if they wish, but doing so is not recommended, as it will alter the browser request fingerprint. "
Since TBB doesn't ship with plugins, why does TBB honor requests for plugin info, at all? Would TBB ignoring requests for "navigator.plugins" from sites break too many browser functions or ?
As I understand, in Fx there's no equivalent method to find out all installed EXTENSIONS (distinguished from plugins; collectively called "addons"). But presence of SOME extensions are detectable by their effect on a web site's function, such as ads or trackers being blocked. Correct? But, not all extensions in Fx (TBB) are detectable - correct?
Thanks. -- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsusbscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk