• sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    canvasblocker ublockorigin privacybadger

    about:config ->

    -> javascript.options.shared_memory = FALSE

    -> privacy.firstparty.isolate = TRUE

    -> privacy.partition.network_state = TRUE

    -> privacy.partition.network_state.oscp_cache= TRUE

    -> privacy.partition.network_state.oscp_cache.pbmode = TRUE

    -> privacy.partition.serviceWorkers = TRUE

    -> privacy.reduceTimerPrecision = TRUE

    -> privacy.resistFingerprinting.reduceTimerPrecision.jitter = TRUE

    -> privacy.resistFingerprinting.reduceTimerPrecision.microseconds = 1000 … or… more?

    … might do something to stymie this?

    From the paper:

    We assume default configurations for the operating system and browser.

    Well I have no idea what the ‘default configuration’ of … Linux … is…

    But uh, theoretically this is something you could harden against by going balls to the wall with security preferences and options in firefox, waterfox, librewolf, ironfox, something like that… maybe?

    Also, its maybe possible that using a seperate container for each seperate tab could also stymie this.

      • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 days ago

        Yeah I apparently missed all this but yeah, there seems to have been a significant hubub of basically… wait why do we even need this at all?

        To satisfy lazy corporate web devs who can’t be bothered to use existing APIs properly?

        That’s basically my take after after a light review of reading several threads in various places around this, over the last few years.

      • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 days ago

        Waterfox seems to already have a default of 1000 microseconds, if… I think, you go with ‘strict’ privacy settings option?

        So on the one hand, a very brief perusal of the paper shows that the method needs like, sub 200 timings to work well.

        On the other hand… I have no idea if the exploit method effectively circumvents the way this timing speed limit actually works.

        I basically just sped read everything lol.

      • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        Potentially?

        Maybe?

        I would not call myself an expert here, I don’t… dev webbrowsers, more like I’m a privacy minded power user.

        I’m literally just spitballing, I can guarantee nothing.

        Maybe if I did a full crash course over like a month or two, I could have what I would call a ‘semi-informed’ opinion.