Info given on panopticlick.eff.org is a bit confusing in that some of it
seems incorrect. If that makes a browser "more common," I guess it's a
But some of the info it shows as incorrect is very "uncommon." That
doesn't mean someone trying to finger print a browser would get the same
info that Panopticlick shows - or does it?
It showed an incorrect screen size and "color depth." Claiming in 1 in
430370 browsers (systems?) have that specific characteristic - fairly
uncommon. Except monitor info is incorrect.
All that resulted in a claim that "only *one in 1,721,479 browsers have
the same fingerprint*."
I don't know where / how it gets the screen size, but mine definitely
isn't 947 wide. It's actually a very common size.
I assume the color depth is bit value. Panopticlick shows 24 (bit?),
but there's not even a CHOICE of 24 bit in my display settings, for my
monitor / graphics card combination. Maybe I misunderstand how
Panopticlick arrives at that value.
It surprised me that it estimated 1 in 76 browsers had the USERAGENT
data given by TBB, of Windows 7 w/ Fx 17. Other than possibly mostly
TBB users going to Panopticlick (skewing the data) to check browser
uniqueness, I doubt 1 in every 76 users in the U.S. or world wide, truly
have Fx 17 in Windows 7. Maybe I'm wrong.
I just wondered if others have checked their regular Firefox & TBB
uniqueness on eff's site, to see if the data shown seems accurate for
tor-talk mailing list - firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsusbscribe or change other settings go to