[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Public WebGL] about the VENDOR, RENDERER, and VERSION strings
----- Mail original -----
> On 11/30/2010 05:28 PM, Benoit Jacob wrote:
> > Fair enough. Do you have a better suggestion? I need a solution that
> > preserves the user's privacy. Remember the amount of noise that
> > Evercookie made when it was released.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evercookie
> > The privacy issue that we're discussing here is potentially worse
> > than that as, given enough bits of unique user info leaked, it
> > allows to build a server-side "Evercookie" associated to a unique
> > browser/computer id. I am inexperienced in the Web world so would be
> > very happy if one explained me how my fears are unfounded, otherwise
> > I am very interested in doing what I can to limit the possibilities
> > of this happening, and consider this a priority over allowing web
> > pages to adjust their rendering to the graphics card model faster
> > than we can update browsers.
> I already gave you a better suggestion!
> Put a checkbox in that gives the user the choice:
I'll consider this, but will default to privacy mode.
> 3) Close access to useful VENDOR/RENDERER/VERSION and provide utterly
> minimal settings via glGet
We'll see about that, I need to examine each of the relevant MAX_... pnames here, see what the possible values are if a good compromise can be found.
> (and never offer extensions
We'll see when there are extensions.
> note that this would require dumbing every desktop
> computer down to 5/6/5 RGB).
The color depth is already leaked to web content anyway. See Panopticlick.eff.org.
We just have to agree to disagree on this topic.
> Taking the second option may salve your personal conscience - but
> realistically it allows 90% as much data leakage as option (1) and
> nothing but make life harder for the application developers. That's a
> big win for Adobe and a significant loss for everyone else.
> So it's a choice between (1) and (3)...that's a tough choice - do you
> want or care or even understand the need for utter anonymity (half a
> billion facebook users evidently don't)? If so - then you check the
> box. Do you want cutting edge games right there on any computer on the
> web? If so - uncheck the box. You absolutely can't have both.
> I don't think you have the right to make that decision for Firefox
> - and I'm pretty sure that if you do, you'll find that the problem
> go away because all of the gamers (and people who want 3D pictures of
> stuff they buy online and people who want interactive 3D maps and so
> forth) will be using Chrome.
> Of course you could go with option (2) - which might make you feel
> - but is a laughably poor decision because it inconveniences the good
> guys and does nothing to slow down the bad guys.
> So - let's agree we need the checkbox to choose between (1) and (3) -
> and we can arm-wrestle over how it's set by default - and whether it
> be overridden per-website on a white-list or black-list basis.
> Personally - I think that anyone who REALLY wants to know who you are
> and who can coerce you into visiting their website can use timing
> tricks, roundoff-error detection and bug sniffing to gain more bits of
> information about you than VENDOR/RENDERER/VERSION could ever provide
> because they can also figure out the clock speed and memory capacity
> your GPU.
> There are so many other information leaks in so many other subsystems
> that I'm 100% sure that this is a lost cause. eg:
> * CSS3: Does your computer have such-and-such font installed locally -
> or does it fetch it from the server?
> * Basic browser: How many bytes of data can we download - and then
> redownload without a server hit to sniff out your cache size settings?
> * Security settings: By probing your security settings I can find out
> what cookies you accept and deny - so the very act of turning on more
> privacy settings gives away more of your privacy.
> I can come up with these kinds of data-gathering tricks about as fast
> I can type them in. How many do you think a black hat web expert could
> find in a month of concentrated effort?
> It's a lost cause - but as a salve to people's consciences - let's put
> checkbox on the security page so that people can get a warm, fuzzy,
> false sense of security from it.
> -- Steve
You are currently subscribed to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe, send an email to email@example.com with
the following command in the body of your email: