Web browser privacy test @ https://coveryourtracks.eff.org

[dogcat]

https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/

Just for fun.

Interesting site from the TOR people.
It will run a test against your browser by your request. The test shows what type of data your browser is exposing and provides a numerical rating as to how private your browser is.

Included scores are from what I currently use on my desktop, a lower number is more private. As you can see in the results, a more common total fingerprint gives a lower, more private score.
If we all look alike they say it is best. I am not saying one browser is better than another, that is up to you to decide waht is best for you.

Librewolf Version 133.03.1-1 latest version [With Noscript & Ublock origin add-ons]
Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys 7.96 bits of identifying information.
Within our dataset of several hundred thousand visitors tested in the past 45 days, only one in 248.9 browsers have the same fingerprint as yours.

Mullvad Version 14.03 latest version [With Ublock origin add-on]
Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys 8.51 bits of identifying information.
Within our dataset of several hundred thousand visitors tested in the past 45 days, only one in 364.19 browsers have the same fingerprint as yours.

Seamonkey Version 2.53.19 latest version [With Noscript & Ublock origin add-ons]
Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys 16.51 bits of identifying information.
Within our dataset of several hundred thousand visitors tested in the past 45 days, only one in 93196.5 browsers have the same fingerprint as yours.

Ungoogled Chrromium Version 114.0.5735.106 not latest version [No addons]
Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys at least 17.51 bits of identifying information.
Within our dataset of several hundred thousand visitors tested in the past 45 days, only one in 93217.5 browsers have the same fingerprint as yours.

I would be very interested in what other browsers score and what add-ons are used.

[bugnaw333]

EasyOS Scarthgap Chromium
Version 131.0.6778.85 (Official Build) stable (64-bit)
[Ublock origin add-on]
Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 187,133 tested in the past 45 days.
Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys at least 17.51 bits of identifying information.

[Chelsea80]

OS as Signature 1.

Firefox Version 133.0.3 (32-bit)

No additional blockers installed

Cover Your Tracks.png (78.59 KiB) Viewed 964 times

Within our dataset of several hundred thousand visitors tested in the past 45 days, only one in 93837.5 browsers have the same fingerprint as yours.

Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys 16.52 bits of identifying information.

Tested with a real tracking company.

[darksun]

using mullvad browser regardless the operating system you are running

of course , you install it and leave it as it is, without changing anything within the software post installation (settings, add-ons, and so on).

PS please be aware this test from cover your tracks is not perfect; yet mullvad browser (and the TOR browser) are, at present, the best web browsers for user's privacy.

[soniabu]

Out of curiosity, I took the test as suggested.
However, I must say - hoping I haven't made a mistake in interpreting your tests -
that excellent protection with the browsers (Tor,LibreWolf.Mullvad and even Firefox, all with ublock-privacy badger-decentraleyes ) occurs only if you set
'javascript = false'.
Only with that attribute does one have 'strong protection'.
So it's probably a stretch to say that those browesers themselves (i.e. left unchanged after installation) protect against tracking.

[darksun]

that is incorrect. JS enabled (security default level set to "safe" on both mullvad and TOR browser).

[dogcat]

Out of curiosity, I took the test as suggested.
However, I must say - hoping I haven't made a mistake in interpreting your tests -
that excellent protection with the browsers (Tor,LibreWolf.Mullvad and even Firefox, all with ublock-privacy badger-decentraleyes ) occurs only if you set
'javascript = false'.
Only with that attribute does one have 'strong protection'.
So it's probably a stretch to say that those browesers themselves (i.e. left unchanged after installation) protect against tracking.

Hi @soniabu

Interesting remarks, I retested the 4 browsers in my original post.

Of the four browsers I tested in the original post, only Seamonkey changed for the worse with javascript enabled.

Mullvad and Librewolf, both with javascript enabled, produced the lowest scores of the 4 browsers that I tested.

Mullvad (version 14.3) is box stock and allows javascript. As tested above javascript was enabled.
There was no need to retest Mullvad except that there was a new version available. I tested the new version because it was different than my original post.
8.28 bits of information.
One in 310.0 browsers had the same fingerprint.

Librewolf had javascript disabled in my original post.
I retested with javascript enabled and it scored even better on the test.
7.60 bits of information.
One in 194.27 browsers had the same fingerprint.

Seamonkey had javascript disabled in my original post.
I retested with javascript enabled and it did score worse on the test.

Ungoogled Chromium had javascript enabled in my original post.
There was no need to retest.

[darksun]

Out of curiosity, I took the test as suggested.
However, I must say - hoping I haven't made a mistake in interpreting your tests -
that excellent protection with the browsers (Tor,LibreWolf.Mullvad and even Firefox, all with ublock-privacy badger-decentraleyes ) occurs only if you set
'javascript = false'.
Only with that attribute does one have 'strong protection'.

furthermore I add that privacy badger is redundant alongside ublock origin; and decentraleyes has more downsides than upsides and not recommended. If neither mullvad nor TOR browser have those two embedded as default add-ons there are valid reasons.
Ublock origin is the only essential recommended add-on for privacy; less is more (less bug/attack surface); less installed add-ons also means less fingerprinting, which is also the purpose of those browsers.

So it's probably a stretch to say that those browesers themselves (i.e. left unchanged after installation) protect against tracking.

that is incorrect. I/you have the result I posted above with default , post installation Mullvad and/or TOR browser, left unchanged after installation, as the developers recommend. You can test yourself.

[soniabu]

thanks for the advice. I understand.
I have now tried a new test with LibreWolf 133 by changing Enable DNS over HTTPS using: Mullvad;
Therefore:
DNS Mullvad provider - Only UBlock Origin # 1.61.2 - JS = true - NoScript # 11.5.2
and the result is:
Our tests indicate that you have strong protection against Web tracking.
good thx darksun. Now I will try again with the other browsers, following your advice.
P.S.
I must say though, that the real anti-tracking shield that offers strong protection is the NoScript add-on.
because without it the protection is not strong; (at least in the browsers configuration on my BookWorm 12 system).

[ozsouth]

I see System Fonts is significantly used in fingerprinting. So using MS fonts would cause mis-identification. But Platform spec says Linux - I would like to disable that one.