If I keep js disabled and then use extension will it still be a fingerprinting issue?
from url@feddit.fr to privacy@lemmy.ml on 28 Nov 2025 18:51
https://feddit.fr/c/privacy/p/230708/if-i-keep-js-disabled-and-then-use-extension-will-it-still-be-a-fingerprinting-issue
from url@feddit.fr to privacy@lemmy.ml on 28 Nov 2025 18:51
https://feddit.fr/c/privacy/p/230708/if-i-keep-js-disabled-and-then-use-extension-will-it-still-be-a-fingerprinting-issue
I mean for fingerprinting protections I go minimal with extensions. I only have Ublock origin. I want to keep dark reader but for fingerprinting issue I’m not doing it. So if I keep js disabled with Ublock origin (I’m doing it for a while now) and then install dark reader will websites still be able to tell that I have dark reader installed?
threaded - newest
Would be nice if there was an extension that hid itself and other extensions for sites, that you visit.
Disabling JS is itself a very rare thing for someone to do so doing it helps fingerprint you.
I always wondered . . . is it sort of like driving without a license plate?
This could be a fingerprint as very few people keep JS off and you might stand out.
On the other hand, the browser gives out very little information without JS active. Turn off JS and test your browser on deviceinfo, amiunique, etc and see how many entries are “unknown”.
True, but JS off also makes the web so Mich faster and in many cases less annoying. More so if uBlock is used on Medium mode.
I can not disagree with any of your points.
I played around with coveryourtracks.eff.org and realized that I’m quite unique whether I allow js or not. Many trackers get blocked by the absence of js though so that would hamper them somewhat.
My Sony phone with 21:9 screen ensures I’m uncommon compared to most.
My goal isn’t to be untrackable but to block the ads they try to shove in your face as step 2.
Another thing, I’m wondering. What if it’s not so much being un-unique as much the sum of the fingerprintable things looking not strange compared to others. Chances are that a lot of people also use some ad blockers, some common hardwares, etc.
.
I use IronFox and I do pass that test. Only browser that I use that does. FF and Cromite do not.
Interesting, it seems that while IronFox has the protections activated by default (and with some changes) you can also activate most of them on Firefox.
github.com/ironfox-oss/IronFox/…/Features.md#fing…
Ironfox Devs themselves say that the only browser that can truly protect you against fingerprinting is the Tor Browser.
github.com/ironfox-oss/IronFox/…/Limitations.md
Do you feel IronFox breaks many sites for you?
Oh, absolutely. Ironically is just a set of scripts that you can run independently, it is called Phoenix. I run the script on the FF Nightly installed on my phone for the LULZ and for the newer toys.
True, TOR is best in class, but if you have used it, then you will see that it has some caveats for every day normal usage. Tons of sites will actively block it or give you trouble. But of course, it has its niche and tons of use cases, but in my use case it is a bit overkill.
Aside Lemmy, Reddit, and LinkedIn, all of which I use very sporadically, I am not on any other social media, use VPNs which I switch often, Do not use Google/MS services and I host most of the stuff I use myself including my own cloud and search engines.
IronFox barely breaks anything for me, and that is with webrtc and JIT disabled but as I said, most of the stuff I use is hosted by me, so I make those work. In my use case, uBlock Origin, used in Medium mode breaks way, way, way more stuff. But most people do not use it that way, so it does not apply to them.