Post Reply 
Iron (Chrome/Chromium) has problems with Sidki filters
Oct. 03, 2010, 01:53 PM (This post was last modified: Oct. 03, 2010 01:54 PM by sidki3003.)
Post: #16
RE: Iron (Chrome/Chromium) has problems with Sidki filters
(Sep. 20, 2010 08:14 AM)whenever Wrote:  
(Sep. 14, 2010 12:17 PM)Mele20 Wrote:  So, is it the browser string that Proxo is using that makes Fx and Opera believe that I did not upgrade but am instead using an ancient version?

I think so.

The below entry in User-Agents.ptxt
Code:
## If Opera:
## ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opera/(^$TST(keyword=*.f_ua_(^[a-z]++op)*))(\w)\2
  $SET(1=Opera/\2 (Windows NT 5.1; U))

Change the Opera User Agent string from:
Code:
User-Agent: Opera/9.80 (Windows NT 5.1; U; en) Presto/2.6.35 Version/10.70

To:
Code:
User-Agent: Opera/9.80 (Windows NT 5.1; U)

Which strip off the real version number.


Here is an updated UA string for User-Agents.ptxt, which works for me at http://www.opera.com/portal/upgrade/ :
Code:
## If Opera:
## ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opera/(^$TST(keyword=*.f_ua_(^[a-z]++op)*))(\w)\2
  (*(\sVersion/[#*:*].[0-9]$SET(4=9))\3|)
  $SET(1=Opera/\2 (Windows NT 6.1; U)\3\4)

As mentioned before, i couldn't find a similar issue for Firefox.
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
Oct. 03, 2010, 02:52 PM
Post: #17
RE: Iron (Chrome/Chromium) has problems with Sidki filters
Thanks for the fix.

Never do I have a issue with Firefox too.
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
Oct. 04, 2010, 03:11 AM
Post: #18
RE: Iron (Chrome/Chromium) has problems with Sidki filters
Thank you so much! That did it. Smile!

As for Firefox, I have had it misidentifying for MANY YEARS. I don't have a version past 3.0 currently and I only have 3.0 on a virtual machine that I do not have running all the time. Maybe if I upgraded to the current version, the problem would disappear, or maybe it is something besides Proxo although what I recall was that if I switched to Scott's last config set that the problem disappeared so I do think it has something to do with your config set. Since I don't use Fx much these days, it doesn't matter to me. It really used to irritate the mods at Mozillazine forums though as it identifies as a version that has never existed and so if I asked for help there they were flummoxed until I would explain to disregard how it identifies.
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
Oct. 04, 2010, 04:14 AM (This post was last modified: Oct. 04, 2010 04:18 AM by Mele20.)
Post: #19
RE: Iron (Chrome/Chromium) has problems with Sidki filters
Ah, heck. It is fine at Opera update site. BUT when I use http://whatsmyuseragent.com/ Opera is now identifying as:

Opera/9.80 (Windows NT 6.1; U) Version/10.69

First problem is easy to fix. I don't have Vista or Win 7 (NT 6.1). I can change that to NT 5.1 as I use XP Pro. (I have Vista on a virtual machine though but no Win 7 at all).

What bothers me most is why is it saying the version of Opera is a NON EXISTENT one? Just like what Fx and SeaMonkey/Mozilla do when I use your config set. I have no idea how to fix this. If I switch to Scott's filters it correctly identifies at whatsmyuseragent.com as Opera/9.80 (Windows NT 5.1; U; opera/9.80; en) Presto/2.6.30 Version/10.62.

Besides the misidentification with your filter of the version of Windows, and the version number of Opera, for me your filter does not include the "Presto/2.6.30" information. Whether or not the latter information is important and needs to be in the string, I don't really know. However, that information indicates that HTML 5 is a part of this version of Opera so with that missing from the string, I wonder if I try to look at videos that are using HTML 5 and WebM if I would get some error about not having a browser capable of HTML5. I suppose the version number 10.62 is sufficient to identify HTML5 capability, however, the string is saying it is 10.69...soo...?
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
Oct. 04, 2010, 05:14 AM (This post was last modified: Oct. 04, 2010 05:15 AM by JJoe.)
Post: #20
RE: Iron (Chrome/Chromium) has problems with Sidki filters
(Oct. 04, 2010 04:14 AM)Mele20 Wrote:  Ah, heck. It is fine at Opera update site. BUT when I use http://whatsmyuseragent.com/ Opera is now identifying as:

Opera/9.80 (Windows NT 6.1; U) Version/10.69

The filter is doing what it is supposed to do. Some of us don't want to send the correct, complete useragent to every site.

Do you always want to send the browser's actual complete user agent to every site?
We can show you how to do it.

But I'll have to do it later.
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
Oct. 04, 2010, 10:22 AM
Post: #21
RE: Iron (Chrome/Chromium) has problems with Sidki filters
as JJoe mentioned, the intent is to INTENTIONALLY NOT send the "real" user agent...

as an IE-shell user, the "real" user agent is "two pages long" (okay, exaggerating... slightly, lol)...

i mean, honestly, do web sites "really" need to know if i have .net installed, for example?
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
Oct. 06, 2010, 01:21 PM (This post was last modified: Oct. 06, 2010 01:37 PM by Mele20.)
Post: #22
RE: Iron (Chrome/Chromium) has problems with Sidki filters
The user agent string in Proxo accomplishes the EXACT OPPOSITE of giving us privacy and not allowing sites to identify us. The string is SO UNIQUE that browser fingerprinting at Panopticlick states that my browsers (Opera, Iron and Firefox) are completely unique with no other browser like mine in over 1 million + browsers tested. Only IE provides some protection because it is still the majority browser. It is not only the user agent string that gives away one's privacy. If you use Proxo with Opera, or Fx, the HTTP header information is much more unique than if you don't use Proxo. Plugin information using Fx and Opera is very revealing for fingerprinting the browser. With IE, fonts are very revealing but not much so with other browsers and IE is STILL the LEAST identifiable browser of all. The "super cookie" was uniquely identifying me with Opera until I completely killed all the new Persistent Storage that Opera has in 10.62. Some of this identifying we can't do much about although I just got rid of Opera plugin path as it was reporting the Fx plugins I have. I don't use any plugins on Opera so I don't need it making me easier to fingerprint because it shows plugins that are not even set up to use in Opera! (Opera developer told me that with the latest beta image that Opera can be set to detect ONLY the plugins you have on other browsers and and have set up to use in Opera so that is something I look forward to in the next official version so I won't have to a do a brutal delete of the plugin path).

Proxo is going make us rather unique for fingerprinting but I don't see why we need to make it extremely easy by having unique user agent strings! Plus, ideally, Proxo would mask the HTTP header identification for Opera as being what Firefox shows. Proxo is supposed to keep me more private yet it is doing the opposite when it comes to browser fingerprinting. When I test Opera with Proxo bypassed, ONLY the user agent string is unique. HTTP header information is FAR LESS IDENTIFIABLE with Proxo out of the picture.

With Firefox, I can confuse browser fingerprinting somewhat by telling Fx (with the use of an extension I have had forever) to identify as some other browser. I used to be able to do the same with Opera (without any extension needed), but with the latest Opera, that is no longer possible. I can only tell Opera on a SITE BY SITE BASIS to identify as another browser. So, the combination of Opera with its small user base, Proxo's extremely unique user agent string, and Proxo's HTTP header identification, I am a sitting duck for any site doing browser fingerprinting.

You can test here: http://panopticlick.eff.org/

First attachment is with Sidki's beta configs using Opera 10.62.
Second attachment is with Proxo bypassed using Opera 10.62.

I can't add the second attachment. It says it has the same name as the first. It does NOT. The board software is truncating the name!

Edit: I renamed the second screenshot. I use Gadwin Printscreen and I wish this board's software didn't truncate the name like it does. I've used Gadwin Printscreen for many years and this is the first site that has said the two screenshots were the same because it was not seeing the full name of each. Gadwin puts the EXACT TIME of the screenshot in the name and the board software ignores that and only sees the day, month and year.


Attached File(s)
.png  Wednesday, October 06, 2010 02.png (Size: 170.95 KB / Downloads: 289)
.png  Wednesday, October00 06, 2010 02.png (Size: 180.53 KB / Downloads: 278)
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
Oct. 06, 2010, 03:15 PM
Post: #23
RE: Iron (Chrome/Chromium) has problems with Sidki filters
(Oct. 06, 2010 01:21 PM)Mele20 Wrote:  The user agent string in Proxo accomplishes...

Well, yes and no. Yes, The strings may be unique to us. No, Sites may not need the strings or use the entire strings to identify us.

I think 'hiding' is more complicated than it looks.

Regardless, it is your choice to send what you want. No set can please everybody or should be expected to.


http://prxbx.com/forums/showthread.php?t...1#pid13201
(Jul. 25, 2009 11:01 AM)sidki3003 Wrote:  
Quote:BTW, what's the point to "correct" browser's Use-Agent?

Generally: No need to give away more browser information than required for proper page display.

Firefox: Sort of a permanent test if UA string changes are still working.
And - for me - to get a clue about config usage in access logs.
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
Oct. 06, 2010, 05:21 PM
Post: #24
RE: Iron (Chrome/Chromium) has problems with Sidki filters
We are a anonymizing the UA string in so far as we are pooling: all config users with a particular browser will send the same string. Another such example is the Google cookie. Not such a big pool anymore, we're down to ~1000 users, but still...
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
Oct. 07, 2010, 01:26 PM
Post: #25
RE: Iron (Chrome/Chromium) has problems with Sidki filters
(Oct. 06, 2010 05:21 PM)sidki3003 Wrote:  We are a anonymizing the UA string in so far as we are pooling: all config users with a particular browser will send the same string. Another such example is the Google cookie. Not such a big pool anymore, we're down to ~1000 users, but still...

Yes, pooling would help anonymize but with less and less users of Proxo (and I think most who do use it use your filters) well..... I hadn't thought about how the Google cookie could identify us to some extent since not that many use Proxo now.

That is so sad that there are less than 1000 users of your filters now...I may sound critical at times but I cannot fathom EVER doing without Proxo. It is the most important piece of software I have and I include your filters in that as I have no idea how to write my own filters, plus, I have used yours since JD5000 stopped offering public filters and yours are excellent.

I feel frustrated that I am unable to get most users to try Proxo. They miss so much by thinking it is too difficult, or they just don't understand the great benefits of using it (regardless of this string thing).

I wonder sometimes if it would have made any real difference if someone had been able to convince Scott's sister to give the code to a trusted person or entity ...at the time that would have probably been Paul Laudanski.
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump: