>>7 Aww, it's a shame you cannot see the characters.
I believe though that it's depending on the fonts installed. Though Tor browser or your system may not have the mechanism for finding a necessary font for a character, but I find it hard to believe.
>jesus stop namefagging
Maybe later. I might forget every now and then anyway.
>>12 Interesting.
https://tor.stackexchange.com/questions/16051/why-tor-browser-doesnt-recognize-many-emojis >The second problem Tor Browser faces, more or less uniquely, is that it is trying to block fingerprinting attacks. Websites can determine available fonts on a system, if they are able to do this then they can use the set of installed fonts as a fingerprint. Available fonts split anonymity sets, since Windows users, OSX users and Linux users will all have different fonts available and any user who has added custom fonts will be even more unqiue and trackable. To solve this problem, Tor Browser ships a limited set of fonts with it and tries to restrict it to only use those fonts, so that users have a consistent set of available fonts across platforms making them harder to track and tell apart.
TBH I have no idea how a site may detect this shit, like it must require JS for that, but still, WTF. A Unicode character is just a byte sequence. A browser's job is to eat this sequence and correctly recognize it as a character, not fucking REPORT AVAILABLE FONTS. When did the Web go so wrong?
>>17 I've looked online a bit and apparently it's mostly about comparing known height and width to the fonts that we "attack", so it's tied into the bigger problem of browsers reporting particular parameters of graphical environment in the first place.
And you know why I don't give much shit about it, or, rather, not THAT much? Because masquerading yourself as something as unique as Tor browser or some text browser will give you away like you wouldn't believe. Like, sure, right now a potential fingerprint attacker cannot tell what system you use, but they can tell that you use a Tor browser, which how much people use? 1%? OK, maybe 5%? This is retarded. Also, it was reported that only like 2% of people browse without JS, so, yeah, talk about sticking out. I personally tend to disable JS (by default) because Web is just faster without it LMAO. Fucking stupid tech.
>>12 I'm using tor browser (tails) with highest security settings and star's emojis show up for me. Your text looks pretty weird to begin with so I assume you changed something from TBB's default.
>>20 Even if the pool of potential users you could be is comparatively small, 1% of internet traffic is still pretty significant. And of course from a LE perspective it's also about having plausible deniability if you need it.
>>33 > Even if the pool of potential users you could be is comparatively small, 1% of internet traffic is still pretty significant.
Guess what, successfully masquerading as the latest Google Chrome would be even more significant.
Being able to reliably fake your identity randomly over a set of popular browsers (Chrome, Chromium, FFX, Safari, Midori, Vivaldi, Opera, whatever) would be incredibly strong.
It's hard to get right though.
>And of course from a LE perspective it's also about having plausible deniability if you need it.
I don't understand you, sorry. What are we going to "plausiably deny"? The fact that we used tinfoil software? Do you have something to hide, mmmmm? xD
>>34 >pretend to use chrome
So few people turn off javascript on chrome that it probably wouldn't even increase the pool that much compared to tbb users with js turned off. No concept of the stats thogh
>mmmmmmm
I would larp as a cool cybercriminal regardless. Real hardcore stuff like sharing the christchurch video or looking at porn without a license
>>43 You must've misunderstood. I said an ultimate tinfoil needs a browser which behaves like a latest Google Chrome but at the same time doesn't ruin your privacy, doing so by lying about everything randomly. JS MUST be ON for that.
That's why I said it's hard.
Star-chan is #1!