[afavour]

> No, the idea is they're abusing existing APIs for fingerprinting purposes that Firefox privacy settings disallow

But that’s exactly what I’m saying: the author asserts as fact the reason Chrome worked was because it gives up more personal information but there’s no interrogation of whether that’s actually true and if true, how it’s achieved.

I’m no defender of Google I just believe we should be making arguments we’re able to actually back up.

[CharlieDigital]

Fingerprinting is one of the techniques used to track you across the web.

If the site is serving Google, Meta, or ads from other networks, your unique browser fingerprint is one of the tools that makes it possible to target and retarget you.

[afavour]

I think we’re all aware of that. Where’s the specific evidence that Chrome passed the Cloudflare DDOS protection because it gave up more private information than Firefox did?

[btully]

especially since the author had to change the privacy.resistFingerprinting in Firefox to true to get it to work (meaning that it was able to bypass Cloudflare's loop by being MORE secure). But that appeared to break other non-Cloudflare sites.

I think the fingerprinting is a red herring. Yes, Chrome is less secure. But Chrome worked.

It's quite possible someone at the author's workplace updated their Cloudflare WAF settings and made things more strict, causing more checks. I'd even offer that a Firefox extension might be contributing.

But the argument that Chrome worked because it offered Cloudflare personal information is pretty out there ;)