[SiempreViernes]

Instead of trying convince-by-assertion, maybe you could try offering an actual objection to the argument raised up-thread?

On what basis do you claim that software developers, who did not establish a means of for third parties to get a stable identifier, nevertheless intended that fingerprinting techniques should work?

[fc417fc802]

> Instead of trying convince-by-assertion

TBF the idea that any and all fingerprinting falls under the umbrella of exploiting a vulnerability was also presented as an assertion. At least personally I think it's a rather absurd notion.

Certainly you can exploit what I would consider a vulnerability to obtain information useful for fingerprinting. But you can also assemble readily available information and I don't think that doing so is an exploit though in most cases it probably qualifies as an unfortunate oversight on the part of the software developer.

[SiempreViernes]

For the readers convenience I restated the argument also in my post, but if you look you can see it was also stated much earlier in the thread.

[UqWBcuFx6NV4r]

You haven’t made an actual argument. You’ve made a repeated assertion that you feel so religiously about that you simultaneously can’t justify it and get very abrasive when someone asks you to back it up.

[SiempreViernes]

Oh wow, do you really only write negative comments on others discussion? I defer to you much greater experience on being abrasive

[strbean]

There's a pretty big difference between:

1) wanting functionality that isn't provided and working around that

and

2) restoring such functionality in the face of countermeasures

The absence of functionality isn't a clear signal of intent, while countermeasures against said functionality is.

And then there is the distinction between the intent of the software publisher and the intent of the user. There is a big ethical difference between "Mozilla doesn't want advertisers tracking their users" and "those users don't want to be tracked". If these guys want to draw the line at "if there is a signal from the user that they want privacy, we won't track them", I think that's reasonable.

[maltelau]

The presence of the "Do Not Track" header was a pretty clear indicator of the intent of the user. Fingerprinting persisted exactly in the face of such countermeasures.

[fc417fc802]

Even if the intent is clear I don't think the act of reading an available field qualifies as exploiting a vulnerability. IMO you need to actually work around a technical measure intended to stop you for it to qualify as an exploit.

[NotPractical]

Here's the technical measures that are being worked around: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/firefox/fingerprinting-protectio...

> IMO you need to actually work around a technical measure intended to stop you for it to qualify as an exploit.

Even well-known vulnerabilities like SQL injection don't qualify under this definition?

[fc417fc802]

Sure, my wording isn't perfect. I don't have a watertight definition ready to go. To my mind the spirit of the thing is that (for example) if a site has an http endpoint that accepts arbitrary sql queries and blindly runs them then sending your own custom query doesn't qualify as an exploit any more than scraping publicly accessible pages does. Whereas if you have to cleverly craft an sql query in a way that exploits string escapes in order to work around the restrictions that the backend has in place then that's technically an exploit (although it's an incredibly minor one against a piece of software whose developer has put on a display of utter incompetence).

The point isn't my precise wording but the underlying concept that making use of freely provided information isn't exploiting anything even if both the user and the developer are unhappy about the end result. Security boundaries are not defined post hoc by regret.