- From: pes10k via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 21:59:26 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Thank you @noamr for the novel suggestion! A couple of thoughts, questions, and reactions: > Every local font has to have an equivalent web-font URL I think requiring these kinds of annotations are at root a useful direction for the problem. You'll still need some kind of trusted list to make sure the font the URL points to matches the font thats on the disk though (otherwise i can still learn if the visitor / client has font X installed by i. precomputing the width of some text when rendered in X, ii. pointing the annotation-URL to some very very different looking font, and waiting a while and seeing if the rendered text looks more like X, or my fake, very-different-sized X). But, maintaining such a list seems very doable, and i think a useful direction for the group to dig in! > "Agreed, but those uncommon fonts are also less likely to be useful for fingerprinting at scale. I understand this intuition, but in practice, unfortunately this is not a safe assumption (and part of what makes fingerprinting such a difficult problem in general). Fingerprinting bits that are rare are in someways less worrying (since they're less likely to occur), but in other ways they're far more worrying (since when they do occur, or are found by the attacker, they're highly identifying). In general, you need to protect against common and uncommon fingerprinting inputs alike -- GitHub Notification of comment by pes10k Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/11648#issuecomment-2654934050 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 12 February 2025 21:59:27 UTC