FP-Block: Usable Web Privacy by Controlling Browser Fingerprinting

  • Christof Ferreira Torres
  • Hugo JonkerEmail author
  • Sjouke Mauw
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9327)


Online tracking of users is used for benign goals, such as detecting fraudulent logins, but also to invade user privacy. We posit that for non-oppressed users, tracking within one website does not have a substantial negative impact on privacy, while it enables legitimate benefits. In contrast, cross-domain tracking negatively impacts user privacy, while being of little benefit to the user.

Existing methods to counter fingerprint-based tracking treat cross-domain tracking and regular tracking the same. This often results in hampering or disabling desired functionality, such as embedded videos. By distinguishing between regular and cross-domain tracking, more desired functionality can be preserved. We have developed a prototype tool, FP-Block, that counters cross-domain fingerprint-based tracking while still allowing regular tracking. FP-Block ensures that any embedded party will see a different, unrelatable fingerprint for each site on which it is embedded. Thus, the user’s fingerprint can no longer be tracked across the web, while desired functionality is better preserved compared to existing methods.


User Agent Unique Fingerprint User Visit Browser Extension Embed Content 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Acar, G., Eubank, C., Englehardt, S., Juárez, M., Narayanan, A., Díaz, C.: The web never forgets: Persistent tracking mechanisms in the wild. In: Proceedings of 21st ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS 2014), pp. 674–689. ACM Press (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Acar, G., Juarez, M., Nikiforakis, N., Diaz, C., Gürses, S., Piessens, F., Preneel, B.: FPDetective: Dusting the web for fingerprinters. In: Proceedings of 20th ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS 2013), pp. 1129–1140. ACM Press (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boda, K., Földes, Á.M., Gulyás, G.G., Imre, S.: User tracking on the web via cross-browser fingerprinting. In: Laud, P. (ed.) NordSec 2011. LNCS, vol. 7161, pp. 31–46. Springer, Heidelberg (2012) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dingledine, R., Mathewson, N., Syverson, P.: Tor: The second-generation onion router. Technical report, Naval Research Lab Washington (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eckersley, P.: How unique is your web browser? In: Atallah, M.J., Hopper, N.J. (eds.) PETS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6205, pp. 1–18. Springer, Heidelberg (2010) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kohno, T., Broido, A., Claffy, K.: Remote physical device fingerprinting. IEEE Trans. Dependable Secure Comput. 2(2), 93–108 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Krishnamurthy, B., Wills, C.E.: Generating a privacy footprint on the internet. In: Proceedings of 6th ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Internet Measurement (ICM 2006), pp. 65–70. ACM Press (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mitchell, J.C., Mayer, J.R.: Third-party web tracking: Policy and technology. In: Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P 2012), pp. 413–427 (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mowery, K., Bogenreif, D., Yilek, S., Shacham, H.: Fingerprinting information in JavaScript implementations. In: Proceedings of Web 2.0 Security & Privacy (W2SP 2011). IEEE Computer Society (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mowery, K., Shacham, H.: Pixel perfect: Fingerprinting canvas in HTML5. In: Proceedings of Web 2.0 Security & Privacy (W2SP 2012). IEEE Computer Society (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mulazzani, M., Reschl, P., Huber, M., Leithner, M., Schrittwieser, S., Weippl, E.R.: Fast and reliable browser identification with Javascript engine fingerprinting. In: Proceedings of Web 2.0 Security & Privacy (W2SP 2013), May 2013Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nikiforakis, N., Joosen, W., Livshits, B.: PriVaricator: Deceiving fingerprinters with little white lies. Technical report MSR-TR-2014-26, Microsoft Research, February 2014Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nikiforakis, N., Kapravelos, A., Joosen, W., Kruegel, C., Piessens, F., Vigna, G.: Cookieless monster: Exploring the ecosystem of web-based device fingerprinting. In: Proceedings of 34th IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P 2013), pp. 541–555. IEEE Computer Society (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Roesner, F., Kohno, T., Wetherall, D.: Detecting and defending against third-party tracking on the web. In: Proceedings of 9th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI 2012), pp. 155–168. USENIX (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Roosendaal, A.: We are all connected to facebook ... by facebook!. In: Gutwirth, S., Leenes, R., De Hert, P., Poullet, P. (eds.) European Data Protection: In Good Health, pp. 3–19. Springer, The Netherlands (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Unger, T., Mulazzani, M., Fruhwirt, D., Huber, M., Schrittwieser, S., Weippl, E.R.: SHPF: Enhancing http(s) session security with browser fingerprinting. In: Proceedings of Eighth International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security (ARES 2013), pp. 255–261. IEEE Computer Society (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yen, T.-F., Xie, Y., Yu, F., Yu, R.P., Abadi, M.: Host fingerprinting and tracking on the web: Privacy and security implications. In: Proceedings of 19th Annual Network & Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS 2012). The Internet Society (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christof Ferreira Torres
    • 1
  • Hugo Jonker
    • 2
    Email author
  • Sjouke Mauw
    • 1
  1. 1.CSC/SnTUniversity of LuxembourgLuxembourgLuxembourg
  2. 2.Open University of the NetherlandsHeerlenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations