[opensource-dev] [POLICY] Configurable HTTP user-agent string

Tateru Nino tateru.nino at gmail.com
Thu May 6 06:59:11 PDT 2010


On 6/05/2010 11:32 PM, Argent Stonecutter wrote:
> On 2010-05-06, at 01:23, Ricky wrote:
>   
>> How can that be a source of correlation, unless you are using a viewer
>> that has a userbase of one (yourself and your alts)?
>>     
> When you're gathering information on someone for tracking purposes you  
> don't need certainty. Even a viewer with a few percent of the market  
> can be used to direct suspicion at a new account unless they  
> completely avoid all their old hangouts.
>
> There are precisely four viewers that are common enough that using one  
> wouldn't be a red flag: The current and new Linden viewer, Snowglobe,  
> and Emerald.
>
> People who are currently using other viewers and don't pay attention  
> to the privacy implications of new features (ie, just about anyone)  
> would be wearing a target. New privacy exposures have to be opt-in,  
> not opt-out.
>
> This functionality would have to not just be spoofable, but be off by  
> default and turning it on would be done through a user interface that  
> actually shows you the current string and presents common alternatives.
>
> If you were doing this, then it would be easier, easier to understand,  
> and MUCH more useful to implement a general set of account tags or  
> properties that people could edit at will. This would provide all the  
> functionality people would get from a genuinely secure  
> "llDetectedViewer()" type of API, since viewers could have a nice easy  
> button that sets "Emerald: yes".
>   
I can see value in a viewer being able to advertise (or, I guess
repudiate) capabilities. I imagine that most non-security-related viewer
identification would relate to having a guess at viewer
capabilities/features. Also there's not much value in spoofing viewer
capabilities, since the only person to whose detriment it would be would
be the spoofer's.

Would something like llDetectedViewerCaps() that returned a
well-defined, yet open, capabilities string be potentially more useful
than just asking for the brand of the viewer?

-- 
Tateru Nino
http://dwellonit.taterunino.net/



More information about the opensource-dev mailing list