You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Sometimes it's hard to tell from error reports alone which hosts are causing certain 3rd-party domains to be blocked (e.g. #1880, #1882, #1883). When a user reports that a page is broken, PB could include snitch maps for all blocked domains on the page.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
This conflicts with the protection from local/unsophisticated attackers goal of #266.
If we dropped snitch_map entries for domains that Privacy Badger already decided to block, we'd have no data to share.
If we obfuscated (one-way, per-user-salted hashes) the domains (leaving debugging aside, Privacy Badger just needs to know when it saw a domain track across three different website domains, not what those domains are), we'd have useless (don't know the user salt) data.
I think whenever it's a mystery, it's probably one of our mis-attribution bugs (probably #1997).
Having snitch_map data would indeed be helpful, but I don't think we need it. We already mostly know what needs fixing, plus error reports continue to trend down. Closing for now.
Sometimes it's hard to tell from error reports alone which hosts are causing certain 3rd-party domains to be blocked (e.g. #1880, #1882, #1883). When a user reports that a page is broken, PB could include snitch maps for all blocked domains on the page.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: