Consider the following scenario:
>A Flash-based website bans you
>Visiting the site on another browser allows you access
>Getting banned on this browser grants you a ban separate from the first.
>Each browser you use gives you a separate identity to this site.
>Reinstalling the browser and flash does not lift the ban.
>Reformatting your OS lifts the ban.
>Switching user agents in a browser you have been banned on has no effect on the ban, you're still banned.
What is this site using to identify you and manage these bans?
Flash local shared objects?
>>55566012
hardware id and
https://browserprint.info/blog/userFingerprinting
>>55566051
What if those were deleted?
>You install a browser you've never used before using Sandboxie
>You install Flash within this instance of Sandboxie.
>You get banned on said website.
>You empty everything out of the sandbox
>You reinstall the browser and flash in a new sanbox
>Your ban remains.
>>55566012
Appdata?
>>55566113
Not a factor when it's all the contents of a sandbox has been deleted, or if it's been manually cleared without a sandbox.
>>55566099
Don't those persist through reformats?
>>55566195
Depends on the exploits used. Canvas fingerprinting can do comparatively weak things that measure the behaviour of your hardware without actually having a unique id. Also see >>55565926
>>55566012
Clear Flash local storage, or just deny Flash from storing any data by reducing the allowed quota to 0KB.
>>55566195
some do most dont.
You can get the motherboard ID (which is unique across the same type of motherboard after any reformat ) or many many other types of unique identifiers
>>55566240
How does a fucking website can request a motherboard id, which is hardware related?
>>55566268
flash cookies, javascript. fingerprintJS library.
Alot of ways to be honest
>>55566268
Flash can do it, javascript can too. There are workarounds that can construct a "fingerprint" out of how your hardware handles common problems, too. There are even stronger measures to identify your specific install image by it's installed libraries , fonts etc that don't even need JS or plugins, just CSS and HTTP. There aren't any extensions for that stuff yet, even. We live in dark times.
>>55566316
Holy shit, how can I circumvent that crap?
>>55566316
Fucking this, there's so many ways its unreal.
You can now idtenfiy a pc by what it has installed like fonts and the level of zoom it uses on a browser.
>>A Flash-based website bans you
>>Flash-based website
How horrifying
Link to site?
>>55566240
Why would a site ban based on hardware IDs that change on a reformat though? And if it is hardware IDs, why would simply changing browsers get by the ban?
>what is flash authorization
>>55566353
Currently? Own extra computers, or run a lot of VMs that you can quickly flash and install new shit on to change your fingerprint. Run your private browsers in them, and disable all plugins, JS and as many features of CSS as you can. Run them through TOR. It should be much simpler than that, but it's not. No one has made an effective tool against browser fingerprinting yet.
>>55566268
That's why flash is a vulnerability
Looks like you can install/delete a font or two and alter your fingerprint enough to get around a ban.
Blocking you based on fingerprint
>>55565926
If it's pretty simple code you should just be able to switch your user-agent string and bypass it
>>55566437
>If it's pretty simple code you should just be able to switch your user-agent string and bypass it
>>55566012
>>Switching user agents in a browser you have been banned on has no effect on the ban, you're still banned.
>>55566597
Ok, I must have overlooked that.
But messing with fonts bypasses it, so it's still probably fingerprinting
>>55566434
They can compute the difference between the sets and see it's not very big. Even that paper in 2012 had an implementation for that. And it's not like fonts are the only vulnerability. Each little thing they can tease out of your system strengthens the fingerprint.
>>55566697
>But messing with fonts bypasses it, so it's still probably fingerprinting
Messing with fonts does not affect the bans on this site.
>>55567230
Then what's with
>>55566434
>>55567245
Perhaps it's not what this site uses. I have been testing it for quite some time, and the banning system makes very little sense.
There's a thing called supercookies that comprises features and exploits of a number of technologies in order to track you extra hard. Everything from flash cookies to crafted e-tags. Try finding out about them and deleting some.
>>55566353
Use Tails.
>>55566012
Share website and banning steps
>>55567754
This. We can make an infographic of it, and post it on /b/ occasionally when we have a solution. Please tell me it's one of those stupid virtual pet sites.
>>55567754
>ome.tv
It's a simple Omegle clone, which is the reason why the banning management confuses me so much.
You can get banned by emulating a webcam and displaying any image with it. Continue to skip people and the image will get detected as irrelevant, and you'll be banned.
>>55567877
That sounds like they gayest site in the world.
