{
  "id": 20005144,
  "title": "What Six Fingerprint Checkers Actually Catch (Tested With a Modified Firefox)",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/11/14/what-six-fingerprint-checkers-actually-catch-tested-with-a-modified",
  "topic": "tech",
  "section": "Tech",
  "published": "2026-11-14T15:59:48.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "Dev.to",
    "slug": "dev-to",
    "url": "https://dev.to/mason_super_7b5a477af0ffd/what-six-fingerprint-checkers-actually-catch-tested-with-a-modified-firefox-22pd"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "Six fingerprint-checking sites were tested with Camoufox, a Firefox fork designed to spoof fingerprint surfaces. The browser was run on a fixed profile with a direct connection. Every result page was saved as text for offline comparison. The checker sites found no contradictions in their verdicts. SannySoft passed all 20 of its tests, while IPHey declared the browser trustworthy with a high score. CreepJS, a more academic checker, reported no automation traces and no stealth signals, indicating a clean spoof. BrowserLeaks discovered an interesting finding on Linux: the host's speechSynthesis voices were exposed through the browser, revealing installed TTS engines and language packs. A simple preference change fixed this issue. AMIUnique reported that the browser was unique among its 5.69 million collected fingerprints, but this was not surprising or avoidable due to the combination of canvas, fonts, and WebGL rendering. PixelScan stood out by requiring a click before producing results and flagging \"Masking detected,\" despite an unmodified Chrome browser also triggering the same flag. The verdicts from the six sites differed in their focus, with some checking for automation machinery, others looking for internal consistency, and others assessing whether the browser resembled stock Chrome. This demonstrates that detection means different things at each site, and being unique is the norm for every browser.",
  "summary": "Every fingerprint-checking site promises to tell you how identifiable your browser is. But do they agree with each other? To find out, I ran the same browser through six of them back to back and compared the verdicts. The browser was Camoufox, an open-source Firefox fork that spoofs fingerprint surfaces, on a fixed profile with a direct (no proxy) connection. Every result page was dumped to text…",
  "key_points": [
    "Six fingerprint-checking sites tested with Camoufox Firefox fork",
    "SannySoft passed all 20 tests, IPHey gave high trust score",
    "AMIUnique was unique among 5.69M fingerprints due to canvas, fonts, WebGL"
  ],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}