I don't see any extension info and I don't see how there could be any. There isn't any api for gaining this info in ff at the very least.
There are other issues, but most extensions can in fact not be detected by websites, unless they specifically add something that makes them detectable.
TPM isn't all that reliable. You will have people upgrading their pc, or windows update updating their bios, or any number of other reasons reset their tpm keys, and currently nothing will happen. In effect people would see Signal completely break and loose all their data, often seemingly for no reason.
Talking to windows or through it to the TPM also seems sketchy.
In the current state of Windows, the sensible choice is to leave hardware-based encryption to the OS in the form of disk encryption, unfortunate as it is. The great number of people who loose data or have to recover their backup disk encryption key from their Microsoft account tells how easily that system is disturbed (And that Microsoft has the decryption keys for your encrypted date).
The default on android is to give every wifi network its own random but static mac.
PHP has ben JITed for a while now too.
I don't recall it being known as slow compared to python even before that.
background: #f0f
This really seemed like a good simplification until you threw in that d'Alembert operator at the end
Default linux works too ofc, I didn't know they took that route.
Most other browsers have very specific useragents, so the main pool of same useragents will be hardened browsers anyway.
Thank you for checking
edit:
https://github.com/TheTorProject/tor-messenger-build/blob/581ba7d2f5f9c22d9c9182a45c12bcf8c1f57e6e/projects/instantbird/0001-Set-Tor-Messenger-preferences.patch#L354 would indicate it should be Windows, Ill check later.
Try it with high security settings in tor, it might be something like canvas. Did you enable any permissions for the website?
That would be a fail of the fingerprinting protection. A properly set up TOR browser for example should not allow that detection by any means. If you know how to detect it, please report it as a critical vulnerability.
I could think of maybe some edge case behavior in webrenderer or js cavas etc., which would mainly expose info on the specific browser and underlying hardware, but that is all of course blocked of or fixed in hardened browsers.
Further, if you have a reliable method, you could sell it off to for example Netflix, who are trying to block higher resolutions for Linux browsers but are currently foiled by changing the useragent (if you have widevine set up).
That can't have been the reason, rather the fact it could tell.
Your browser sends information about its version and the os in the useragent string. It is supposed to lie and say it is a very commonly used useragent, specifically for purposes of fingerprinting. That would be windows, default configuration, firefox version something not you firefox version
All oleds do it at lower brightnesses. They can't dim very far, so they need to flicker to get a usable color-depth
I found this is the only thing I found on a quick search.
It would indicate that chrome does disclose addons (so maybe don't use it for yet another reason).
For Firefox you can only look for changes typically performed by an addon, something like adblock should be detectible but networking layer stuff like an I2P tunnel should definitely not be.
Most firefox addons dont even have the permissions needed to change anything a website could observe.