Cao et al. — (Cross-)Browser Fingerprinting

---

What Cao et al. — (Cross-)Browser Fingerprinting actually does

Identifies the same machine across two different browsers by reaching for features that belong to the operating system and the hardware rather than to the browser — fonts, graphics rendering, audio processing.

What can and cannot be measured about Cao et al. — (Cross-)Browser Fingerprinting

This entry has no repository, so none of the usual repository fields exist for it — no push date, no release tag, no archive flag, no licence identifier. Its state comes from one measurement only: the register requested the address and recorded what came back. Anything in the range 200 to 399 makes a non-repository entry ACTIVE, and that clause is the one the first edition of the rubric did not have at all, which is why paper entries carried no state under it.

Read that for exactly what it is. It says the thing is reachable. It does not say the paper is current, because no HTTP status can carry that. Where a stronger signal exists — a repository, a version, a dated revision — this register prefers it, and where one does not, it prints the weaker signal and names it as weak rather than dressing it up.

Where Cao et al. — (Cross-)Browser Fingerprinting sits in this catalogue

Cao et al. — (Cross-)Browser Fingerprinting is filed in section 05, academic papers & technical writeups, whose scope is this: The peer-reviewed and specification-grade literature this field is built on, preferring open mirrors over publishers that block automated clients. An entry sits in exactly one section here. Where a project could defensibly go in two, it is placed where a reader would look for it first rather than where it fits most tidily, and that is an editorial decision rather than a measured one.

Filed beside it in the same section: Gómez-Boix et al. — Hiding in the Crowd (ACTIVE), Mowery & Shacham — Pixel Perfect (ACTIVE), Nikiforakis et al. — Cookieless Monster (ACTIVE). Comparing an entry against its own section-mates is more informative than comparing it against the catalogue as a whole, because everything in a section is answering roughly the same question and the differences left over are the ones that matter.

There is no licence field, because there is no source to licence — this is a paper rather than a code repository. It is grouped instead with every other entry the rubric marks ACTIVE, which is the axis that actually distinguishes entries of this kind from one another.

What to settle before you adopt Cao et al. — (Cross-)Browser Fingerprinting

This is the result that breaks the assumption that a separate browser is a separate identity. If your isolation model relies on switching browsers, this paper is the one that tests it.