niespodd/browser-fingerprinting

---

What niespodd/browser-fingerprinting actually does

The heavyweight incumbent in this category, and a genuinely different artefact from an index: long prose analysis of individual bot-protection systems, written by someone who evidently sat with each one.

What niespodd/browser-fingerprinting's maintenance signals mean

The liveness field here is pushed_at, read as 2026-07-27 against a field check 18 days later. That is inside 90 days, and 90 days is where the second edition of the rubric put ACTIVE after moving it down from the first edition's 180.

The reason for the move is worth stating, because it is the kind of threshold that looks arbitrary until you know what it is measuring against: detection changes on a shorter cycle than half a year, so a six-month-old evasion is not a current one. What a recent push does not tell you is what was in it. A commit landing on a branch is not a release, not a fix, and not a test — it is evidence that somebody is still there.

No release was captured for this entry, which this register records as unknown rather than as none. The distinction matters more than it looks: a project with no tags and a project whose tags the sweep failed to read produce the same blank cell, and printing them as the same fact would be the register asserting something it has not measured.

Where niespodd/browser-fingerprinting sits in this catalogue

niespodd/browser-fingerprinting is filed in section 10, communities & competing registries, whose scope is this: Where the work is discussed, and the other lists covering this ground — listed with their own liveness fields, on the same rule as everything else. 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: Proxyway (ACTIVE), ScrapeOps Discord directory (ACTIVE), TheGP/untidetect-tools (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.

Its licence field is empty, and this register treats that as a finding rather than a gap — see every entry here that declares no licence. Source you can read is not source you have been granted the right to use, modify or redistribute, and an absent licence file means exactly that absence and nothing friendlier. It is also grouped with everything else the rubric marks ACTIVE.

What to settle before you adopt niespodd/browser-fingerprinting

It declares no licence, so the text carries no reuse grant however freely it is quoted elsewhere. Its analysis is undated in the document itself, which is the gap this register's field-check timestamps exist to fill.