coveryourtracks.eff.org

Browser visibility becomes a report

The report gives users an overview of identifying browser characteristics and describes how trackers see a browser. It also covers tracker protections and browser fingerprinting, putting those subjects together in one diagnostic output.

The project frames its purpose as helping users balance privacy and convenience. That is a stated goal, not evidence that a particular protection method achieves that balance for every browser or site.

For a buyer, the useful distinction is between seeing what a test reports and knowing what happens in every browsing context. The report concerns its test results; the project itself cautions that fingerprinting is difficult to detect and extremely difficult to thwart.

Simulated trackers test loading

The test simulates trackers and evaluates protection according to whether those trackers load. This makes loading behavior central to the result: a blocked tracker and a tracker that loads are treated differently, while the report also addresses fingerprinting.

The project describes tracker blockers as cross-referencing lists of tracking scripts and blocking matching items from loading. The test’s simulated trackers therefore provide one way to assess blocking behavior, but that mechanism does not turn the result into a complete account of every tracking method.

The service says it anonymously logs browser and device information to measure browser uniqueness. It names the user agent string, HTTP ACCEPT headers, screen resolution, and color depth as logged fields. The project says anonymous test results contribute to uniqueness results for other users.

Assess the test before comparing cost

The available details explain what the diagnostic covers, but they do not establish its commercial value. In general, assess a diagnostic tool by asking whether its output answers a specific question you need resolved, rather than treating a report as a substitute for broader evaluation.

Before paying for any comparable service, clarify whether the quoted cost covers the checks you intend to run and whether repeated checks require a separate purchase or plan. Ask how renewals, refunds, and trial access work, and get those terms in writing before relying on a headline price.

For a browser test, the practical value also depends on whether its result can be interpreted alongside your browser’s existing protections. Cover Your Tracks describes its role as helping users assess browser visibility and compare protection methods.

Check what the result can establish

Before relying on a browser diagnostic, ask what its result distinguishes: blocked loading, blocked cookies, or another outcome. The distinction matters because a test can report partial protection even when simulated trackers load and their cookies are blocked.

Ask which tracking paths remain outside the test’s conclusion, and how much uncertainty should remain after a favorable-looking result. The project says partial protection does not prevent tracking by IP addresses and other means.

Finally, ask what evidence would be needed before treating a browser report as relevant to your own browsing. The service describes fingerprinting as difficult to detect and extremely difficult to thwart.

Testing spans blocking and fingerprinting

The documented strengths concern the test’s scope and the information it returns.

• It tests browser protection against both tracking and fingerprinting, rather than addressing only one of those subjects.
• It provides an overview of identifying browser characteristics, giving the report a concrete focus beyond a general privacy label.
• Its simulated trackers are assessed by whether they load, tying part of the result to observable test behavior.
• The service generates a report about tracker protections and browser fingerprinting for the user.

Partial protection leaves tracking paths

The result has a defined limit: EFF says partial protection means simulated trackers loaded even though their cookies were blocked. The service also says that result does not prevent tracking through IP addresses and other means.

Blocking trackers does not settle every privacy question. EFF cautions that advanced tracking techniques may still gather information when trackers are blocked. Its page also says fingerprinting is difficult to detect and extremely difficult to thwart.

Changing browser settings has trade-offs, too. EFF says disabling JavaScript can reduce fingerprint information, but may break websites and limit functionality. It also says Incognito Mode was not intended to prevent remote sites or trackers from identifying users. The missing commercial and support details are listed under What we could not confirm.

Compare browsers by fingerprinting scope

When comparing browser options, look at what each one says it does about fingerprinting and what evidence supports that description. In general, weigh privacy claims against usability trade-offs, and check whether a provider explains the limits of its tests. The relevant choice is the scope you need to assess, not a label alone.

Use the report as a diagnostic

This diagnostic may suit readers who want a browser-focused account of tracker protection and fingerprinting, rather than a general privacy assessment. EFF describes the service as helping users assess browser visibility to trackers and compare protection methods.

It is less suited to anyone treating a test result as proof that tracking has stopped. The project itself cautions that advanced techniques may still gather information when trackers are blocked. Read the report as evidence about the test’s scope, not as assurance about every browsing context.

Questions about the browser test

What does the simulated test evaluate?

The simulated test evaluates protection according to whether simulated trackers load, EFF says. That describes the test mechanism, not every tracking method a browser might encounter. A reader interpreting the output should distinguish the test’s observed loading behavior from broader conclusions about browser privacy.

What does the project say about JavaScript?

EFF says disabling JavaScript can reduce fingerprint information, but can also break websites and limit functionality. That trade-off matters when interpreting any change in browser behavior: reduced information in one area may come with site features that no longer work as expected.

Was the project always called Cover Your Tracks?

No. EFF says it launched the project as Panopticlick in 2010 to investigate browser uniqueness. The project was rebranded and launched as Cover Your Tracks in 2020, according to EFF’s About page.

Which browsers does the project identify in its fingerprinting guidance?

EFF’s guidance identifies Tor Browser and Brave as browsers built to thwart fingerprinting. The same page recommends Tor Browser as a practical option for reducing browser fingerprintability. Those are statements from the project’s own guidance, not independent comparative findings.

What does the project say Incognito Mode is for?

EFF’s guidance says Chrome’s Incognito Mode does not protect against trackers or fingerprinters.

Rely on the report only within scope

Fits if you want a browser-privacy diagnostic that reports on tracker protection and fingerprinting.

Probably not if you need evidence that tracking cannot happen outside the test’s scope.

Main risk… the service says partial protection does not prevent tracking by IP addresses and other means, while the service says browser fingerprinting is difficult to detect and extremely difficult to thwart.

Sources

Public pages the facts above were taken from, with the date each was read.

• coveryourtracks.eff.orgchecked 2026-10-31
• coveryourtracks.eff.org/aboutchecked 2026-10-31
• coveryourtracks.eff.org/learnchecked 2026-10-31

How we put this page together

Editorial team of Affiliate Index. The editors at Affiliate Index wrote this page from the public sources listed above, which were read on 2026-10-31. Nobody tried the service in practice. If a source changes, the page is revised.

Last updated: 2026-10-31

Right of reply

Representatives of coveryourtracks.eff.org can contest this entry: write to us and attach evidence of the inaccuracy. We correct the entry or remove it once the refutation is documented. Entries are never removed or softened for payment.

Our contact for replies

No data available

Response time

No data available

Contact and right of reply · Affiliate disclosure

More write-ups filed under Anonymity checkers

• BrowserSpy.dk — Anonymity checkers
• amiunique.org — Anonymity checkers
• BrowserLeaks — Anonymity checkers