New Chrome privacy analysis shows how fingerprinting and header leaks can expose users
5 min. read 
Published on
Google Chrome still leaves users broadly exposed to fingerprinting techniques that can help websites and trackers identify them across sessions. A new analysis highlighted by privacy researcher Alexander Hanff argues that Chrome offers little native resistance to many of the fingerprinting methods already used on the web.
That claim is broad, but the core point holds up. Chrome continues to expose a large set of browser and device signals through standard web features, while rivals such as Brave and Firefox offer more visible anti-fingerprinting options or privacy-focused controls.
Access content across the globe at the highest speed rate.
70% of our readers choose Private Internet Access
70% of our readers choose ExpressVPN
Browse the web from multiple devices with industry-standard security protocols.
Faster dedicated servers for specific actions (currently at summer discounts)
The bigger issue is that fingerprinting does not rely on one secret bug. Sites can combine normal signals such as graphics output, fonts, browser properties, hardware traits, and header data to build a stable profile of a user even when cookies get cleared.
Why Chrome users remain easy to profile
Hanff’s analysis says there are at least 30 fingerprinting techniques that work in Chrome today. The Register’s coverage of the analysis says these are not lab-only ideas, but real tracking methods already used on production websites.
Academic research supports part of that concern. A 2025 ACM paper found that canvas fingerprinting appeared on 12.7% of the top 20,000 websites it studied, which shows that browser fingerprinting remains a real and measurable part of the modern web.
That matters because fingerprinting can survive many of the cleanup steps users normally trust. Clearing cookies or using private browsing may remove some stored identifiers, but those steps do not stop a site from collecting fresh browser and device signals the next time a page loads. This is an inference based on how fingerprinting works and on the study’s description of canvas-based identification.
Header leaks create a second privacy problem
The analysis also points to header-based leakage, which is a separate issue from browser fingerprinting. HTTP headers can reveal information automatically during ordinary page loads, sometimes without the user clicking anything or noticing any visible prompt.
One recent Chrome flaw shows how serious that can get. According to NVD, CVE-2025-4664 affected Chrome before version 136.0.7103.113 and allowed a remote attacker to leak cross-origin data through a crafted HTML page. CISA later added the bug to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog.
The public discussion around CVE-2025-4664 focused on referrer-policy abuse through crafted HTML and Link header behavior, but the official NVD description is narrower. It confirms cross-origin data leakage and active exploitation status through the CISA KEV update, even if some outside reports describe the exact attack path in more detail than the formal entry does.
Privacy Sandbox did not become the fix many expected
The sample article says Google discontinued Privacy Sandbox in April 2025. That is not the most precise way to put it. Google’s own Privacy Sandbox materials show that in April 2025 it decided to keep the current third-party cookie approach in Chrome and not roll out a new standalone prompt, while later reporting in October 2025 described the broader initiative as effectively shut down.
Google’s official documentation also says some Privacy Sandbox technologies are being phased out. That means the sample article was directionally right that the project did not deliver the kind of broad anti-fingerprinting protection critics wanted, but it overstated the exact timing and finality of the April 2025 moment.
In practical terms, Chrome users should not assume Privacy Sandbox solved fingerprinting. The available evidence shows that Chrome still exposes many identifying signals, while the anti-fingerprinting protections critics expected never arrived as a comprehensive built-in defense.
What the evidence supports
| Claim | What the evidence says |
|---|---|
| Chrome has broad exposure to fingerprinting | Supported by Hanff’s analysis and The Register’s summary of it |
| Canvas fingerprinting is active on major sites | Supported by the 2025 ACM study, which found it on 12.7% of the top 20,000 sites |
| CVE-2025-4664 led to data leakage risk | Supported by NVD and CISA KEV status |
| Privacy Sandbox fully ended in April 2025 | Not precise; Google changed course in April 2025, while broader shutdown reporting came later in 2025 |
| Chrome has no meaningful native anti-fingerprinting defense | Strongly supported by the cited analysis, though this remains an evaluative judgment rather than a vendor statement |
What users can do now
- Keep Chrome updated, especially because actively exploited bugs like CVE-2025-4664 have affected real users.
- Reduce stored browser data by clearing site data, cache, and local storage regularly. This does not stop fingerprinting, but it can limit long-lived stored identifiers.
- Use privacy-focused extensions that block known trackers and reduce unnecessary network requests. This is general best practice and complements the concerns raised in the analysis.
- Consider browsers with stronger anti-fingerprinting controls if tracking resistance is a priority. Hanff’s analysis specifically contrasts Chrome with Brave and Firefox.
- Treat private browsing as partial help, not a full privacy shield. Fingerprinting can still work without cookies.
FAQ
Not exactly. The main issue in this story is privacy exposure through fingerprinting and browser signals, not one newly discovered critical bug. The confirmed security flaw here is CVE-2025-4664, which Chrome patched in version 136.0.7103.113.
No. It can reduce some tracking, but fingerprinting often works by collecting fresh device and browser signals each time a site loads.
The more accurate version is that Google changed course in April 2025 and kept the current third-party cookie approach, while later reporting in October 2025 described the broader Privacy Sandbox effort as officially shut down.
No browser is invisible, but the cited analysis argues Chrome provides fewer built-in anti-fingerprinting defenses than some rivals. That comparison comes from the analysis and related coverage, not from Google.
Read our disclosure page to find out how can you help VPNCentral sustain the editorial team Read more
Improve this guide
User forum
0 messages