So I’m not in the wrong I do well to look on this kind of site to know if my browser and configure well?
They do apply. Also fingerprint.com has its own share of additional problems, for example misleading users by using non-fingerprinting metrics to re-recognize users.
It is excellent, much better than Brave’s. You don’t know how to interpret results of testing sites, because you lack knowledge about fingerprinting.
Well, …
But do we agree that if fingerprint recognizes me, it’s a problem no matter what?
Only if it (at least almost) uniquely recognizes you and that’s something no test site can reliably tell you. Mullvad and Tor Browser’s strength is that you look like many other users, as long as you haven’t tampered with (hidden) settings.
But it recognizes me perfectly, go to the site and it gives you a token and when I restart the session it gives me back the exact same token so I’m identified.
Emphasis in my comment was on uniquely, and that’s something test websites can’t tell you for the general browser population.
Same issue here. I’ve been using Mullvad browser for quite some time, and also regularly tested my fingerprint with that site(fingerprint.com).
Previously, fingerprint.com wasn’t able to recognize me when Mullvad browser was simply restarted. But a few days ago, the visitor ID did not change even after closing and restarting the browser. To me, it turns out that the site utilizes the browser screen resolution. When restarting the browser and changing the resolution, fingerprint.com did not recongize me despite the same IP address. However, when maintaining the same screen size between browsing sections (eg. default size or full screen), the visitor ID did not change.
Let me repeat: It is not an issue.
I thought it wasn’t advisable to change the browser size
No, letterboxing is there to hide your true page content size.