Maybe the basic problem is with how hard it is to find engineers passionate about performance AND compression?

For the cross-site thing, cache partitioning is the defense. If the cache of facebook.com/file is independent for a.com and b.com, Facebook can't link the visits.

An attacker using the hash of a cached resource as a pseudo-cookie could previously use the content of the resource as the pseudo-cookie. The Use-As-Dictionary wildcard allows cleverer implementations, but it seems like you can fingerprint for the same time period/in the same circumstances as before. In both cases you might do your tracking by ignoring how you're supposed to be using the feature; as you note, no one's stopping you.

Before and after the compression feature, it is true anti-tracking laws, etc. should address tracking with persistent storage in general not only cookies, much as they need to handle localStorage or other hiding places for data. Also true that for a browser to robustly defend against linking two visits to the same domain (or limit the possibility of tracking to a certain time period, session, origin, etc.), caching is one of the things it has to limit.

I think if they get the expiry, partitioning, etc. right (or wrong) for stopping cache fingerprinting, they also get it right (or wrong) for this.

I was admittedly a fan of the original SDCH that didn't take off, figuring that inter-resource redundancy is a thing. It's a neat spin on it to use the compression algo history windows instead of purpose-built diff tools, and use the existing cache of instead of a dictionary store to the side. Seems easier to implement on both ends compared to the previous try. I could see this being helpful for quickly kicking off page load, maybe especially for non-SPAs and imperfectly optimized sites that repeat a not-tiny header across loads.

https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:ser...

So it seems it should not get you anything you cannot already do with cookies.

https://github.com/WICG/compression-dictionary-transport/blo...

They are also cleared any time cookies are cleared and don't outlive what you can do today with cookies or Etags (and are using the most restrictive partitioning for that reason).

I have a hosted version of it on https://use-as-dictionary.com/ to make it easier to experiment with.

On the first entry to the site you trigger the load of an external dictionary that contains the common parts of the HTML across the site and then future document loads can be delta-compressed against the dictionary, effectively delivering just the page-specific bits.

You need to amortize the cost of loading the dictionary across the other page loads but it's usually pretty compelling once users visit more than 2-3 pages.

You can use the presence of an item in the cache to correlate visits between sites.

More convoluted, but I expect using an old version as the source for the dictionary will yield significantly better results than a generic dictionary for that type of file.

Of course it doesn't help the first load, which might be more noticeable than subsequent loads when not every object has been modified. Perhaps having a standard dictionary for each type for the first request and using a specific one when the old version if available, would give noticeable extra benefit for those first requests for minimal extra implementation effort.

It does seem like the ones who benefit from this are large web application that often ship incremental changes. Which, to be fair are the ones that can use the most help.

This has the potential of moving the needle between: "the app takes 10 seconds to load" to "it loads instantly" for these scenarios. Say what you want about the fact that maybe they should optimize their stuff better, this does give them an easy out.

That being said, yeah this is really convoluted and does seem like a big fingerprinting surface.

Though from the client side 60 bytes is likely not really noticeable¹ as a delay in the request send. Perhaps server side, which is seen many many client requests, will see an uptick in incoming bandwidth used, but in most cases servers responding to HTTP(S) requests see a lot more outgoing traffic (response sizes are much larger than requests sizes, on average), so have enough incoming bandwidth “spare” that it is not going to be saturated to the point where this has a significant effect.

--

[1] if the link is slow enough that several lots of 60 bytes is going to have much effect² it likely also has such high latency that the difference is dwarfed by the existing delays.

[2] a spotty GRPS connection? is anything slower than that in common use anywhere?

If you need it to be able to do compression though then it might be a harder sell since the browser doesn't ship with the compression code for zstd or brotli and would have to justify adding it.

There's wasm modules that do similar but having it bakes into the browser could allow for further optimization than what's possible with wasm. https://github.com/bokuweb/zstd-wasm

I have no idea if it's possible but I wonder if a webgpu port could be made? Alternatively, for your use case, maybe you could try applying something like Basis Universal; a fast compression system for textures, that it seems there are some webgpu loaders for... Maybe that could be bent to encoding/deciding text?

For stand-alone dictionaries, the brotli code on github has a dictionary_generator that you can use to generate a dictionary. You give it a dictionary size and a bunch of input files and it will generate one. I have a version of it hosted on https://use-as-dictionary.com/ that you can pass up to 100 URLs to and it will generate a dictionary for you (using the brotli tool).

Compressing JavaScript already gives you tonnes of benefits, but syntax-aware compression (modify js) gives you more.

Besides, this is a form of more efficient caching on that it only benefits subsequent visits.

Combined they mitigate the known dictionary-specific attack vectors.

You're making three assertions, none backed by any evidence. That this is a tracking vector, that it's primarily intended to be a tracking vector, and that they're lying about their motivations.

But your reasoning fails already at the first step, since you just assumed malice rather than do any research. This is not a useful tracking vector. The storage is partitioned by the top window, and it is cleared when cookies are cleared. It's also not really a new tracking vector, it's pretty much the same as ETags.