Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bypassing anti-incognito detection in Google Chrome

mishravikas.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 114 posts

Re: Bypassing anti-incognito detection in Google Chrome

#91

Post by JaRail »

hedora wrote: post #59

Am I the only one that wants their browser to be 100% stateless? I always run in incognito mode, and I have an external password manager. I have no problems with this setup except sites that detect and block incognito mode. Other than caching, there is no legitimate benefit to allow pages to store local state beyond a session, and I can forgo caching at this point in the game. (I don’t care about offline web apps, to…

Do you use two-factor authentication? Staying logged in with the same trusted browser/device is a big benefit for security. It makes it a lot easier for companies to spot suspicious login attempts.

Re: Bypassing anti-incognito detection in Google Chrome

#92

Post by nsajko »

MaxBarraclough wrote: post #78
nsajko wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I, too, almost always use Chromium so it is basically stateless (except when I want bookmarks). My way is better than Incognito mode because you can have multiple sessions (example: one for Google's services that require a login, one for Stack Exchange, one for browsing); and of course because it can not be detected, unlike Incognito mode. Take a look at my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20484845

> it can not be detected, unlike Incognito mode This may be true today, but that's because Chrome has a bug. (At least, I can't see why we wouldn't view it as a bug.) Incognito Mode shouldn't be detectable. Hopefully they'll fix that.

It is true that Google will supposedly start making an effort to make Incognito mode non-detectable [0], but Incognito mode is still crippled compared to the way I use Chromium (through a simple shell script), mostly because of the option to use multiple "sessions" simultaneously and whitelisting of browser data that gets copied/used.

[0] https://www.blog.google/outreach-initiatives/google-news-ini...

Re: Bypassing anti-incognito detection in Google Chrome

#94

Post by nsajko »

ShakataGaNai wrote: post #85
hedora wrote: post #59

Am I the only one that wants their browser to be 100% stateless? I always run in incognito mode, and I have an external password manager. I have no problems with this setup except sites that detect and block incognito mode. Other than caching, there is no legitimate benefit to allow pages to store local state beyond a session, and I can forgo caching at this point in the game. (I don’t care about offline web apps, to…

On HackerNews? You're probably not the only one. In the world of real users? You're probably the extreme minority. Most people want convenience, and will trade almost anything for it. Especially if they don't realize they are trading something like "privacy" or "trackability" for convenience.

Why do you try to imply that a Web browser experience not built around making the user trackable most effectively, like it is by default with the big browsers, has to be inconvenient?

The way I use Chromium [0], is very convenient to me. The downsides are almost nonexistent, and the upsides are not just in privacy: it is convenient (albeit perhaps of questionable morality?) to not have to worry about newspaper article quotas; likewise with having more control over cookies and other browser data in the "simultaneous multiple sessions" model. For example having more than one user logged in to some Web site does not take any extra effort compared to just one user being logged in.

On the other hand there is a difference between "real users" and those willing to exploit the Unix programming environment/interface to its full potential, and that is required knowledge, or the willingness to get it. For example to use my script tb effectively one has to understand that "being logged in with a Web site" means temporarily storing appropriate data chunks gotten from the Web site (cookies) so that they are accessible to the browser and it could send them back to the server to authenticate.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20484845

Re: Bypassing anti-incognito detection in Google Chrome

#95

Post by baybal2 »

ShakataGaNai wrote: post #85
hedora wrote: post #59

Am I the only one that wants their browser to be 100% stateless? I always run in incognito mode, and I have an external password manager. I have no problems with this setup except sites that detect and block incognito mode. Other than caching, there is no legitimate benefit to allow pages to store local state beyond a session, and I can forgo caching at this point in the game. (I don’t care about offline web apps, to…

On HackerNews? You're probably not the only one. In the world of real users? You're probably the extreme minority. Most people want convenience, and will trade almost anything for it. Especially if they don't realize they are trading something like "privacy" or "trackability" for convenience.

> Most people want convenience, and will trade almost anything for it.

No, this is what indoctrinated "UX" people think.

I hear it every day from ordinary office workers how sick they are from dysfunctional, progressively dumbed down UIs.

Ask just how many people keep MS Office 2003 just because they can't use the "ribbon" UI.

Re: Bypassing anti-incognito detection in Google Chrome

#96

Post by elefanten »

nsajko wrote: post #94
ShakataGaNai wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On HackerNews? You're probably not the only one. In the world of real users? You're probably the extreme minority. Most people want convenience, and will trade almost anything for it. Especially if they don't realize they are trading something like "privacy" or "trackability" for convenience.

Why do you try to imply that a Web browser experience not built around making the user trackable most effectively, like it is by default with the big browsers, has to be inconvenient? The way I use Chromium [0], is very convenient to me. The downsides are almost nonexistent, and the upsides are not just in privacy: it is convenient (albeit perhaps of questionable morality?) to not have to worry about newspaper articl…

You answered your own question. The vast majority of users are not "willing to exploit the Unix programming environment."

For the vast majority of people who do not already have Unix skills (or whatever), it is convenient not to have to learn them.

Re: Bypassing anti-incognito detection in Google Chrome

#97

Post by MiddleEndian »

glloydell wrote: post #87
MiddleEndian wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regarding 2: Probably impossible. Regarding 1: hold websites and ad networks legally culpable for delivering malware from ads. Probably also not possible. Keep blocking ads.

I agree with you on 2 most likely not being possible (or reasonable) given that the revenue model is based in sharing user data, but I'm not so sure that 1 is completely out of the question. I don't necessarily think that it's reasonable to have a zero tolerance policy for ad networks or the sites serving them regarding malware (cuz perfect security doesn't exist), but what about requiring some basic standard of due…

Zero tolerance, maybe maybe not. But if I ran a restaurant and kept ordering from a supplier that kept giving me deliberately poisoned meat, I should be held responsible.

And there's a reason ads are slow, easily blocked, client-side javascript. Site operators know they serve malware and don't want it on their own servers.

Re: Bypassing anti-incognito detection in Google Chrome

#98

Post by inetknght »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #73
nsajko wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I, too, almost always use Chromium so it is basically stateless (except when I want bookmarks). My way is better than Incognito mode because you can have multiple sessions (example: one for Google's services that require a login, one for Stack Exchange, one for browsing); and of course because it can not be detected, unlike Incognito mode. Take a look at my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20484845

What do you do for sites that complain each session you're using an "unrecognized browser" and require additional forms of authentication? Just deal with it every single session?

That's what I do.

Re: Bypassing anti-incognito detection in Google Chrome

#99

Post by class4behavior »

baybal2 wrote: post #95
ShakataGaNai wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On HackerNews? You're probably not the only one. In the world of real users? You're probably the extreme minority. Most people want convenience, and will trade almost anything for it. Especially if they don't realize they are trading something like "privacy" or "trackability" for convenience.

> Most people want convenience, and will trade almost anything for it. No, this is what indoctrinated "UX" people think. I hear it every day from ordinary office workers how sick they are from dysfunctional, progressively dumbed down UIs. Ask just how many people keep MS Office 2003 just because they can't use the "ribbon" UI.

You're conflating bad UI design with user-friendly, intuitive, comfortable UX.

Also, design is simplified because that strategy works. People want simple UIs, while business doesn't want to invest in design, costs of which rise exponentially unless you have talent both in development as well as management at work, or deal with too many unique support requests.

Re: Bypassing anti-incognito detection in Google Chrome

#100

Post by [deleted] »

class4behavior wrote: post #99
baybal2 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most people want convenience, and will trade almost anything for it. No, this is what indoctrinated "UX" people think. I hear it every day from ordinary office workers how sick they are from dysfunctional, progressively dumbed down UIs. Ask just how many people keep MS Office 2003 just because they can't use the "ribbon" UI.

You're conflating bad UI design with user-friendly, intuitive, comfortable UX. Also, design is simplified because that strategy works. People want simple UIs, while business doesn't want to invest in design, costs of which rise exponentially unless you have talent both in development as well as management at work, or deal with too many unique support requests.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN