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

LinkedIn checks for 2953 browser extensions

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 263 posts

Re: LinkedIn checks for 2953 browser extensions

#161

Post by bastawhiz »

cxr wrote: post #56
rdoherty wrote: post #15

Skimming the list, looks like most extensions are for scraping or automating LinkedIn usage. Not surprising as there's money to be made with LinkedIn data. Scraping was a problem when I worked there, the abuse teams built some reasonably sophisticated detection & prevention, and it was a constant battle.

In order to create the data source that LinkedIn's extension-fingerprinting relies on to work, someone (at LinkedIn*?) almost certainly violated the Chrome Web Store TOS—by (perversely*) scraping it. * if LinkedIn didn't get it from an existing data source

3000 extensions is few enough that a small team could download each extension manually over a few months. You don't need to scrape at all.

Re: LinkedIn checks for 2953 browser extensions

#162

Post by direwolf20 »

throwaway808081 wrote: post #110
tech234a wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The webpage would have to scan the entire UUID space to create this fingerprint, which seems unlikely.

Just have a database of UUIDs. Seems pretty trivial to generate and sort as it's only 16 bytes each.

It exists

https://everyuuid.com/

Re: LinkedIn checks for 2953 browser extensions

#163

Post by direwolf20 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #135
throwaway808081 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just have a database of UUIDs. Seems pretty trivial to generate and sort as it's only 16 bytes each.

"Just" have a database, and then what? I can set up a database of all UUIDs very easily, but I don't think it's helpful.

Where are you storing them, a black hole?

Re: LinkedIn checks for 2953 browser extensions

#164

Post by direwolf20 »

cxr wrote: post #56
rdoherty wrote: post #15

Skimming the list, looks like most extensions are for scraping or automating LinkedIn usage. Not surprising as there's money to be made with LinkedIn data. Scraping was a problem when I worked there, the abuse teams built some reasonably sophisticated detection & prevention, and it was a constant battle.

In order to create the data source that LinkedIn's extension-fingerprinting relies on to work, someone (at LinkedIn*?) almost certainly violated the Chrome Web Store TOS—by (perversely*) scraping it. * if LinkedIn didn't get it from an existing data source

Programmers don't appreciate the fact that you can just violate terms of service. You can just do it. It's okay. The police won't come after you. Usually.

Re: LinkedIn checks for 2953 browser extensions

#165

Post by direwolf20 »

charcircuit wrote: post #19
hsbauauvhabzb wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wont someone think of poor little LinkedIn, a subsidiary of one of the largest data brokers in the world?

Why frame what you are trying to say like that? Businesses of all sizes deserve the ability to protect their businesses from abuse.

What is abuse? Is it anything that reduces my profit margin? Or is it anything that makes the world a worse place? The Flock CEO called Deflock terrorism, is he right?

Re: LinkedIn checks for 2953 browser extensions

#166

Post by direwolf20 »

john-h-k wrote: post #118
jmward01 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do they respect my data? Why do they get to track me across sites when I clearly don't want them to but someone can't scrape their data when they don't want them to. Why should big companies get the pass but individuals not? They clearly consider internet traffic fair game and are invasive and abusive about it so it is not only fair to be invasive and abusive back, it is self defense at this point.

Because you signed up to a set of terms and conditions saying LinkedIn can use your data in this way

That doesn't actually mean anything

Re: LinkedIn checks for 2953 browser extensions

#167

Post by direwolf20 »

hsbauauvhabzb wrote: post #159
dylan604 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you not scraping a site with your eyeballs when you view a site?

By that logic I can charge you for looking at me.

I agree. Maybe that logic (which is your logic) isn't very good.

Re: LinkedIn checks for 2953 browser extensions

#169

Post by ddtaylor »

pnw wrote: post #160
ddtaylor wrote: post #134

Does anyone know if Brave has any defense against this like Firefox does?

It doesn't seem like Brave's fingerprinting prevention includes extensions, so on my first pass I would say no.

Good call. I did a test and on Chrome I see the spam and I also see the spam on Brave as well, so they don't seem to be any different.

Re: LinkedIn checks for 2953 browser extensions

#170

Post by direwolf20 »

avastel wrote: post #77

I wrote a blog post recently about the technique used by LinkedIn to do extension probing, as well as other ways to do it with less side effects https://blog.castle.io/detecting-browser-extensions-for-bot-...

Patch Firefox so navigator.webdriver is always false, then remote control it. Seems not easily detectable. You could still watch for fast input patterns...
Post reply on HN