71–80 of 836 posts
I am not a lawyer, but site stability seems like a GDPR "Legitimate Interest" in my book anyway.
The “how it works” page suggests it only works on chrome based browsers. Anyone able to determine if firefox or safari are affected too?
My guess, Linkedin is used for years as source of valuable information for phishing/spear-phishing.
Maybe their motive is really spying. But more important for them is to fight against people botting Linkedin.
Imho, browser fingerprinting should be banned and EU should require browser companies to actively fight against it, not to help them (Fu Google)
The “how it works” page suggests it only works on chrome based browsers. Anyone able to determine if firefox or safari are affected too?
The code filters out non-chrome browsers: >The extension scan runs only in Chrome-based browsers. The isUserAgentChrome() function checks for “Chrome” in the user agent string. The isBrowser() function excludes server-side rendering environments. If either check fails, the scan does not execute.
why would the browser ever expose extensions api to a web page. does firefox does this as well?
> Every time you open LinkedIn in a Chrome-based browser, LinkedIn’s JavaScript executes a silent scan of your installed browser extensions. It's not clear though, either they only tested against chrome-based browsers or Firefox isn't enabling them to do so. edit: I answered before I go fully through the article but it does say it's only Chrome based. > The extension scan runs only in Chrome-based browsers. The isUse…
How a web site can search one's computer?
why would the browser ever expose extensions api to a web page. does firefox does this as well?
> Every time you open LinkedIn in a Chrome-based browser, LinkedIn’s JavaScript executes a silent scan of your installed browser extensions. It's not clear though, either they only tested against chrome-based browsers or Firefox isn't enabling them to do so. edit: I answered before I go fully through the article but it does say it's only Chrome based. > The extension scan runs only in Chrome-based browsers. The isUse…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Still pretty annoying browsers haven't patched that yet.
There's nothing to patch, scanning is not possible. It's either the extension's choice to become detectable ("externally_connectable" is off by default) or it makes unique changes to websites that allow for its detection.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree, I think we should push back hard on behavior like this. What business is it of LinkedIn's what browser extensions I have installed? I think the framing for this is appropriate.
Why is it possible for a web site to determine what browser extensions I have installed? If there are legitimate uses, why isn't this gated behind a permission prompt, like things like location and camera?
We’ve known for a long time that advertisers/“security” vendors use as many detectable characteristics as possible to constrict unique fingerprints. This seems like a major enabler of even more invasive fingerprinting and that seems like the bigger issue here.