101–110 of 263 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they framed it this way because they don't consider scraping abuse (to be fair, neither do I, as long as it doesn't overload the site). Botting accounts for spam is clear abuse, however, so that's fair game.
No, I consider all data collection and scraping egregious. From that perspective, LinkedIn is hypocritical when Microsoft discloses every filesystem search I do locally to bing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a naive question. This comment says it's not possible to do that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46905213
Oh, it's (re)randomised upon each restart, whew, thanks for the heads up edit: er, I think that that also suggests that I need to restart firefox more often...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, it's (re)randomised upon each restart, whew, thanks for the heads up edit: er, I think that that also suggests that I need to restart firefox more often...
The webpage would have to scan the entire UUID space to create this fingerprint, which seems unlikely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is probably a naive question, but... Doesn't the idea of swapping extension specific IDs to your browser specific extension IDs mean that instead of your browser being identifiable, you become identifiable? I mean, it goes from "Oh they have X, Y , and Z installed" to "Oh, it's jim bob, only he has that unique set of IDs for extensions"
Maybe, but how long are the extension ids? And if they are random, how long to scan a trillion random alphanumeric ids, to find matches? I presume the extension knows when it wants to access resources of its own. But random javascript, doesn't.
const msg = createDoneMessage(); msg.style.opacity = '1';
console.log("Extensions sorted alphabetically!");
console.table(sortedCards.map(c => ({
name: getName(c),
id: c.id || '—'Earlier quoted context omitted.
No kidding. I am shocked this works. Does Firefox have a similar weakness?
No. Firefox always randomizes the extension ID used for URLs to web accessible resources on each restart [1]. Apparently, manifest v3 extensions on Chromium can now opt into similar behavior [2]. [1]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web... [2]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wrong again. (PS: The fact that you have now replied—which automatically disables comment deletion—is the only thing that prevented my removing it just now. So great job.)
> The fact that you have now replied—which automatically disables comment deletion—is the only thing that prevented my removing it just now. So great job. How was I supposed to know that you intended to delete it? In any case, you may still have time to edit your comment, as I did with my erroneous root-level comment, since I can't delete that either, for the same reason.
Consider this: just stop being reckless.
Curious question: why would they check for installed extensions on one's browser?
Fingerprinting. There are a few reasons you'd do it: 1. Bot prevention. If the bots don't know that you're doing this, you might have a reliable bot detector for a while. The bots will quite possibly have no extensions at all, or even better specific exact combination they always use. Noticing bots means you can block them from scraping your site or spamming your users. If you wanna be very fancy, you could provide f…
Wonder if with things like Moltbot taking the scene, a form of “undetectable LinkedIn automation” will start to manifest. At some point they won’t be able to distinguish between a chronically online seller adding 100 people per day with personalized messages, or an AI doing it with the same mannerisms.
[1] https://business.linkedin.com/sales-solutions/social-selling...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, it's (re)randomised upon each restart, whew, thanks for the heads up edit: er, I think that that also suggests that I need to restart firefox more often...
The webpage would have to scan the entire UUID space to create this fingerprint, which seems unlikely.