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

211–220 of 263 posts

Re: LinkedIn checks for 2953 browser extensions

#211

Post by rob74 »

LAC-Tech wrote: post #174
cbsks wrote: post #44

Looks like Firefox is immune. This works by looking for web accessible resources that are provided by the extensions. For Chrome, these are are available in a webpage via the URL chrome-extension://[PACKAGE ID]/[PATH] https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/manif... On Firefox, web accessible resources are available at "moz-extension:// /myfile.png" is not your extension's ID. This ID is randomly gener…

Anecdotally, I sometimes notice my computer fan spinning ferociously... it's almost always because I have left a firefox tab with linkedin open somewhere. Are they bit coin mining or are they just incompetent?

Maybe it's trying (and failing) to access your browser extensions? In a loop?

Re: LinkedIn checks for 2953 browser extensions

#212

Post by Tade0 »

OJFord wrote: post #208
cbsks wrote: post #44

Looks like Firefox is immune. This works by looking for web accessible resources that are provided by the extensions. For Chrome, these are are available in a webpage via the URL chrome-extension://[PACKAGE ID]/[PATH] https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/manif... On Firefox, web accessible resources are available at "moz-extension:// /myfile.png" is not your extension's ID. This ID is randomly gener…

Though LinkedIn in Firefox with uBlock Origin allowing just enough (not sure if that's relevant, just haven't run it without) does not last long without rocketing CPU & memory usage, fan spinning up, etc. (ime, anyway)

In my case LinkedIn consistently crashes Firefox the first time I navigate there on a given day. After I restart FF, all is fine.

Re: LinkedIn checks for 2953 browser extensions

#213

Post by franga2000 »

direwolf20 wrote: post #164
cxr wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the point is more "in order to prevent people from scraping their site, which is against their ToS, they scraped some other site, against its ToS".

Re: LinkedIn checks for 2953 browser extensions

#214

Post by duskdozer »

Banditoz wrote: post #156

LinkedIn has been employing a lot of strange dark patterns recently: * Overriding scroll speed on Firefox Web. Not sure why. * Opening a profile on mobile web, then pressing back to go to last page, takes me to the LinkedIn homepage everytime. * One of their analytic URLs is a randomly generated path on www.linkedin.com, supposedly to make it harder to block. Regex rules on ublock origin sufficiently stop this. Anyon…

- scroll speed - unsure of ulterior motives, but i've seen this even on some foss things. i think some people just think it looks cool/modern/"responsive"/whatever

- back - hijacking it seems fairly common on malicious/dark-pattern sites to try to trap you on them. not sure why because you can just leave and it seems it would obviously piss someone off

- analytics paths - not everyone may know about/how to use regex rules for it or may use something else that doesn't support it (the stripped down ublock for chrome? i don't know if it can or not). sites seem to do this with malicious js code as well, presumably to prevent blocking

Re: LinkedIn checks for 2953 browser extensions

#215

Post by direwolf20 »

franga2000 wrote: post #213
direwolf20 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the point is more "in order to prevent people from scraping their site, which is against their ToS, they scraped some other site, against its ToS".

Read "in order to have more money, I did things that caused other people to have less money"

Re: LinkedIn checks for 2953 browser extensions

#217

Post by nilslindemann »

cbsks wrote: post #44

Looks like Firefox is immune. This works by looking for web accessible resources that are provided by the extensions. For Chrome, these are are available in a webpage via the URL chrome-extension://[PACKAGE ID]/[PATH] https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/manif... On Firefox, web accessible resources are available at "moz-extension:// /myfile.png" is not your extension's ID. This ID is randomly gener…

Yes, is it now?

    https://fingerprint.com/
    https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/
    https://abrahamjuliot.github.io/creepjs/
I don't have Firefox or another browser installed right now, but the last time I checked, every browser was detected, especially on the first link.

Further, When I used Tor, a few sites, like Google, showed me Captchas for a while afterward, when using my _normal_ browser.

Further I heard that sites like PayPal are giving me black karma when I try to avoid Fingerprinting by using e.g. Tor.

Re: LinkedIn checks for 2953 browser extensions

#218

Post by nilslindemann »

nilslindemann wrote: post #217
cbsks wrote: post #44

Looks like Firefox is immune. This works by looking for web accessible resources that are provided by the extensions. For Chrome, these are are available in a webpage via the URL chrome-extension://[PACKAGE ID]/[PATH] https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/manif... On Firefox, web accessible resources are available at "moz-extension:// /myfile.png" is not your extension's ID. This ID is randomly gener…

Yes, is it now? https://fingerprint.com/ https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/ https://abrahamjuliot.github.io/creepjs/ I don't have Firefox or another browser installed right now, but the last time I checked, every browser was detected, especially on the first link. Further, When I used Tor, a few sites, like Google, showed me Captchas for a while afterward, when using my _normal_ browser. Further I heard that sites like…

I actually don't even care too much if they try to detect, that I am the X from last time.

The issue is them selling the data, or using it in unrelated locations, or trying to detect me as a person. And their programmers are not enforced and rewarded when they report such behavior to law agencies / the public. And the law is not punishing it.

Re: LinkedIn checks for 2953 browser extensions

#219

Post by braiamp »

cyanydeez wrote: post #132
themafia wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google set themselves up to be the next Microsoft Google became a monopoly. All monopolies do this.

there's a step before that. Google is a pure capitalist enterprize>pure capitalism goes to monopoly>all monopolies do this.

Pure unregulated market, that doesn't guarantee free market assumptions does that. Capitalism doesn't need it. Without mechanisms that allow for the free entry/exit of competitors, fair and simultaneous access to information, preventing cartels/price fixing, .... a bunch of assumptions for perfect free market to happen, the market will tend towards monopolies due cumulative advantage (in econ. known as Matthew effect), since small advantages compound into dominance.

Re: LinkedIn checks for 2953 browser extensions

#220

Post by Thiez »

jorvi wrote: post #121
awesome_dude wrote: post #79

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...

Doing it on restart makes the mitigation de facto useless. How often do you have 10, 20, 30d (or even longer) desktop uptime these days? And no one is regularly restarting their core applications when their desktop is still up. Enjoy the fingerprinting.

There isn't enough energy in the solar system to count to 2^128. Now a uuid v4 number "only" has 2^122 bits of entropy. Regardless, you cannot realistically scan the uuid domain. It's not even a matter of Moore's law, it is a limitation of physics that will stand until computers are no longer made of matter.
Post reply on HN