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.
LinkedIn checks for 2953 browser extensions
31–40 of 263 posts
Re: LinkedIn checks for 2953 browser extensions
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a security vulnerability and should be patched. Sorry, LinkedIn. (Alternatively extension developers can modify their extensions to block these requests!)
Is there no browser setting to defend against this attack? If not, there should be, versus relying on extension authors to configure or enable such a setting.
Which would probably wreak havoc with a lot of web apps, at least requiring some kind of same-origin policy. And maybe it messes with OAuth or something. But it does seem at least feasible.
Re: LinkedIn checks for 2953 browser extensions
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wont someone think of poor little LinkedIn, a subsidiary of one of the largest data brokers in the world?
I mean, regardless of who they are or even if you don’t like what LinkedIn does themselves with the data people have given them, the random third parties with the extensions don’t additionally deserve to just grab all that data too, do they?
Re: LinkedIn checks for 2953 browser extensions
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a security vulnerability and should be patched. Sorry, LinkedIn. (Alternatively extension developers can modify their extensions to block these requests!)
No kidding. I am shocked this works. Does Firefox have a similar weakness?
Edit: Can't find much documentation on exactly how the anti-fingerprinting works, but this page implies that the browser blocks extension detection: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/trackers-and-scripts-fi...
Re: LinkedIn checks for 2953 browser extensions
#35I didn't find popular extensions like uBlock or other ad blockers.
The list is full of scammy looking data collection and AI tools, though. Some random names from scrolling through the list:
- LinkedGPT: ChatGPT for LinkedIn
- Apollo Scraper - Extract & Export Apollo B2B Leads
- AI Social Media Assistant
- LinkedIn Engagement Assistant
- LinkedIn Lead Magnet
- LinkedIn Extraction Tool - OutreachSheet
- Highperformr AI - Phone Number and Email Finder
- AI Agent For Jobs
These look like the kind of tools scummy recruiters and sales people use to identify targets for mass spamming. I see several AI auto-application tools in there too.
Re: LinkedIn checks for 2953 browser extensions
#36Re: LinkedIn checks for 2953 browser extensions
#37Curious question: why would they check for installed extensions on one's browser?
For a social network, more information about their users = better ad targeting. It likely gets plumbed into models to inform user profiles.
I would guess this is for rate limiting and abuse detection.
Re: LinkedIn checks for 2953 browser extensions
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a security vulnerability and should be patched. Sorry, LinkedIn. (Alternatively extension developers can modify their extensions to block these requests!)
No kidding. I am shocked this works. Does Firefox have a similar weakness?
Re: LinkedIn checks for 2953 browser extensions
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wont someone think of poor little LinkedIn, a subsidiary of one of the largest data brokers in the world?
I mean, regardless of who they are or even if you don’t like what LinkedIn does themselves with the data people have given them, the random third parties with the extensions don’t additionally deserve to just grab all that data too, do they?
Re: LinkedIn checks for 2953 browser extensions
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, regardless of who they are or even if you don’t like what LinkedIn does themselves with the data people have given them, the random third parties with the extensions don’t additionally deserve to just grab all that data too, do they?
Surely they do! The data is in the public internets, aren't they?