Live data from Hacker News

LinkedIn checks for 2953 browser extensions

github.com

31–40 of 263 posts

Re: LinkedIn checks for 2953 browser extensions

#31

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.

We enjoy the fruits of an LLM or two from time to time, derived from hoards of ill gotten data. Linkedin has the resourses to attempt to block scraping, but even at the resource scale of LI I doubt the effort is effective.

Re: LinkedIn checks for 2953 browser extensions

#32
post #5

Earlier 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.

I imagine that it would require browsers to treat web requests from JS differently from those initiated by the user, specifically pretending the JS-originating requests are by logged-out or "incognito" users (by, I suppose, simply not forwarding any local credentials along, but maybe there's more to it than that).

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

#33
post #20

Earlier 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?

[dead]

Re: LinkedIn checks for 2953 browser extensions

#34
post #5

Earlier 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?

I don't see any evidence of this happening in Firefox. Either it's more difficult or they just didn't bother, either way I'm happy.

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

#35
I suggest everyone take a look at the list of extensions and their names for some very important context: https://github.com/mdp/linkedin-extension-fingerprinting/blo...

I 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

#37

Curious 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.

Look at the actual list. It's primarily questionable AI tools, scrapers, lead generation tools, and other plugins in that vein.

I would guess this is for rate limiting and abuse detection.

Re: LinkedIn checks for 2953 browser extensions

#38
post #5

Earlier 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?

It doesn't work. The person who posted the comment you're responding to has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. He confabulated the entire explanation based on a single misunderstood block of code that contains the comment «Remove " - Chrome Web Store" suffix if present» in the (local, NodeJS-powered) scraper that the person who's publishing this data themselves used to fetch extension names.

Re: LinkedIn checks for 2953 browser extensions

#39
post #20

Earlier 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?

Surely they do! The data is in the public internets, aren't they?

Re: LinkedIn checks for 2953 browser extensions

#40
post #20

Earlier 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?

They'd put Widevine or PlayReady DRM on the website if they could, I'm sure.
Post reply on HN