LinkedIn checks for 2953 browser extensions(github.com) |
LinkedIn checks for 2953 browser extensions(github.com) |
(Alternatively extension developers can modify their extensions to block these requests!)
Does Firefox have a similar weakness?
Edit: Confirmed. It's not pinging the Chrome Web Store. https://blog.castle.io/detecting-browser-extensions-for-bot-...
Should be patched nonetheless though, that's a pretty obscene fingerprinting vector.
- why does CWS respond to cross-site requests?
- why is chrome sending the credentials (or equivalent) in these requests?
- why is the button enabled server-side and not via JS? Google must be confident in knowing the exact and latest state of your installed extensions enough to store it on their servers, I guess
Typical early hooks: • fetch wrapper • XMLHttpRequest.prototype.open/send wrapper • WebSocket constructor wrapper • history.pushState/replaceState wrapper • EventTarget.addEventListener wrapper (optional, heavy) • MutationObserver for DOM diffs • Error + unhandledrejection capture
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.
Browsers already have strong protections against that sort of thing, look up the same-origin policy and CORS
The file is then available using a URL like: moz-extension://<extension-UUID>/images/my-image.png"
<extension-UUID> is not your extension's ID. This ID is randomly generated for every browser instance.
This prevents websites from fingerprinting a browser by examining the extensions it has installed.Why can't it just deny access to the specified path, except to the extension itself?
[1]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web...
[2]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web...
Firefox isn't susceptible to that, because that's not how Firefox and addons.mozilla.org work. Chrome, as it turns out, isn't susceptible to it, either, because that's also not how Chrome and the Chrome Web Store work. (And that's not what LinkedIn's fingerprinting technique does.)
(Those randomized IDs for content-accessible resources, however, do explain why the technique that LinkedIn actually uses is is a non-starter for Firefox.)
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...
Firefox extension asset URLs are random and long (there's a UUID in there iirc). The extension itself can discover its randomized base so that it can output its asset URLs, but webpage code can't.
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.
If you truly cared about HN etiquette as much as you claim, you wouldn't post haughty hyperbole such as "Consider this: just stop being reckless" and "The person you're responding to has a habit of posting implausible-but-plausibly-plausible nonsense," which go against the HN guidelines, as you may already know. Be honest: do you actually care about the thread? Why would you care, when you ridiculed my top-level comment? Who are you trying to save the thread for, posterity? Nobody cares. The thread had already been downvoted to the bottom of the submission, and the top-level comment was misinformation, so I removed it, because no more people needed to read the misinformation or respond to it. Nothing of value was lost, and I thought my action was prudent, but in any case, the term "reckless" makes a mountain out of a molehill.
My impression is that you made a bigger deal out of this than is warranted because you appear to have some kind of strange, unexplained, preexisting grudge against me and take any minor fault as an excuse to bash me personally. I have no objection to correcting a falsehood, but please keep your personal feelings to yourself and the personal attacks out of the comments.
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://<extension-UUID>/myfile.png" <extension-UUID> is not your extension's ID. This ID is randomly generated for every browser instance. This prevents websites from fingerprinting a browser by examining the extensions it has installed. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web...
For multi-browser setups (Firefox for fingerprint resistance, Chrome for the sites that only work there), cross-browser bookmark sync is weirdly undersolved. Xbrowsersync, marksyncr, and a few others exist but most people don't know about them.
Are they bit coin mining or are they just incompetent?
You can actually see what tabs are hogging CPU by pressing SHIFT-ESC to open the task manager (about:processes) inside Firefox.
https://fingerprint.com/
https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/
https://abrahamjuliot.github.io/creepjs/
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.
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.
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"
The website should never be able to tell what's running in my browser, or on my computer in general. The browser renders the page, maybe runs a little Javascript, but there's no reason why it should be able to query anything about my environment.
I wonder how much stuff would break if the Chrome sandboxing was extended to preventing access to chrome-extension:// from Javascript loaded of random websites.
I presume the extension knows when it wants to access resources of its own. But random javascript, doesn't.
However, they do contribute to security: Chrome was first to implement Site Isolation, sandboxing too. These are essential security features for modern browsers. They are also not doing too bad with patching and security testing.
Google became a monopoly. All monopolies do this.
If you want a clean chrome, use ungoogled-chromium. Like IE6, some stuff just doesn't work in librewolf (less scummy firefox), so I use ungoogled-chromium when so, and I just don't do anything googleish on it that it latches onto google again.
Screenshots found here https://x.com/DenisGobo/status/2018334684879438150
https://javascript.plainenglish.io/the-extensions-you-use-ar...
> ... it is used to check for abuse (bot use)
> If you follow a LinkedIn influencer and they get banned, now you know why.
https://blog.castle.io/detecting-browser-extensions-for-bot-...
* 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.
Anyone know why they could be doing this?
- 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
I think they want you to feel disoriented.
Why do they do all this bs and not fix the bug that happens when you insert Unicode U+202E in your name?
I've been having loads of fun with that but it's never been fixed. Anyone tagging me in a comment makes their input right-to-left unless they backspace the tag or insert newline. It also jumbles notification text because your name is concatenated to the notification static text.
You can also create an inverted link but it isn't clickable, just like other unicode links which aren't punycode-encoded on LinkedIn but aren't clickable (on the clients I've tried).
I did have a relatively early beef with Chrome though, whcih was I couldn't completely opt out of Flash. As in, I didn't even want it installed. This turned out to be an issue because Flash turned out to be one of the earliest vectors for so-called "zombie cookies".
Fingerprinting in general has been a longstanding problem and has become more and more advanced.
Add to this that Google is, first and foremost, an advertising business and they've become increasingly hostile to ad-bloccking tech for obvious reasons.
Basically what I'm getting at is something I couldn't have imagined a decade ago where I think I really have go switch away from Chrome to something that takes privacy and security seriously so that LinkedIn can't do things like this. And I increasingly don't trust Google to do that.
I actually have more trust in Apple because they have historically been user-focused eg blocking Meta's third party cookies. But obviously Safari isn't an option because it's not cross-platform.
I'm not sure I trust the current state of Mozilla. What's the alternative? Brave? Is Opera still a thing? I honestly don't know.
What I really want is a cross-platform browser written in Rust that black-holes ads out of the box. Why Rust? Memory safety. I simply don't trust a large C/C++ code to never have buffer overruns. Memory safety has become too important.
I don't want my browser to provide information on what extensions I'm using to a site and that shouldn't be a thing I have to ask for or turn on in any way.
Desktop - Librewolf
Android - Ironfox
It's already a sycophantic cesspool of corporate drones repeating mindless PR. I unfollow everyone who re"tweets" feel-good memes or corporate crap and I have very few people I follow left over :) Critical discussion doesn't exist, if I comment anything that's not 100% celebratory of so-called company successes I get blocked.
They infuriate me. Data harvesting machines in all ways. Incredibly user hostile.
Example: making me scroll endlessly through attendee lists. Lack of good filters. Etc. Can’t download attendee lists.
I finally lost my patience and wrote a Selenium script to page through an app and extract everything. Worked well after some initial trial and error.
I get that the CSV lists the extensions, and the tools are provided in order to show work (mapping IDs to actual software). But how was it determined that LinkedIn checks for extensions with these IDs?
And is this relevant for non-Chrome users?
https://blog.castle.io/detecting-browser-extensions-for-bot-...
https://www.nymeria.io/blog/linkedins-war-on-email-finder-ex...
The big one that comes to mind is "Contact Out" which is scan-able, but LinkedIn seems to pretend like it doesn't exist? Smells like a deal happened behind the scenes...
https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/email-finder-by-con...
A $7.5B chip merger
Pinterest prepares layoffs
Healthcare premiums surge
Autodesk to cut 7% of jobs
Ozempic keeps getting cheaper
And what's with some of these? Bad mouthing employers is an odd choice for a platform that makes its money from them? Or perhaps now all the revenue is ad derived?
You can try this by opening devtools and setting
localStorage.setItem('hi', 123) cut -d',' -f2 chrome_extensions_with_names_all.csv | grep -c "AI"
474
Perhaps an overly aggressive attempt to block bots.
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.
Unsurprising outcome since uBlock (specifically: uBlock Origin Lite, the only version available for Chrome on the Chrome Web Store) makes itself undetectable using this method. (All of its content-accessible resources have "use_dynamic_url" set to "true" in its extension manifest.) So its absence in this data is not dispositive of any actual intent by LinkedIn to exclude it—because they couldn't have included it even if they wanted to.
Also, not all of them are data collection tools. There are ad blockers listed (Hide LinkedIn Ads, SBlock - Super Ad Blocker) and just general extensions (Ground News - Bias Checker, Jigit Studio - Screen Recorder, RealEyes.ai — Detect Deepfakes Across Online Platforms, Airtable Clipper).
const msg = createDoneMessage(); msg.style.opacity = '1';
console.log("Extensions sorted alphabetically!");
console.table(sortedCards.map(c => ({
name: getName(c),
id: c.id || '—'* if LinkedIn didn't get it from an existing data source
LinkedIn's fingerprinting code, as the README explains, is found in fingerprint.js[2], which embeds a big JSON literal with the IDs of the extensions it probes for. (Sickeningly enough, this data starts about two-thirds of the way through the file* and isn't the culprit behind the bulk of its 2.15 MB size…)
* On line 34394; the one starting:
const r = [{
id: "aacbpggdjcblgnmgjgpkpddliddineni",
file: "sidebar.html"
2. <https://github.com/mdp/linkedin-extension-fingerprinting/blo...>
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 fake data or quietly ignore the stuff they create on the site.
2. Spamming/misuse evasion. Imagine an extension called "Send Messages to everybody with a given job role at this company." LinkedIn would prefer not to allow that, probably because they'd want to sell that feature.
3. User tracking.
I imagine most users will also not have extensions at all, so this would not be a reliable metric to track bots. Maybe it might be hard to imagine for someone whose first thing to do after installing a web browser is to install some extensions that they absolutely can't live without (ublock origin, privacy badger, dark mode reader, noscript, vimium c, whatever). But I imagine the majority of casual users do not install any extensions or even know of its existence (Maybe besides some people using something like Grammarly, or Honey, since they aggressively advertise on Youtube).
I do agree with the rest of your reasons though, like if bots used a specific exact combinations of extensions, or if there was an extension specifically for linkedin scraping/automation they want to detect, and of course, user tracking.
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...
I would guess this is for rate limiting and abuse detection.
It won't disclose how, as it says it has had several users report it. And that it expects 50% of the bounty, and will use it for GPU upgrades.
(except they won't, because they're not after money but engagement, and their built-in tools suck on purpose to maximize wasted time)
Secondly, it's not "3000 extensions". They didn't somehow magically divine that the 2953 (+/-47) extensions we see here were the ones that they needed to download in order to be able to exploit the content-accessible resources described in their extension manifest. They looked at a much larger set, and it got filtered down to these 2953 that satisfied the necessary criteria.
The recruiters all had LinkedIn paid accounts, and could access all of this data on the web. We made a browser extension so they wouldn’t need to do any manual data entry. Recruiters loved the extension because it saved them time.
I think it was a legitimate use. We were making LinkedIn more useful to some of their actual customers (recruiters) by adding a somewhat cursed api integration via a chrome extension. Forcing recruiters to copy and paste did’t help anyone. Our extension only grabbed content on the page the recruiter had open. It was purely read only and scoped by the user.
So when pay the highest scraper, it’s ok! Same data, different manner.
edit: er, I think that that also suggests that I need to restart firefox more often...
I have this set as my homepage in Firefox as moz-extension://<extension-id>/index.html, and this has not changed since installing the extension. The page still works.
Enjoy the fingerprinting.
If you don't, you have a lot more to worry about beyond fingerprinting...
Oh and I'm on LINUX (CachyOS) mind you.
And it deserves a call out! The benefits to being so cynical that you’re numb to it come with a lot of tradeoffs
“This isn’t what it was intended for”. Who cares?
A long long time ago in a galaxy far far away I would encounter warnings on pirating websites saying “If you are an FBI agent you are not allowed to continue on this site”. Imagine their utter disbelief and shock if they were to be arrested by an FBI agent that clicked past the warning anyway.
I agree is must be programmers as a type that like rules a lot and, they think, what a perfect world it could be if people would follow them.
"Programmers don't appreciate the fact that you can just violate terms of service."
I think there's a subset of people that offload memory to their browsers and that's kinda scary given how these fingerprint things work.
That's my comment.
Oh right, companies change ToS and EULA and "agreements" without notice, without due process, and without recourse.
I have no problem changing how I use "their" data in such situations.
You cannot function without these enterprises, but that doesn't mean they're ideal or even ethical.
Microsoft wins because of network effects. It's impossible to compete. So I think it should be allowed to assail their monopoly here by any means. It's maximally fair for consumers and for free markets.
Ideally capitalism remains cutthroat and impossible to grow into undislodgeable titans.
Even more ideally, this would become a distributed protocol rather than a privately owned and guarded database.
They could stop all the scraping by providing a downloadable data bundle like Wikipedia.
I "scrape" linkedin in a roundabout way for personal use, and really what Ive found is that i should just maybee not bother at all. I can't get through the noise even when im applying at places that heavily match my skillset, and just get automated rejection emails.
The data bundle doesn't help that at all.
So, reasonable people may disagree. This is a fine place to mention it .. what if individual profiles built at LinkedIn are being combined with illegitimate and even directly illegal surveillance data and sold daily? Everyone stand up and salute when LinkedIn walks in the room? there has to be legal and direct ways to deal with change, and enforcement to complete an orderly and predictable economic marketplace.
Partially by discrepancy in how responsive you can be or comprehensive you must be to win the next round of cat-and-mouse, and partially because a private/corporate surveillance apparatus is useful to a government that might otherwise be hampered by constitutional bounds.
This is a popular position across the aisle. Here's hoping the next guy can't be bought, or at least asks for more than a $400M tacky gold ballroom!
Once you deliver that, you can also think about a database of natural numbers!
Let's go a step further and just iterate through them on the client. I plan on having this phone well past the heat death of the universe, so this is guaranteed to finish on my hardware.
function* uuidIterator() {
const bytes = new Uint8Array(16);
while (true) {
yield formatUUID(bytes);
let carry = 1;
for (let i = 15; i >= 0 && carry; i--) {
const sum = bytes[i] + carry;
bytes[i] = sum & 0xff;
carry = sum > 0xff ? 1 : 0;
}
if (carry) return;
}
}
function formatUUID(b) {
const hex = [...b].map(x => x.toString(16).padStart(2, "0"));
return (
hex.slice(0, 4).join("") + "-" +
hex.slice(4, 6).join("") + "-" +
hex.slice(6, 8).join("") + "-" +
hex.slice(8, 10).join("") + "-" +
hex.slice(10, 16).join("")
);
}
Kolmogorov said that computers do not help with naturally hard tasks; they raise a limit compared to what we can fo manually, but above that limit the task stays as hard is it was.
Wait, you already linked to everyuuid. Do you think the server it's on uses black hole storage?
Companies change their terms of service all the time. They usually send emails about it.
I've responded to decline them a handful of times and asked for my account to be deleted. I chuckle slightly at the work it creates, but sometimes it has been easier to close an account that way.
If anyone has evidence of constant tracking and reporting then please share it.
We can stop pretending all it alright at some point, can't we? We don't need more enshittification. Windows 11 is already a disaster, that no one wants. It already starts with its idiotic HW requirements, trying to make perfectly fine HW obsolete. $$$
For suddenly putting your documents into onedrive, that's real but it started years ago in windows 10.