177
all 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] ecards@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 days ago

and they sell data to apollo io

[-] gokayburucdev@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

And I especially hate Persona. LinkedIn fell out of my favor ever since it started creating shadow profiles with user IDs and information. Persona stores almost all user data within its own infrastructure.

[-] xxce2AAb@feddit.dk 16 points 1 week ago

Good thing I haven't visited the site since before the Microslop acquisition then.

[-] Eggymatrix@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 week ago

All very "secret" and "hidden" in cleartext javascript. These titles need to chill.

[-] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

Ah yes, who doesn't read through the minified bundles of every page they open. I fucking love reading through megabytes of uglified code!

[-] Eggymatrix@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 week ago

And your point is what exactly? Nobody does, but it still is not a secret. My point is that any assumption that your extensions are not detected is a delusion, if one wants to put in the effort it is not overly complicated to understand what minified js is doing and one can expect any major social media to do such things.

[-] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

It is absolutely a secret! Based on the discussions I've seen, many people in the field were quite surprised that this technique works. So just like Meta's recent-ish WebRTC scandal, this was a secret, even if the code always showed what it does.

My point is that any assumption that your extensions are not detected is a delusion

It is? How are these websites detecting my Firefox extensions?

[-] Eggymatrix@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

By doing things the extensions are interacting with. You can see if an ad is served and displayed or not, you can detect if an iteraction was originated by an user or automatic, you can see if letters were pasted or input at a speed no human can match.

[-] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

You can see if an ad is served and displayed or not

This doesn't tell you which specific extensions a user has installed. First, the filter lists are mostly shared between ad blockers, so you can at best tell that some adblock extension is installed, but not which one. Second, the ad might fail to load for a variety of other reasons (e.g. user is offline, firewall blocking URLs/endpoints, network-level DNS adblock, ...), so all you can tell is that the user might have an adblock extension installed. That's far milder than your initial premise: "My point is that any assumption that your extensions are not detected is a delusion[...]"

you can detect if an iteraction was originated by an user or automatic

Sure, and how does this help with detecting the installed extensions? Knowing that the click event wasn't triggered by the user doesn't tell you who triggered it.

you can see if letters were pasted or input at a speed no human can match

Again, how does this help with detecting the installed extensions?

[-] Eggymatrix@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago

I mean, I was listing stuff one person can do on their site to detect if visitors have a type of extension or not. If I can do that with a couple hours of work I am not surprised at all whith what a major social network like linkedin can implement. I don't know what linkedin does and I don't plan to read their code, I did not even read the article tbh

[-] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Well, that's a pretty useless approach for tech discussions, because this kind of attack is explicitly not possible on Firefox.

Also, extrapolating such a broad statement from the simple fact that it's possible to unreliably detect the presence of a single broad category of extensions is a huge reach.

[-] RedSnt@feddit.dk 4 points 1 week ago

Linkedln being a walled garden just makes this funnier to me.

[-] cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 week ago

Isn't it standard for a website to be able to detect browser/extensions?

Funny that the name dropping of Chrome in the link summary implies Firefox users are safe.

[-] x_pikl_x@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago

No, not really. Unless it's your own extension you're trying to communicate with.

[-] hoshikarakitaridia@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago

It's like a security guy doing a full body search on everyone entering a club. It's beyond inappropriate.

[-] Cyber@feddit.uk 2 points 1 week ago

Funny that the name dropping of Chrome in the link summary implies Firefox users are safe.

Well, the article does actually state that in the text...

[-] lka1988@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago

I deleted my linkedin account (as much as they would allow, anyway). I visited about twice a year, usually on accident.

Good riddance.

this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2026
177 points (99.4% liked)

Cybersecurity

9837 readers
64 users here now

c/cybersecurity is a community centered on the cybersecurity and information security profession. You can come here to discuss news, post something interesting, or just chat with others.

THE RULES

Instance Rules

Community Rules

If you ask someone to hack your "friends" socials you're just going to get banned so don't do that.

Learn about hacking

Hack the Box

Try Hack Me

Pico Capture the flag

Other security-related communities !databreaches@lemmy.zip !netsec@lemmy.world !securitynews@infosec.pub !cybersecurity@infosec.pub !pulse_of_truth@infosec.pub

Notable mention to !cybersecuritymemes@lemmy.world

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS