• Lemongrab@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    That is not true. On chrome, they could be fingerprinted using the way that extensions load remote assets (which I dont think is still possible). On Firefox, that has not been possible (maybe ever but at least for a while). The way that extensions are fingerprinted requires detecting the way they interact with the web pages DOM, which is not something many extensions do.

      • Lemongrab@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        The point to my original comment is fingerprint of extensions isn’t straightforward or free, ie requires intentionally designing a fingerprinting technique tailored to identify its behaviour.

        CreepJS can really only detect Chrome extensions and very few Firefox ones. On Firefox, it can detect NoScript but not uBlock for example. This isn’t to say that uBlock can’t be fingerprinted, just that it hasn’t yet in CreepJS. Some extension don’t touch the DOM at all or produce any fingerprintable behaviour to the web page, so there for can’t be detected. Some don’t produce weird behaviour until a user interacts with some element in the extension or webpage.

        • refalo@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          Yes you are right. I don’t think there is a realistic way for most people to be anonymous or private online anymore given all these offensive and invasive techniques being used regularly now. Hell cloudflare fingerprints people with TLS alone, and that doesn’t care about javascript or anything else above it.