rekabis

Rock hammers. For, uh...reasons.

And a great big poster of Rita Hayworth, I gather?

If they weren’t paying taxes in the first place, their departure only improves the environment.

I believe installed extensions are directly query-able through javascript or html5

The requirement for this is that those extensions need to directly interact with - and respond to - page elements.

Security add-ins are a “black hole” in that the vast majority of them only block, they don’t interact. There is absolutely no way for a website to tell which ad-blocker is installed from purely the ad-blocking component itself. Provided the add-on is constructed properly, it should never respond to any code either on the client-side or server-side, it should only block the browser from not even requesting certain assets in the first place. In fact, a good adblocker should be indistinguishable from a failure of DNS in providing the IP address of the ad server.

Now granted, most of these will need additional configuration once installed to be effective. Downside is that you need good security knowledge to configure some of these settings. Most can be rather obvious, but some can trip up those without deep knowledge.

For example, Referer Control is particularly subtle, as its only mod requires you to set the referrer to be [REFERER_HOST], and (if it is disabled) to have JS referrer handling active as well.

This makes sense for extensions that respond to and directly process and interact with page elements, such as Flash or Silverlight.

This makes absolutely no sense if the app has no ability to load or interact with anything in the page. If there is no interactivity - and why would there be, with simple blocking? - there is nothing for an external script to “grab”.

Which security add-ins, an external script can tell - at most - that an in-page element was not loaded by the web browser, but then anyone doing the tracking needs to contend with the dozen-plus add-ins that have the capability to block an element like that. The exact add-in is still not identifiable, only the class or type of add-in that has the functionality to block said element.

I have read through a number of white papers that explore this technology, and to a T,

1. This is still largely experimental and proof-of-concept
2. Is still primarily meant to block bots that are trying to mimic humans, and to ensure that the site visitor is actually a salty bag of mostly water
3. Can only identify apps that are explicitly designed to produce a response, as a core aspect of their purpose and design. Which, by default, fails to include almost all security-based add-ins, which behave more as “black holes” that have never been designed nor have any capability to respond to external queries.

So when a website bitches about you having an adblocker installed, the site cannot tell WHICH ad-blocker is installed, only that ads are not loading because it is not getting any telemetry from them.

So the website cannot track you by your installation of uBlock Origin unless it has that mix of ads that uBlock’s particular DEFAULT blocking pattern can be identified with. And since you can add or remove black lists at will, this becomes an infinite game of whack-a-mole for anyone trying to track you. Plus, other adblockers can load the same black lists, giving the exact same pattern for any website not loading ads from many dozens of different sources.

Preaching to the choir.

The list above is the vast majority of my add-ins. I don’t use any which are sufficiently duplicated in the browser or which are not required for enhanced security.

I am not one of those people with multiple dozens of add-ins.

extension detection/fingerprinting

So you’re talking about bot detection and bot denial of a website, then.

Well, I’m not a bot.

Israel is currently on an absolutely bloodthirsty genocide bender right about now. The fact that it doesn’t give two shits about women’s rights is quite a bit further down the priority list from where it doesn’t give two shits about life in general, and is violently unaliving most everyone not like them in the region

Pretty ironic, actually.

the more fingerprint able you are

Missed Privacy Tweaks, did ya? Look closer.

every extension installed absolutely spikes up your uniqueness to fingerprinting.

Missed Privacy Tweaks, did ya? Look closer.

Women think it is “cute”, and themselves are so big on micro/subtle nonverbal communication that they legitimately don’t realize that it goes completely unnoticed by pretty much all men who aren’t gay or TG in the first place.

What’s even funnier is that if you call them out on this they gaslight you by calling you stupid and unintelligent. Like, men get absolutely no practise with this form of communication. Father-son and man-to-man communication is almost blindingly obvious and explicitly spelled out. Asking a man to pick up on subtle cues and hints is like asking a blind person to call out all the colours in the vicinity by touch alone.

Ads?

What ads?

I mean, who TF is not running with a proper adblocker and multiple other anti-spyware and anti-malware add-ins in their browser?

I’ve been doing so since 2004, when the first adblocker came out for Firefox. Except for system set-ups of client machines and working on the machines of new clients, I haven’t seen an ad in over 20 years.

Of course, you actually need to be running Firefox to have anything approaching an effective in-browser adblocker… Chrome has massively neutered adblockers into near uselessness.

Seriously, people:

• uBlock Origin
• Smart Https
• Security Tweaks
• Referer Control
• Redirect AMP to HTML
• Privacy Tweaks
• Privacy Settings
• Link Revealer
• Link Protector
• Link Cleaner
• Decentraleyes

And for those on mobile:

• Mullvad encrypted DNS base (TLS) configuration profile (No app needed. Works at the system level, so it works across all installed apps where ads are not loaded from the same app URI/API as the official content)