LinkedIn runs an extension scan against a hardcoded list of 6,278 Chrome extensions on every visit. Detected results are packaged into encrypted telemetry and injected as an HTTP header into every subsequent API request during your session. This data can be used to identify your religious affiliations, tax-bracket, job search intent, and more.
I verified this myself and traced the implementation. Details and the technical breakdown in the article.
DDG searches say this is something for linkedin. - I had two tabs for linkedin open but left behind as I opened other tabs to research.
So I had not reopened these tabs in over 9 hours and they are still just humming along sucking down almost 10% of cpu and a couple gigs of ram for what?
This is firefox with ublock origin - quick searches saw malwarebytes browser guard considered it (protechts.net) malware for a bit and then took it off the list of things it blocked / warned about.
Not sure this is related to the scan mentioned, but it may be related to the overall concerns about data and unknown usage of resources.
I'm considering blocking this at the dns hosts level at this point.
"What is not a question is that a criminal investigation is now open."
Good. These companies deserve each and every stone thrown at them, and much more.
It isn’t exactly. They created a list of known extensions by their id and a file which is known to exist in that extension. The site iterates over each pair and tries to load that file, if it doesn’t error it knows the extension is installed. It’s a clever and difficult manual process, but it does bypass the security trying to prevent this kind of thing.
I read that their reasoning is it exists to block users that use known scraper extensions which bypass their terms of use. But don’t entirely buy that.
Is that information available to websites? I figured they were doing some kind of novel hackery to self-detect extensions based on behaviour that would only happen if X extension was installed.
But that would be a lot of work for 6,300 extensions. Unless someone offers that as a service?
friends, WHEN you are asked to implement something like this at your job, which will you choose: object (& hold ground, loose job) OR comply (& keep job)
as practitioners, where do we hold the line between telemetry and surveillance?
I wonder the same. Maybe it's made by people who feel like they wouldn't easily find another job and need the job for healthcare or financial reasons (living paycheck to paycheck)? And it's ordered by managers in similar situations, whose managers want to see increased revenue and don't care how? Somewhere in the chain it feels like there should be someone who says 'wtf are we doing'. It's strange
To answer your question though: I'd object of course, I'm very lucky to be well enough off that I can currently make that choice without serious repercussions. Do you think someone would come out on HN and say "oh sure yeah I have no morals!", at least without it being a throwaway where you'd have no idea if it's real?
I choose not to work at places like linked in, meta, or any place that accepts Saudi or Israeli funding. It makes it a little harder to find a job, but i sleep better at night.
Is this a hallucination? I can't find this quote anywhere else.
> According to browsergate, Milinda Lakkam confirmed this under oath, saying, "LinkedIn took action against users who had specific extensions installed."
Interesting, so would Safari prevent this? I tried moving to Safari and honestly loved everything except I use my google accounts now for authenticating with to many services and that was a pain compared to chrome.
I honestly kind of forget the exact annoyances because it has been some time. I want to say I had to reauth every time I wanted to SSO with my google account because it doesn't allow/deletes third party cookies.
> Update to our terms and data use As of November 3, 2025, we are using some of your Linkedin data to improve the content-generating Al that enhances your experience, unless you opt out in your settings. We also updated our terms. See what's new and how to manage your data.
Frankly, it is unacceptable to tell a user "oh we have been using your personal data for 5 months already and will continue to do so unless you explicitly opt out". Are there any transparent alternatives to LinkedIn (not the trust me bro variant)?
Wasn't this specifically some lame-ass attempt to combat some click fraud or something these extensions were doing? And aren't these articles specifically coming from the person doing the fraud (which is why they know about the extension scanning)?
To be clear, LinkedIn shouldn't be scanning your browser extensions, but still. The ultimate problem is that browser extensions are a powerful malware vector and there's a huge market of people buying little utilities off of solo developers to enshittify them.
LinkedIn runs an extension scan against a hardcoded list of 6,278 Chrome extensions on every visit. Detected results are packaged into encrypted telemetry and injected as an HTTP header into every subsequent API request during your session. This data can be used to identify your religious affiliations, tax-bracket, job search intent, and more.
I verified this myself and traced the implementation. Details and the technical breakdown in the article.
LinkedIn without the news/post feed would be fine
And certainly fingerprint you right?
Can someone here please create a LinkedIn replacement for developers that
1. Doesn't have the spam
2. That doesn't look like it's from 2008
3. That only developers / engineers / tech folks can join
4. Doesn't try to log into your email to steal your contact list
5. That doesn't track you or your extensions / browser fingerprint
6. That doesn't have a bunch of fake "linkedinmaxxing" garbage content
7. that doesn't have marketers and recruiters, etc.
8. ...
Seriously. We need some kind of federated replacement. Who is building this?
I feel like Github became this in the last 10-15 years.
IRC has existed for decades.
And it's a ghost town.
Maybe that's what the new Friendster should be
Can you create it?
You’re already looking at it, buddy.
This looks like it's from 2008
and,
recently while trying to decipher why computer was at 98% memory and 65% cpu
one of the culprits is https://li.protechts.net taking 2GB ram and 8% cpu.
DDG searches say this is something for linkedin. - I had two tabs for linkedin open but left behind as I opened other tabs to research.
So I had not reopened these tabs in over 9 hours and they are still just humming along sucking down almost 10% of cpu and a couple gigs of ram for what?
This is firefox with ublock origin - quick searches saw malwarebytes browser guard considered it (protechts.net) malware for a bit and then took it off the list of things it blocked / warned about.
Not sure this is related to the scan mentioned, but it may be related to the overall concerns about data and unknown usage of resources.
I'm considering blocking this at the dns hosts level at this point.
repost of my comment 28 days ago
"What is not a question is that a criminal investigation is now open." Good. These companies deserve each and every stone thrown at them, and much more.
Why is my Chrome telling random websites which extensions I have installed?
It isn’t exactly. They created a list of known extensions by their id and a file which is known to exist in that extension. The site iterates over each pair and tries to load that file, if it doesn’t error it knows the extension is installed. It’s a clever and difficult manual process, but it does bypass the security trying to prevent this kind of thing.
I read that their reasoning is it exists to block users that use known scraper extensions which bypass their terms of use. But don’t entirely buy that.
Can ask the same question about so many horrible security blunders web browsers have made over the decades.
They are only blunders if they aren't being used as features by someone
Is that information available to websites? I figured they were doing some kind of novel hackery to self-detect extensions based on behaviour that would only happen if X extension was installed.
But that would be a lot of work for 6,300 extensions. Unless someone offers that as a service?
Chrome is a browser produced by an advertising company. Its reason for existence is to track you.
Not that I disagree but Google's tracking motivation in making the browser seems irrelevant to why it lets competitors do this fingerprinting
They want fingerprinting to work for everyone because the more effective it is, the higher the value of the ad inventory they sell.
friends, WHEN you are asked to implement something like this at your job, which will you choose: object (& hold ground, loose job) OR comply (& keep job)
as practitioners, where do we hold the line between telemetry and surveillance?
I wonder the same. Maybe it's made by people who feel like they wouldn't easily find another job and need the job for healthcare or financial reasons (living paycheck to paycheck)? And it's ordered by managers in similar situations, whose managers want to see increased revenue and don't care how? Somewhere in the chain it feels like there should be someone who says 'wtf are we doing'. It's strange
To answer your question though: I'd object of course, I'm very lucky to be well enough off that I can currently make that choice without serious repercussions. Do you think someone would come out on HN and say "oh sure yeah I have no morals!", at least without it being a throwaway where you'd have no idea if it's real?
I choose not to work at places like linked in, meta, or any place that accepts Saudi or Israeli funding. It makes it a little harder to find a job, but i sleep better at night.
In years to come you will be so thankful that you took that path.
As they say, better to be a poor master than a rich slave.
Is this a hallucination? I can't find this quote anywhere else.
> According to browsergate, Milinda Lakkam confirmed this under oath, saying, "LinkedIn took action against users who had specific extensions installed."
Well, I deleted my Linkedin account and life is better now.
That's big talk coming from someone who currently has a job. getting a job without a linkedin account isn't that straightforward.
This is pure speculation. It is a million times more likely that this data is strictly used to combat scraping and fraud.
Interesting, so would Safari prevent this? I tried moving to Safari and honestly loved everything except I use my google accounts now for authenticating with to many services and that was a pain compared to chrome.
Even better! Moving to firefox fixes this.
Chrome for some reason (still!) gives extensions static ids. Firefox has the id change per firefox instance.
Seems to only happen Chrome per the dev of Wipr (a great safari privacy extension) https://mas.to/@mipstian/116341745221356805
I would imagine using any non-Chromium browser would cause it to fail to find any Chrome extensions, yes.
Sure, but Safari may or may not leak Safari extension signals in a similar fashion. I haven't actually investigated.
Well if you’re a logged in to Google don’t you just SSO everywhere?
I honestly kind of forget the exact annoyances because it has been some time. I want to say I had to reauth every time I wanted to SSO with my google account because it doesn't allow/deletes third party cookies.
[dupe]
Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47613981
28 days ago, 1897 points, 812 comments
See also "LinkedIn is searching your browser extensions" (812 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47613981
I saw the following from linkedIn this morning
> Update to our terms and data use As of November 3, 2025, we are using some of your Linkedin data to improve the content-generating Al that enhances your experience, unless you opt out in your settings. We also updated our terms. See what's new and how to manage your data.
Frankly, it is unacceptable to tell a user "oh we have been using your personal data for 5 months already and will continue to do so unless you explicitly opt out". Are there any transparent alternatives to LinkedIn (not the trust me bro variant)?
I did that and got logged out of LinkedIn.
Wasn't this specifically some lame-ass attempt to combat some click fraud or something these extensions were doing? And aren't these articles specifically coming from the person doing the fraud (which is why they know about the extension scanning)?
To be clear, LinkedIn shouldn't be scanning your browser extensions, but still. The ultimate problem is that browser extensions are a powerful malware vector and there's a huge market of people buying little utilities off of solo developers to enshittify them.
[delayed]
> LinkedIn shouldn't be scanning your browser extensions.
Correct
Yes there are other problems in the world and we can JAQ the messanger too.