• fosho@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    it’s pretty inconclusive if there’s no context for how that code is called. I’m kinda confused why the article wouldn’t have provided any additional detail other than a single line of code. why bother digging at all?

    • _thisdot@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      it’s part of their anti-adblock code. without going into too much details, they can instantly find out whether ad-block is trying to do anything on chrome, but on firefox they need a 5 sec delay

      • Victor@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Which is honestly to Firefox’s credit. Making it harder to find out stuff about your browser is a good thing, unless it has to do with feature support.

        But the fact that they don’t give a shit and are willing to ruin the user experience for it, that’s despicable.

      • DolphinMath@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’d be more likely to believe that if spoofing your user agent didn’t immediately fix the issue.