3 ms·
It sounds to me like your threat model here is that two sites (A and B) which would like to share identity, and you want to stop them? Perhaps A has identity (
by jefftk 6y ago
It sounds to me like your threat model here is that two sites (A and B) which would like to share identity, and you want to stop them? Perhaps A has identity (for example, you log in), A gives you links to B, and B runs some third-party JavaScript served from A. For example, A could be FB/Google/etc and B could be a news site. Site A can add any query parameter it wants to the outgoing link, and then parse it on B in their third-party JavaScript. If they always used the same params (ex: fbclid/gclid) it would be easy to detect and block, but if they were trying to get around the blocking it would be easy to rotate these parameters as often as they wanted because the same entity (A) controls both the producer and the consumer. Now your two identity bubbles have been joined.
(Disclosure: I work on ads at Google, speaking only for myself)
- 3np 6y agoYeah, you summed it up pretty well I think. It's definitely an arms race, and IMO it makes sense to push back on areas where one can. Are you implying that it's not a worthwhile effort and that the battle is lost? I'm thinking 1) DNS control with block lists 2) browser extensions (restricting canvas, removing tracking parts of urls) 3) be restrictive of disclosing PIIs 4) IP obfuscation along the lines I laid about above should make it a lot less deterministic and decrease confidence in merging of datasets. Rule lists obviously have to be continuously updated. Only a sith deals in absolutes but from your perspective am I missing something?
- 3np 6y agoI know meta-talk like this is frowned upon, but to the people downvoting, I would really like to hear your thoughts.