> The bottom line is that evil.com would not be asking sites to install CNAME tricks in their domains if evil.com cannot leverage those tricks to track users ac

> The bottom line is that evil.com would not be asking sites to install CNAME tricks in their domains if evil.com cannot leverage those tricks to track users across sites. That should be obvious. This is the leap I believe is incorrect. The paper doesn't explain how CNAME cloaking helps evil.com track users across sites. It says that it does, but it doesn't actually explain the attack vector. It is far more plausible to me that CNAME tricks are being added so that evil.com can track a user on an individual site. When uBlock Origin is putting a hard block on all traffic to evil.com, there's still quite a bit to be gained by shifting evil.com to evil.foo.com if that means requests start succeeding again. Another poster said something similar here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26349987 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26349987