Discovered a new method for detecting if someone is using Incognito in Chrome:
Write 512 tiny 1-byte responses into a scratch Cache API cache, then read:
https://t.co/gsVNLl57y6.estimate().usageDetails.caches
Normal Chrome: ~393kb
Incognito: ~85kb
Why? When you're in incognito, Chrome writes to memory instead of disk, which leaves less metadata residue
@Medaiseo 1) if you’re an iCloud Relay user it’s helpful to know that depending on your country, it may be less randomizing than you think it is relative to other VPNs
2) if you’re in risk, it’s helpful to have another data point to key anonymous traffic on. In this case, lowering risk
You can detect if someone is using iCloud Private Relay super easily
Apple publishes a database of their egress IP addresses and the entire world's iCloud Private Relay traffic exits through ~105K IPv4 addresses.
I analyzed it and found some surprising stuff. Let's dig in:
@james_raftery Extremely cool idea. Love the concept of tying revenue to fraud rules directly and modeling it as protecting-the-upside rather than just the downside
Did you do it with anything other than ASNs?
You can find the raw data, straight from Apple, here:
https://t.co/cA24MZO6yy
Follow me @alain for more opsec, browser security, and privacy/fingerprinting explorations
You can detect if someone is using iCloud Private Relay super easily
Apple publishes a database of their egress IP addresses and the entire world's iCloud Private Relay traffic exits through ~105K IPv4 addresses.
I analyzed it and found some surprising stuff. Let's dig in:
But iCloud Private Relay users can rejoice: its traffic is typically associated with *lower* levels of fraud because it requires having a valid Apple ID with a working credit card.
So (good) fraud models treat this as a risk reducer, despite it being a VPN
Nice find! This is different though - the link you have is about:
(await https://t.co/gsVNLl57y6.estimate()).quota
Try it yourself in devtools, it reports the same across incognito and not incognito
The finding in the parent post is still active and survives quota normalization because it leaks through per-storage-type usage accounting
Discovered a new method for detecting if someone is using Incognito in Chrome:
Write 512 tiny 1-byte responses into a scratch Cache API cache, then read:
https://t.co/gsVNLl57y6.estimate().usageDetails.caches
Normal Chrome: ~393kb
Incognito: ~85kb
Why? When you're in incognito, Chrome writes to memory instead of disk, which leaves less metadata residue
@pa1nark Just sharing my research. I think it's helpful for people to be aware that these things are possible
It's structurally difficult for the browsers to fix issues like this because the memory-based write is advantageous for other reasons
@quasa0@uwukko@heliumbrowser Helps with:
1) backend scoring for fingerprinting because you can tune thresholds [browsers change multiple readings in incognito mode]
2) feed it into risk models - it's a small indicator, but more often associated with low-tier fraud activity