You can only assert >148 at the moment, but there are better vectors to strictly assert the version by simply checking the addition of v8/blink on each chromium version (and since ~120 it's the case), so by checking if xxx is present and yyy is not present in js userland or css feature, the inference is 100% for the major version
And for the LLM writing, yes, it's written in the article and blog, it's not hidden or pretending, otherwise I would never publish an article due to lack of time, and I stand by it
We noticed Chromium Math.tanh since v148 returned a different result, so we dig it - it's now a fingerprintable surface to retrieve the OS Chromium run on
For example, in the DRM section, they extract the Security Level, like L3 – Software Decode (SW_SECURE_DECODE).
Their WebRTC test is also unique: they utilize a TURN server as a feedback mechanism. That means even if you tamper with WebRTC JS in the browser (like some extensions do), it can still expose your real IP by leveraging UDP and bypassing the proxy altogether.
https://scrapfly.io/web-scraping-tools/webrtc-leak
Spec: https://go.dev/ref/spec#Selectors
> x.f resolves to the field/method at the shallowest depth in T. If there isn’t exactly one at that depth, it’s illegal.
Embedding promotes fields; on name collisions the shallowest wins. So `opts.URL` is `FooService.URL` (depth 1), not `BarConnectionOptions.URL` (depth 2).
The whole purpose of crypto is to exchange money online like we exchange cash in person, so who wants PayPal as a middleman on a tech designed not to have a middleman? Who will use that
This is the paradox: Imagine walking dressed in red in the middle of a crowd dressed in black.
Being unique makes one easily identifiable and requires less effort to correlate one's past activity, while non-unique ones are full of noises and low confidence.
And for the LLM writing, yes, it's written in the article and blog, it's not hidden or pretending, otherwise I would never publish an article due to lack of time, and I stand by it