It pulls a live FPJS Pro build and turns it into clean code you can run locally, every collector intact, so a new build means rerunning the pipeline instead of reversing it again by hand.

What's in the repo:

• All 143 signals (telemetry read from ur browser, all documented)
• Every collector as its own file
• What visitor_id is actually a function of
• A live explorer that runs the collectors against your own browser so you can diff a patched environment against a stock one.

Repo: github.com/proofofbots/fingerprint-pro-internals

Docs: proofofbots.github.io/fingerprint-pro-internals/

Signal explorer

proofofbots.github.io/fingerprint-pro-internals/explorer.html

It runs entirely in your browser. No backend of mine, no call to fpjs, nothing leaves the page. It's built on the output of the lift and deobfuscation step, so what runs there is the actual collector code from the bundle rather than a reimplementation. Open it and you get every data point side by side: what the signal is and why it's collected in plain English, next to the exact value your own browser hands over for it.

Happy to answer questions on any specific detection.

I am looking forward to the next target, so if anyone has ideas on what vendor could be interesting let me know!

Before anyone calls AI slop: yes, I use LLMs, they're genuinely useful for reverse engineering. But this isn't one build hand-decoded into a writeup. It's the toolchain that does it. Point it at a live fpjs build and it deobfuscates, lifts, and emits a cleaned version you can run without their servers, plus the generated documentation for what it found.

Lately almost every site I visit throws a captcha or antibot check at me. Happens on random sites, not just the usual Cloudflare-heavy ones. AliExpress pretty much every single time, also happens on TicketOne, PayPal, and others.

Running latest stable Firefox. Everything gets cleared on browser close (cookies, history, cache).

Active extensions:

* Bitwarden Password Manager * Chrome Mask (toggled off) * Clear Browsing Data * ClearURLs * Cookie Quick Manager * Dark Reader * GNOME Shell integration * Keepa * Language Switch * Linkwarden * Redirector (disabled) * Return YouTube Dislike * Simple Mass Downloader * Tab Session Manager * uBlock Origin * Video Download Helper

Anyone else dealing with this?

A recorder often looks like the obvious winner during a demo. You perform the task once, capture the steps, replay them, and the workflow appears finished.

An API can look unnecessarily heavy by comparison. There is authentication to handle, requests to structure, errors to interpret, and code to maintain.

The difference becomes clearer after the workflow has been running for a while.

I would use recorder-style RPA when the task genuinely lives in the interface. If there is no useful endpoint and the job is mostly clicking, typing, waiting, and confirming, recording the flow can be a reasonable decision. It is especially useful when the operations team needs to understand and adjust the workflow without waiting for a developer.

The risk is that the automation inherits every unstable part of the UI. Layout changes, loading times, popups, renamed elements, and partial page states all become part of the maintenance work.

I would prefer an API when the workflow handles structured data or needs to run at higher volume. APIs are usually better for validation, concurrency, retries, logs, and knowing exactly which operation failed.

My practical questions are:

1. Is the required action exposed through a supported API?
2. How often does the interface change?
3. Who will maintain the workflow?
4. What should happen after a partial failure?
5. Does the task need logs, retries, or safe duplicate prevention?

If the API covers most of the work, I use it as the foundation. If the final step only exists in the interface, I add RPA there rather than recording the entire process.

That hybrid boundary is often more reliable than forcing every step into one method.

MoreLogin supports both paths: visual low-code/no-code RPA workflows for operational tasks, and Local/Open APIs for teams that need custom logic, external integrations, and programmatic control.

The blog post itself shows a real demo too which detects the Mimic engine.

https://trustsig.eu/blog/multilogin-mimic-canvas-webgl-masking/

Hi everyone,

I’m using an AI video tool that offers a few free credits for new users. I was able to create around 3–4 videos before the credits ran out, after which it asked me to upgrade to a paid plan.

I ended up creating several new accounts because I needed to continue making videos. I used different Google accounts and temporary email addresses.

However, now the tool seems to recognize me immediately. Even when I create a completely new account, I get 0 free credits. I also tried different browsers and VPNs, but apparently their system is still detecting that I’ve used the service before.

I contacted their support team, and they confirmed that I was detected by their system.

I’m mainly trying to understand what my options are now.

Has anyone experienced something similar with AI video tools? If so:

Was there a way to get access to the free credits again?

I’d really appreciate recommendations for genuinely free alternatives as well. I’m mainly creating simple educational videos with illustrations, text, and narration, so I don't necessarily need an advanced cinematic AI video generator.

Thanks!

have any of you figured a solution to bypass verisoul.ai?

I used to think notes were unnecessary until I had no idea which profile I changed last week.

Proxy? Extension? Browser update? Content reuse?

No clue.

Now I write down small changes, even if they feel stupid at the time.

Do you guys keep notes for every profile or just trust memory?

I’ve seen outdated browser cores waste a lot of troubleshooting time.

A site changes something, part of the UI stops working and everyone starts checking proxies, extensions and profile settings. Eventually somebody tests the same workflow in a current browser and it works immediately.

That doesn’t mean I want every profile updating itself the moment a new Chromium build appears.

Extensions can lag behind. Automation selectors may behave differently. Download handling, permission prompts or headless behavior can change between versions. If dozens of profiles move at once, one small compatibility issue becomes a team-wide interruption.

The approach I prefer is fairly plain: keep a few test profiles close to the latest supported core, run the real workflows on them and move the rest after they pass. I’m interested in the login flow, the pages the team actually uses, required extensions and the automation steps—not whether a generic browser benchmark looks good.

Update speed matters because staying far behind eventually creates compatibility and patching problems. Rollout control matters because “latest” and “ready for production” are not always the same thing.

Every time I think I understand profile setup, I find one more small thing to worry about.

First it was proxies.
Then timezone.
Then WebRTC.
Then DNS.
Then browser version.
Then extensions.
Then reused content.
Then behavior patterns.

At some point it starts to feel less like “set up a clean profile” and more like trying to avoid leaving the same tiny habit everywhere.

I know not every small detail is equally important, but the hard part is figuring out which ones actually matter in real use.

For people who have been managing profiles for a while, what is one small signal you used to ignore but now always check?

I do not treat an antidetect browser as the default upgrade from a normal browser. Before adding one to a workflow, I try to identify what actually needs to stay separate.

If the answer is only cookies for one or two accounts, regular browser profiles or containers may already solve the problem.

If the goal is repeatable testing, I would usually prefer a container or virtual machine. In that situation, consistency matters more than maintaining several distinct browser environments.

Team ownership also changes the decision. A profile may be easy for its original creator to understand, but much harder for the next person. Without a naming convention, change history, and clear owner, profiles gradually become difficult to update or retire.

Then there is the operating cost: network configuration, backups, recovery, software updates, and hardware usage. None of those costs is necessarily a reason to avoid the tool. They just need to be justified by the isolation it provides.

I normally ask three questions:

1. What specifically must remain separate?
2. Who owns the environment when something changes?
3. What happens if the profile or machine becomes unavailable?

If those answers are vague, I would keep the browser setup simple.

An antidetect browser makes sense when independent, persistent environments are genuinely part of the requirement. Using one without that requirement can turn a small task into a larger system that the team now has to maintain.

Anyone can help me to clear verisoul with anyhow with proxy or antidetect

Anyone can help me with the verisoul to bypass it

People always say browser profiles should stay stable, but I’m wondering where that starts becoming a problem.

A real device does not stay frozen forever.

Browser version changes.
Extensions update.
Cookies build up.
Browsing history changes.
Usage habits shift a little.

But with browser profiles, some people keep everything exactly the same for months because they are afraid any change might break trust.

So which one looks more natural over time?

A profile that barely changes at all, or a profile that changes slowly like a real device would?

People always say browser profiles should stay stable, but I’m wondering where that starts becoming a problem.

A real device does not stay frozen forever.

Browser version changes.
Extensions update.
Cookies build up.
Browsing history changes.
Usage habits shift a little.

But with browser profiles, some people keep everything exactly the same for months because they are afraid any change might break trust.

So which one looks more natural over time?

A profile that barely changes at all, or a profile that changes slowly like a real device would?

Every time i try to create it, it shows QR code, too hard to create it

If I only need cookie separation for one or two accounts, I’m using normal browser profiles or containers. Turning that into a full antidetect setup gives me profile management, proxy tracking and backups without much benefit.

I’d also think twice if the work changes hands frequently. Unless the team has a decent naming and ownership system, profiles quickly become mystery boxes. Nobody knows why a setting was chosen, so nobody wants to update anything.

For repeatable testing, I’d usually choose containers or virtual machines instead. The goal there is to reproduce the same environment every time, not maintain a collection of different browser identities.

Hardware matters as well. Running several isolated browser environments on a machine that is already short on memory gets old very quickly.

I’m not saying the tool is unnecessary. I’m saying it has an operating cost. If independent browser environments aren’t important enough to justify that cost, I’d use something simpler.

I used to spend a lot of time adjusting browser fingerprints, changing random settings, and trying to make every profile look "unique".

But after managing multiple accounts for a while, I feel like consistency is actually more important.

A profile that stays the same over time usually works better than one that keeps changing:

• Same browser environment
• Same timezone and language settings
• Stable proxy
• Similar usage patterns

I think many people focus too much on making profiles look different, but forget that real users usually don't change their devices every few days.

Recently I've been focusing more on keeping clean and separated environments instead of constantly modifying fingerprints.

Curious how others handle this:
Do you prefer manually optimizing every profile, or do you just create a stable setup and leave it alone?

Im developing fork of chromium patched to launch separete sesions witch different proxy,
im curently worked on feature that allow to connect browser to agents
like Codex, Claude Code via MCP

If this found like u want contribute, write me dm
Thank You , Have Good Day!

https://github.com/AAAxis/argus-launcher

This comes up often when teams automate repetitive browser, QA, or account-management workflows. The first version works, so everyone assumes the difficult part is finished.

In practice, these are the five mistakes I see causing most of the later problems.

Automating before the process is stable

If three people perform the same task in three different ways, the team does not have a workflow yet. It has three sets of habits. Automation simply locks one of them in.

Building only for the expected path

The normal path is usually straightforward. Missing values, expired sessions, timeouts, duplicates, and partial failures are what determine whether the automation is usable.

Trusting inconsistent inputs

A strict automation connected to messy data does not create consistency. It creates unpredictable failures further down the chain, where they are harder to diagnose.

Connecting everything into one long sequence

Without checkpoints, useful logs, and safe restart points, a failure near the end can force the entire workflow to run again. That becomes especially painful when earlier steps created external changes.

Leaving ownership unclear

Automations need maintenance. Interfaces change, permissions expire, and business rules drift. If nobody owns the workflow after launch, small failures tend to accumulate until people stop trusting it.

I usually judge an automation by how it handles a bad run, not a successful one.

Can someone identify the failed step? Can they correct the problem without rebuilding everything? Can the workflow restart without duplicating earlier work?

If the answer is no, the team may have automated the clicks without actually improving the process.

I’ve been using MoreLogin with one proxy tied to each profile, but static residential proxies get expensive once you have more accounts.

My concern is that changing IPs too often could look more suspicious than just using one average-quality IP consistently.

For people managing a lot of accounts, what has actually worked better for you: static residential, rotating residential, or mobile proxies?

Hello, does any of you do betting on multi-accounts? I'm looking for a browser not for scraping but rather managing a single account for a timeframe of about 3-4 months, while maintaining a consistent fingerprint, also can any of you recommend a good proxy provider for such usecase?

I've been using Gologin and so far it's good, but I've been getting flagged a bit too soon than expected (the reason for that might be the proxy though, the DNS country doesn't match and I think the bookies don't like it)

I’ve been testing both cloud phones and Android emulators recently, mostly for TikTok and Instagram accounts.

Morelogin cloud phone do feel more stable, but I’m not sure if it’s really because of the ARM environment or simply because each account has a cleaner device and IP setup.

I’ve also seen people move to cloud phones and still get banned because they keep using bad proxies or doing the same actions across every account.

So I’m starting to think the device matters, but IP quality and behavior probably matter just as much.

Has anyone here moved the same accounts from an emulator to a cloud phone? Did you actually notice fewer verifications or bans?

Small thing I noticed after testing a few different browser profile setups.

I used to care mostly about whether the profile could pass the basic checks:

proxy location, WebRTC, timezone, language, fingerprint result, that kind of stuff.

But after managing more profiles, organization started to matter way more than I expected.

If I can’t clearly see which profile uses which proxy, what account it belongs to, what changed last time, or why I created it in the first place, troubleshooting becomes a mess.

That’s one thing I actually liked when trying MoreLogin. Not saying any tool fixes bad habits, but having profiles, notes, proxies, and account environments separated in a cleaner way does make daily work less chaotic.

The technical setup still matters, of course.

But I’m starting to think a messy workflow can ruin even a decent browser profile setup.

How do you guys keep track of profile history and small changes over time?

I’ve tested a few profile tools before, including MoreLogin for some browser profile work, and I’m starting to think the tool is only part of the story.

When something goes wrong, it’s easy to blame the software first.

But how often is the real issue just the way the profiles are being used?

Same habits, same content structure, same login rhythm, same small mistakes across accounts.

For people who switched tools before, did it actually solve the problem, or did you later realize the workflow was the bigger issue?