8 ms·
It appears that you may have made some modifications to your user agent string. If you revert your user agent to the one provided by default by your browser ven
by RyanK24 7y ago
It appears that you may have made some modifications to your user agent string. If you revert your user agent to the one provided by default by your browser vendor everything will be fine.
- dijit 7y agoIt appears that setting it to the same as Chromes does indeed work! for context this is what I had set (and, for quite some time it was working): "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:57.0) Gecho/20100101 Firefox/57.0" Ironically I set this so that I could continue logging in to google. Since I had been unable to log in to google-apps without setting this user agent string. What did it fail on? the mis-spelling of "Gecho"?
- migueldemoura 7y agoThat User-Agent won't trigger the block page you were experiencing. No clue about the issues with Google, perhaps some feature detection going on?
- The-Compiler 7y agoNope, it's Google trying to ban "embedded browser frameworks" - see https://github.com/qutebrowser/qutebrowser/issues/5182 https://github.com/qutebrowser/qutebrowser/issues/5182 for details.
- GoblinSlayer 7y agoI used straight firefox and was still banned just fine. It didn't start in 2019 either. Chrome is their cash cow, if you don't use it, you're a liability.
- The-Compiler 7y agoI always recommend setting custom user-agents for a problematic page instead of setting them globally. For the Google issue, qutebrowser v1.9.0 does that already, see https://github.com/qutebrowser/qutebrowser/issues/5182 https://github.com/qutebrowser/qutebrowser/issues/5182
- anthk 7y agoSo can do Falkon :) Having a Chrome UA is a MUST on webkit based browsers if you want Google's taxing services such as Earth/Maps/Gmail and so on being faster and smoother than ever. Seriously. Once you open Street View on luakit/vimb with a Chrome UA, the diff is night and day.
- The-Compiler 7y agoI tried with Street View im vimb. I don't see any difference - it's slow to the point of being almost unusable, while it works fine in qutebrowser.
- anthk 7y agoon ~/.config/vimb/config set hardware-aceleration-policy=always set webgl=true
- The-Compiler 7y agoThat seems to help, but I still don't see a difference with/without a Chrome UA.
- anthk 7y agoTry a mobile Chrome UA, such as the one for a recent Galaxy Tab.
- jimrandomh 7y agoIt's the severely-outdated Firefox version number. Spambots and crawlers sometimes have user-agent strings corresponding to very old browsers, because they were set once when the bot was created and then never updated. On an unrelated site that I run, we get a lot of traffic with user agent strings corresponding to implausibly-old browsers, and it's ~100% bots.
- SilasX 7y agoNovember 2017 is “severely outdated”? https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/57.0/releasenotes/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/57.0/releasenotes/
- nrb 7y agoTwo full years for an evergreen web browser, which contains probably the largest surface area for software exploits of anything on the machine? I’d argue absolutely yes. As others have echoed, this is probably a huge marker for malicious bots to Cloudflare.
- giancarlostoro 7y agoEven a month of no updates to browser is a bad idea.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- jlokier 7y agoThe evergreen browser is a thing, but the idea that everyone can trivially upgrade those browsers is promulgated as true when it's a bit of a myth. It is sometimes expensive for people to upgrade browsers, called evergreen by developers so they can avoid annoying support expenses for a few percent of people. I had a phone running a Mozilla browser, which received updates until it didn't any more. Then the only way to upgrade browser was to purchase a new smartphone. Unfortunately it was a superb device with no newer replacement, so to upgrade browser I had to downgrade my smartphone for other uses, and pay the cost of an expensive new smartphone despite not really wanting one. But sites saw it as "you are running an old Firefox, you obviously can trivially upgrade". I still have a perfectly great old Android tablet running an old version of Chrome which cannot be updated. Other than website compatibility, everything on it that it is used for is still working flawlessly. Perfect screen, sound, wifi, memory, battery. For now, enough sites work on it that I still use it. That can be replaced easily with another tablet, but it is disappointing to have to spend cash and throw away a working product to e-waste, just to replace it with a functionally identical device because of the way the software treadmill works. (It doesn't have to work like that, it's a choice made by developers collectively.)
- 3xblah 7y agoIf omit the user-agent string or, even better, the user-agent header itself, everything will be fine, too. Tested with Cloudflare and many, many other servers over many years. On the whole, taking the entire web into account, it is rare for a user-agent string to be required. However, it has become common for servers to make many assumptions based on user-agent strings. I would guess there are many tech workers whose entire job rests on the assumption that user-agent strings are always present, rarely manipulated^1 and accurately represent the user's hardware and software. 1. For example, changed using "Developer Tools" in the major browsers. Google's browser has some user-agent presets for "testing" in DevTools (Ctrl-Shift I, Ctrl-Shift P, Drawer Show Network Conditions). Those should be safe to use for logins to Google websites. Try them out, e.g., when logging into Gmail and watch how the user can request vastly different web page styles based only on user-agent string.
- pabs3 7y agoThere are a number of sites that simply crash with a web framework backtrace or behave strangely when the User-Agent header is not sent.
- Forge36 7y agoThat sounds like something worth reporting if possible, assuming it's also written to a log it might be a denial of service week point.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- tomc1985 7y agoWhy is it that something as malleable as a user-agent string trips these kinds of sensors? If I were to write a bot, copying current browsers' user-agents is literally the first thing I'd do
- hunter2_ 7y agoPure conjecture: The "security solution" probably wanted to ban the user for a reason unrelated to the UA string, and was only able to (i.e., the user was only identifiable uniquely enough) because of the odd UA string. Switching to the standard UA string places the user into a state sufficiently non-unique as to be unidentifiable and thus unblockable.
- fivre 7y agoYou'd be surprised. The /good/ bots do this, but there's a lot of white noise garbage that simple techniques do still filter out.
- leokennis 7y agoIt really hits home the point of how shitty the web has become. Ad companies and malware distributors come up with bad and worse ways to interfere with my browsing, and the “good guys” need to match with increasingly invasive and fragile anti measures. Sort of like having to take of your shoes when you board a plane. If that’s what it takes, isn’t it just better to stay home?
- tomc1985 7y agoWelcome to this brave new world where technology is accessible to all. I hate it.
- oarsinsync 7y ago> Sort of like having to take of your shoes when you board a plane. If that’s what it takes, isn’t it just better to stay home? Removal of shoes, 'naked' full body scanners, these are all terrible, and I tell myself every time it isn't worth the hassle. The reality is that as much as I hate it, I'm still flying every other week. I'm also on the Internet daily. I don't see that changing.
- iampims 7y agoPossible reason why it UA matters: https://blog.cloudflare.com/monsters-in-the-middleboxes/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/monsters-in-the-middleboxes/
- sasasassy 7y agoI find it very annoying that the authors thought it would be cute to use another full name for MITM.
- blowski 7y agoMy wild unfounded guess: they’re trying to make it gender-neutral.
- big_chungus 7y agoPretty much. Link to probably the first article I saw using it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20673409 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20673409 > It’s the same thing, recognizing that the MITM is neither male, nor human at all. I don't see why this is important for a technical term. People hear the term as a slug, a group of words, not as discrete ones. No one actually pictures a man or anything else in the middle upon hearing the term. The difference is that the purpose of language is to communicate with others, and everyone understands man in the middle. I look up the "alternative" and get more results for "Henry the Hugglemonster" than I do for network traffic interception.
- blowski 7y agoI can see both sides of the argument here, but don't really have an opinion. Perhaps if I weren't a middle-aged, middle-class, white male in a Western country, I'd feel more strongly about it. As it is, I do feel a bit of "social justice fatigue" on issues like this.
- Hackbraten 7y ago> No one actually pictures a man or anything else in the middle upon hearing the term. Thanks, I’ve always wanted someone to mansplain to me how I hear terms and what I picture while I hear them.
- adrianN 7y agoI set privacy.resistFingerprinting to true in all Firefoxes I use. This also sets the user agent to something common.
- emmelaich 7y agoAt least now people can see why Google want to deprecate the User-Agent string.