So-what kind of code does a Company IT man write

[bob c]

when you get an error message that states you have to use the latest "IE, FF, Chrome, or Opera", and you are, but can't log into your account. Last month on a post, my UA was this, "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Seamonkey Firefox/52.2.1ESR Firefox/62". And on a little try at needling me about it being ridiculous, and the problem with what that post was about, I changed it to this "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/62". No big deal.

Fast forward to today. I go to login to my account at SECO, my electric utility company, to pay my bill, and get the message you read in the beginning. Their site is not picking up the FF 62 in the UA, as being the latest FF browser. I went by the subdiv, where you can pay, and told them to talk to their IT people, because I was using the latest FF, they typed it up while there, and emailed it to them. So I go home, restore the UA that was deleted, which has the Seamonkey/FF52.2.1 ESR,in it, and then the FF 62 on the end, as above, it let me login to my account as normal.

So I'm just curious as what they wrote code wise on the web page, to not let me login if it did not see this, Seamonkey/FF52.2.1 ESR in the UA, and to not let me login in if it only saw FF 62. Just curious for someone who writes code on web pages like that.

[Brummelchen]

Simple as that, stop faking user agent and then be happy. Why don't listen people to helpful hands here?

edit: taking -> faking

[bob c]

Simple as that, stop taking user agent and then be happy. Why don't listen people to helpful hands here?

have no idea what you are trying to say

[lasardo]

I think he made a typo on "stop *F*aking user agent and then be happy" - in other words, if you use Firefox's default user agent you will not only blend in better with more users (have a more common fingerprint) but most webpages will just work.

As for how are web sites programmed, if you give them bad data (faked user agents) you can't be surprised by any result - an error, an out of date message, or no message. If the site is not working with the default Firefox UA, that is probably a bug on their side and likely they didn't realize version 62 was released, and maybe they didn't use a greater than or equal test instead of an equal test on the version number.

[Brummelchen]

thank you for ponting it out, its the spell correction on my phone.

idd faking has no advantage, in special mozillas addon page is very sensitive to wrong ua.

as long i dont know about consequences i never would change settings.

[Benjamin Markson]

The code is usually pretty crude. All it can do really is some kind of look-up on the string for names and version numbers. Having more than one name and version number could be ambiguous. I think a more standard Firefox 62 UA string would look like this:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:62.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/62

Also, these two add-ons allow you to decide the User Agent you present on a per site basis so you can spoof your UA just for your electric company.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefo ... /uacontrol
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefo ... t-js-fixer

Ben.

[jscher2000]

I changed it to this "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/62".

The .0 is missing at the end and there is a mismatch between rv: and the number at the end. This is normal:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:62.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/62.0

[bob c]

I changed it to this "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/62".

The .0 is missing at the end and there is a mismatch between rv: and the number at the end. This is normal:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:62.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/62.0

added the .0 to the 62, and logged in, the rv:52.0 in there didn't stop it, incredible that it's all about a .0

[Frank Lion]

... incredible that it's all about a .0

Not really.

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic ... #p14807568

[bob c]

... incredible that it's all about a .0

Not really.

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic ... #p14807568

but it was. look at the UA now. no FF or SM and Citi still saving my login and pw. and the 62 has a .0

[jscher2000]

I changed it to this "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/62".

The .0 is missing at the end and there is a mismatch between rv: and the number at the end. This is normal:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:62.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/62.0

added the .0 to the 62, and logged in, the rv:52.0 in there didn't stop it, incredible that it's all about a .0

If I write a script on the assumption that Firefox will always, always, always list its version number the same way, then when you change it, my script breaks. Programmers have to make assumptions, and then users challenge them. Rinse and repeat.

[James]

I changed it to this "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/62".

The .0 is missing at the end and there is a mismatch between rv: and the number at the end. This is normal:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:62.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/62.0

added the .0 to the 62, and logged in, the rv:52.0 in there didn't stop it, incredible that it's all about a .0

BTW your useragent is more unique in fingerprinting due to having rv:52 instead of rv:62