Any way to TRICK my Firefox to appear to be a later version?

Is there any way to TRICK my Firefox to appear to be a later version?

I have Win98 and Win2000. Both have Firefox 3.x installed. Version
3.xx is the latest version to work on Win98, and while they claim that
newer versions of FF will work on Win2000, I went back to FF 3.x, after
FF 10.x causes my computer to reboot (which I posted about recently).
Actually, I had installed FF 12.x afterwards and that did not cause my
computer to reboot, it just loaded the webbsites so damn slow I removed
it and went back to version 3.x.

I have no intention to upgrade ever, again. I'm tired of playing the
upgrade game, and even more tired of f--king websites telling me what to
do. I do have a later version on my Laptop which runs XP, but I only
use that at Wifi spots, not at home, on my dialup connection, and even
that one is older. I dont want the newest BLOATED garbage from Mozilla
or any other company!

Anyhow, I am so goddamn tired of websites telling me to upgrade my
browser, yet the site loads fine, after it ****es me off telling me to
upgrade, and with advertising for newer browsers, and making me wait
another 5 or more minutes to load the page I wanted.

Anyhow, is there a way to make FF appear to be a newer version for these
annoying sites. I dont know how these sites are able to determine what
version I have anyhow, or what gives them the right to annoy me about
upgrades. Just load the f--king site and shut the f--k up, for crying
out loud....

I know there is a way to make FF look like it's Seamonkey, or another
mozilla browser, but is there a way to make it look like the version is
newer?

Thanks

radarlove wrote:
invalid use of nospam.com removed from attribute line

Note: You do NOT own or lease the domain "nospam.com" so it is invalid
for you use to use it in your e-mail address. Also, your use of someone
else's domain means you are deliberately energizing spambots to target
an innocent's domain. Don't be rude.

http://www.whois.com/whois/nospam.com

You are claiming you are this domain's registrant? Uh huh.

Is there any way to TRICK my Firefox to appear to be a later version?

That won't resolve the problem that later versions have features or
support of HTML or other web technologies that are missing in your old
version. Sites are interested in the mass of their audience, not the
outliers. They may use features for the layout or behavior of their web
site that your old version software cannot handle. It's their web site,
not yours. They want the content they want on their site using their
resources to target the audience they choose.

There are Firefox add-ons that let you decide what User-Agent string to
send to a site (e.g., http://www.enhanceie.com/ietoys/uapick.asp). Some
sites will use that info to decide what content to deliver to a user.
However, if they decide their site requires a minimal feature set
available only within a later version of web browsers then you're out of
luck. They don't have to rely solely on the UA string to determine
which web browser you use to visit THEIR site. They can also issue
functions to test your web browser to ensure it will pass their minimal
feature requirement to use their web site.

I have Win98 and Win2000. Both have Firefox 3.x installed. Version
3.xx is the latest version to work on Win98, and while they claim that
newer versions of FF will work on Win2000, I went back to FF 3.x, after
FF 10.x causes my computer to reboot (which I posted about recently).
Actually, I had installed FF 12.x afterwards and that did not cause my
computer to reboot, it just loaded the webbsites so damn slow I removed
it and went back to version 3.x.

I have no intention to upgrade ever, again. I'm tired of playing the
upgrade game, and even more tired of f--king websites telling me what to
do.

Their content, not yours. To make use of features available only in
later versions of a web browser is their decision, not yours. If you
want to remain using older versions of software, don't expect the rest
of the world to lag behind with you.

Just because you choose to drive a 40-year old car doesn't mean anyone
is forced to continue producing replacement parts for it.

I do have a later version on my Laptop which runs XP, but I only
use that at Wifi spots, not at home, on my dialup connection, and even
that one is older. I dont want the newest BLOATED garbage from Mozilla
or any other company!

Your choice as to what software and version you want to use. That has
no effect on the choices made by web sites regarding THEIR resources.
They're obviously not targeting the majority of their visits to those
still running Windows 2000 or antiquated versions of software.

You could use Lynx, SamSpade, or any of the text-only web browsers if
you really want to go archaic. Expect to lose a lot of content at web
sites that have moved forward along with the technology.

Anyhow, I am so goddamn tired of websites telling me to upgrade my
browser, yet the site loads fine, after it ****es me off telling me to
upgrade, and with advertising for newer browsers, and making me wait
another 5 or more minutes to load the page I wanted.

That a site "loads fine" does not mean you received all the content they
wanted to deliver. You got what you wanted to see. In fact, with ad
blockers becoming more prevalent, some sites will refuse to let you see
some or all of their content unless you disable your ad blocker. Every
site can see what you will and will not retrieve from them so they can
see you are blocking their ads which they use as revenue to offset their
costs for their site - that you and I, as leechers, get to visit for
free. Since it is their property, they can decide what you will see.
How well they enforce you seeing all of their content depends on how
aggressive they are in employing later features of newer web browsers.

Anyhow, is there a way to make FF appear to be a newer version for these
annoying sites. I dont know how these sites are able to determine what
version I have anyhow, or what gives them the right to annoy me about
upgrades. Just load the f--king site and shut the f--k up, for crying
out loud....

Use the UA add-on mentioned. It only lets you change the User-Agent
string your web browser sends to the web site. If that is all the web
site uses to decide what web browser you use then you have fooled them.
Of course, that doesn't mean the later features or technologies
available in new versions of the web browsers will magically appear in
your old web browser. You may have fooled them about which web browser
you are using but their content may not fully display or fuctions
(behaviors) of their site don't work. As mentioned, the UA string is
not the only means they can query which web browser you use and what
features it supports. Luckily, for now, most web authors don't do much
testing (it takes time) but then they don't much for graceful error
recovery, either (like testing if an externally referenced file is
actually available before using it in their web page).

I know there is a way to make FF look like it's Seamonkey, or another
mozilla browser, but is there a way to make it look like the version is
newer?

The UA string might do it.

The text string sent to the server is known as the
userAgent string. You can change it with the
following method:

Go into the Firefox folder in AppData. Probably
something like
C:\Documents and Settings\[username]\Application
Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\

In the Profile folder is a folder with a nonsense name. (More than
one for multiple users. In that folder, find or create a file named
user.js. In that file you can set overrides of user prefs. You want
something like the following, all on one line. (Watch out for
wordwrap in my post.)

Windows XP with Firefox 23:

user_pref("general.useragent.override", "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1;
rv:23.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/23.0");

Windows 7 with Firefox 35:

user_pref("general.useragent.override", "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
rv:35.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/35.0");

Note: You can also do this through about:config but once
you know how to use user.js it's an easier way to make
changes that you might want to alter, or add to, later.

You can also pretend to be using something like Chrome or IE.
(It's amazing how many people are using Google's spyware
these days.) But it's best to stick with a Firefox userAgent
because many sites will alter their code to suit different
browsers.

You may run into problems with the outdated CSS support
in FF3. That can cause funky things like multiple text blocks
displaying in the same place. Add that to the large number
of poorly coded pages and you could have numerous problems.
If a page really just won't work you can always try View -
Page Style - No Style to remove all CSS. I often do that
with pages that use script to change CSS because I don't
enable script.

For a lot more examples of useful things that can be done
with Firefox, see he

http://www.jsware.net/jsware/browsertips.php5

(But note that there are a small number of options,
such as blocking 3rd-party images, that have changed
since FF3.)

wrote:
Is there any way to TRICK my Firefox to appear to be a later version?

I have Win98 and Win2000. Both have Firefox 3.x installed. Version
3.xx is the latest version to work on Win98, and while they claim that
newer versions of FF will work on Win2000, I went back to FF 3.x, after
FF 10.x causes my computer to reboot (which I posted about recently).
Actually, I had installed FF 12.x afterwards and that did not cause my
computer to reboot, it just loaded the webbsites so damn slow I removed
it and went back to version 3.x.

I have no intention to upgrade ever, again. I'm tired of playing the
upgrade game, and even more tired of f--king websites telling me what to
do. I do have a later version on my Laptop which runs XP, but I only
use that at Wifi spots, not at home, on my dialup connection, and even
that one is older. I dont want the newest BLOATED garbage from Mozilla
or any other company!

Anyhow, I am so goddamn tired of websites telling me to upgrade my
browser, yet the site loads fine, after it ****es me off telling me to
upgrade, and with advertising for newer browsers, and making me wait
another 5 or more minutes to load the page I wanted.

Anyhow, is there a way to make FF appear to be a newer version for these
annoying sites. I dont know how these sites are able to determine what
version I have anyhow, or what gives them the right to annoy me about
upgrades. Just load the f--king site and shut the f--k up, for crying
out loud....

I know there is a way to make FF look like it's Seamonkey, or another
mozilla browser, but is there a way to make it look like the version is
newer?

Thanks

There are two ID techniques.

1) User Agent string. Hardly any site cares about this. It is perceived
to be a useful thing for "tracking" a person based on their set
of displayed characteristics. There are plugins to change the
UserAgent string sent by the browser, but using one isn't of any use.

https://panopticlick.eff.org/

A site is much more likely to use (2), "Capability sniffing"

2) Now, that Panopticlick tool can also tell you some things about the
error or warning messages you might get.

And this is "capabilities testing", and it would be pretty hard to
fake out a capabilities test.

For example, if a site has movies to play, and you have no Flash plugin
in the browser, the site certainly won't be able to play the Flash
content movie they had planned. And if they had a plan to fallback
to HTML5 and some movie format conveyed by support for that, you'd
also show a negative in that regard. Sometimes a site puts up a
warning, such as "install Adobe Flash to enjoy this movie". A
capabilities test told them to put up that warning message.

The Panopticlick results say I support cookies, but I have poor
super-cookie support, because my browser doesn't have DOM storage
for HTML5 code to abuse. Consequently, when a site harangues me about
"we use cookies on this site", they aren't actually complaining
about traditional cookies. My traditional cookie setting is actually
permissive. I don't care if they set a cookie. But the sites do
care, about the 20 other ways to set cookies, which my btowser
doesn't support. So rather than "we use cookies", it's "we like
to abuse your browser, by jamming cookies into your History file
or into 20 other places like your DOM storage". Those are capabilities
that they can detect and they're missing.

To test your resistance to super-cookies, try here.

http://www.samy.pl/evercookie/

(background)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evercookie

The only way to meet the standards of the sites using these
techniques, would be to start with the source code of
Firefox 3, and add the HTML5 feature set from a later browser,
then recompile. Basically, effectively taking the design
of a later browser, and removing the tasking/threading
model that your OS doesn't support.

It's not clear why the browser has to be made incompatible,
because as far as I can see, Win2K is modern enough to support
some sort of tasking/threading model. (Win98 on the other hand,
is a shambles, and not a good platform for the complexities
involved here.) Win2K is not devoid of that stuff. I don't really
know how hard it would be, to take the Firefox 31 code, and compile
it in the toolchain defined for Firefox 3 (a certain SDK and
Visual Studio version perhaps).

I've actually compiled my own copy of Firefox 3, and it takes
around 2 days and about 2GB of tool downloads (some of which included
downloading the wrong file). [The recipe for this has been
removed from the web.] At the time, I was surprised
I managed to finish it. What I was doing, is turning on
the debugging bit, for debugging a printing problem.
And I didn't actually get the info I needed, when
running that special version. The code is huge, and
single stepping or stepping-over is a waste of
time. You can't see the forest for the trees in there.

So the only (impractical) way to fix it, is add support for
things that exist in a later version. For example, you'd
need to back-port TLS 1.2 support, so when you are switched
to https protocol by some sites, the TLS 1.2 option could
be negotiated, and the site would be happy. Maybe you have
TLS 1.0 support for example, and that's the best your
browser can manage.

You can see this is yet another capabilities check, whether
you have TLS 1.2 capability, and whether you've set your
browser preferences to completely halt the usage of SSL 3.0.

https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/viewMyClient.html

(Background on security issue)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POODLE

But the UserAgent ? They know exactly what you are,
because you've only got TLS 1.0, you've got no DOM etc.
Your identity is *nailed*.

Paul

Paul,

1) User Agent string. Hardly any site cares about this.

But the UserAgent ? They know exactly what you are,

The OPs question was not about the *ability* of some website to identify
*him*, but just to confuse the common websites enough to think his browser
is within the range of browsers they "support".

For that changing the UserAgent string is more than enough. Its the *only*
thing the run-of-the-mill HTML-based websites will ever look at (if-and-when
they bother at all that is) to check for "compatibility".

But yes, when a website uses that "fingerprinting" technique you will need
to scrub quite a bit more than only the UserAgent string to remain
relativily unidentifiable/untrackable.

In that case I hope you also considered the browsers cache and how the
"handshake" that is making sure you got the latest version of the needed
resources in there (HTML pages, images, CSS, etc) can be easily abused to
store and return pretty much unique data.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


-- Origional message:
Paul schreef in berichtnieuws
...

There are two ID techniques.

1) User Agent string. Hardly any site cares about this. It is perceived
to be a useful thing for "tracking" a person based on their set
of displayed characteristics. There are plugins to change the
UserAgent string sent by the browser, but using one isn't of any use.

https://panopticlick.eff.org/

A site is much more likely to use (2), "Capability sniffing"

2) Now, that Panopticlick tool can also tell you some things about the
error or warning messages you might get.

And this is "capabilities testing", and it would be pretty hard to
fake out a capabilities test.

For example, if a site has movies to play, and you have no Flash
plugin
in the browser, the site certainly won't be able to play the Flash
content movie they had planned. And if they had a plan to fallback
to HTML5 and some movie format conveyed by support for that, you'd
also show a negative in that regard. Sometimes a site puts up a
warning, such as "install Adobe Flash to enjoy this movie". A
capabilities test told them to put up that warning message.

The Panopticlick results say I support cookies, but I have poor
super-cookie support, because my browser doesn't have DOM storage
for HTML5 code to abuse. Consequently, when a site harangues me about
"we use cookies on this site", they aren't actually complaining
about traditional cookies. My traditional cookie setting is actually
permissive. I don't care if they set a cookie. But the sites do
care, about the 20 other ways to set cookies, which my btowser
doesn't support. So rather than "we use cookies", it's "we like
to abuse your browser, by jamming cookies into your History file
or into 20 other places like your DOM storage". Those are capabilities
that they can detect and they're missing.

To test your resistance to super-cookies, try here.

http://www.samy.pl/evercookie/

(background)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evercookie

The only way to meet the standards of the sites using these
techniques, would be to start with the source code of
Firefox 3, and add the HTML5 feature set from a later browser,
then recompile. Basically, effectively taking the design
of a later browser, and removing the tasking/threading
model that your OS doesn't support.

It's not clear why the browser has to be made incompatible,
because as far as I can see, Win2K is modern enough to support
some sort of tasking/threading model. (Win98 on the other hand,
is a shambles, and not a good platform for the complexities
involved here.) Win2K is not devoid of that stuff. I don't really
know how hard it would be, to take the Firefox 31 code, and compile
it in the toolchain defined for Firefox 3 (a certain SDK and
Visual Studio version perhaps).

I've actually compiled my own copy of Firefox 3, and it takes
around 2 days and about 2GB of tool downloads (some of which included
downloading the wrong file). [The recipe for this has been
removed from the web.] At the time, I was surprised
I managed to finish it. What I was doing, is turning on
the debugging bit, for debugging a printing problem.
And I didn't actually get the info I needed, when
running that special version. The code is huge, and
single stepping or stepping-over is a waste of
time. You can't see the forest for the trees in there.

So the only (impractical) way to fix it, is add support for
things that exist in a later version. For example, you'd
need to back-port TLS 1.2 support, so when you are switched
to https protocol by some sites, the TLS 1.2 option could
be negotiated, and the site would be happy. Maybe you have
TLS 1.0 support for example, and that's the best your
browser can manage.

You can see this is yet another capabilities check, whether
you have TLS 1.2 capability, and whether you've set your
browser preferences to completely halt the usage of SSL 3.0.

https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/viewMyClient.html

(Background on security issue)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POODLE

But the UserAgent ? They know exactly what you are,
because you've only got TLS 1.0, you've got no DOM etc.
Your identity is *nailed*.

Paul

R.Wieser wrote:
Paul,

1) User Agent string. Hardly any site cares about this.

But the UserAgent ? They know exactly what you are,

The OPs question was not about the *ability* of some website to identify
*him*, but just to confuse the common websites enough to think his browser
is within the range of browsers they "support".

For that changing the UserAgent string is more than enough. Its the *only*
thing the run-of-the-mill HTML-based websites will ever look at (if-and-when
they bother at all that is) to check for "compatibility".

But yes, when a website uses that "fingerprinting" technique you will need
to scrub quite a bit more than only the UserAgent string to remain
relativily unidentifiable/untrackable.

In that case I hope you also considered the browsers cache and how the
"handshake" that is making sure you got the latest version of the needed
resources in there (HTML pages, images, CSS, etc) can be easily abused to
store and return pretty much unique data.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

I tried confusing a web site with a change of User Agent
string, and it made no difference at all. I removed the
plugin as a result.

And Microsoft is aiding in this transition to capability
detection. Microsoft removed unique UserAgent strings
from their latest versions of Internet Explorer, while
also explaining in an article on their site, why they
were doing it, and what the philosophy was. It no longer
says "Hey, I'm IE11". Instead it's a more generic string,
intended to confuse the browser with some other browsers.
So using a UserAgent now for identification, is "so 1980's".

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ieinternals/...ko-webkit.aspx

Bu all means, carry out the experiment if you want.
Ten years ago, this would be a worthwhile thing to try.
Today, not so much.

Considering so many web sites now include changes to
accommodate POODLE, this makes an old browser pretty useless.
(As soon as a site switches to using HTTPS, the show stops.
Because your TLS isn't recent enough. I have one search engine
that returns a diagnostic, because of SSL/TLS.)

And how do I know this ? I regularly use an old browser.
Now I use two browsers, because the old browser is now
only "half a browser". I get enough failures, I'm always
switching over to the other browser. I run the old browser,
because of its lack of DOM storage. A kind of storage
nobody needs.

Paul

On 03/01/2015 06:23 PM, wrote:
Is there any way to TRICK my Firefox to appear to be a later version?

I have Win98 and Win2000. Both have Firefox 3.x installed. Version
3.xx is the latest version to work on Win98, and while they claim that
newer versions of FF will work on Win2000, I went back to FF 3.x, after
FF 10.x causes my computer to reboot (which I posted about recently).
Actually, I had installed FF 12.x afterwards and that did not cause my
computer to reboot, it just loaded the webbsites so damn slow I removed
it and went back to version 3.x.

I have no intention to upgrade ever, again. I'm tired of playing the
upgrade game, and even more tired of f--king websites telling me what to
do. I do have a later version on my Laptop which runs XP, but I only
use that at Wifi spots, not at home, on my dialup connection, and even
that one is older. I dont want the newest BLOATED garbage from Mozilla
or any other company!

Anyhow, I am so goddamn tired of websites telling me to upgrade my
browser, yet the site loads fine, after it ****es me off telling me to
upgrade, and with advertising for newer browsers, and making me wait
another 5 or more minutes to load the page I wanted.

Anyhow, is there a way to make FF appear to be a newer version for these
annoying sites. I dont know how these sites are able to determine what
version I have anyhow, or what gives them the right to annoy me about
upgrades. Just load the f--king site and shut the f--k up, for crying
out loud....

I know there is a way to make FF look like it's Seamonkey, or another
mozilla browser, but is there a way to make it look like the version is
newer?

Thanks





Why use Firefox at all?

I know that Off By One will work with Win98 and Win2k


Another one to try is Maxthon. I am not sure if the latest version will
work but a slightly older one will

http://www.afterdawn.com/software/ne...ild_22#details



Or


http://www.oldapps.com/maxthon.php?system=Windows_98

From: "VanguardLH"

radarlove wrote:
invalid use of nospam.com removed from attribute line

Note: You do NOT own or lease the domain "nospam.com" so it is invalid
for you use to use it in your e-mail address. Also, your use of someone
else's domain means you are deliberately energizing spambots to target
an innocent's domain. Don't be rude.

http://www.whois.com/whois/nospam.com

You are claiming you are this domain's registrant? Uh huh.

Is there any way to TRICK my Firefox to appear to be a later version?

That won't resolve the problem that later versions have features or
support of HTML or other web technologies that are missing in your old
version. Sites are interested in the mass of their audience, not the
outliers. They may use features for the layout or behavior of their web
site that your old version software cannot handle. It's their web site,
not yours. They want the content they want on their site using their
resources to target the audience they choose.

There are Firefox add-ons that let you decide what User-Agent string to
send to a site (e.g., http://www.enhanceie.com/ietoys/uapick.asp). Some
sites will use that info to decide what content to deliver to a user.
However, if they decide their site requires a minimal feature set
available only within a later version of web browsers then you're out of
luck. They don't have to rely solely on the UA string to determine
which web browser you use to visit THEIR site. They can also issue
functions to test your web browser to ensure it will pass their minimal
feature requirement to use their web site.

I have Win98 and Win2000. Both have Firefox 3.x installed. Version
3.xx is the latest version to work on Win98, and while they claim that
newer versions of FF will work on Win2000, I went back to FF 3.x, after
FF 10.x causes my computer to reboot (which I posted about recently).
Actually, I had installed FF 12.x afterwards and that did not cause my
computer to reboot, it just loaded the webbsites so damn slow I removed
it and went back to version 3.x.

I have no intention to upgrade ever, again. I'm tired of playing the
upgrade game, and even more tired of f--king websites telling me what to
do.

Their content, not yours. To make use of features available only in
later versions of a web browser is their decision, not yours. If you
want to remain using older versions of software, don't expect the rest
of the world to lag behind with you.

Just because you choose to drive a 40-year old car doesn't mean anyone
is forced to continue producing replacement parts for it.

I do have a later version on my Laptop which runs XP, but I only
use that at Wifi spots, not at home, on my dialup connection, and even
that one is older. I dont want the newest BLOATED garbage from Mozilla
or any other company!

Your choice as to what software and version you want to use. That has
no effect on the choices made by web sites regarding THEIR resources.
They're obviously not targeting the majority of their visits to those
still running Windows 2000 or antiquated versions of software.

You could use Lynx, SamSpade, or any of the text-only web browsers if
you really want to go archaic. Expect to lose a lot of content at web
sites that have moved forward along with the technology.

Anyhow, I am so goddamn tired of websites telling me to upgrade my
browser, yet the site loads fine, after it ****es me off telling me to
upgrade, and with advertising for newer browsers, and making me wait
another 5 or more minutes to load the page I wanted.

That a site "loads fine" does not mean you received all the content they
wanted to deliver. You got what you wanted to see. In fact, with ad
blockers becoming more prevalent, some sites will refuse to let you see
some or all of their content unless you disable your ad blocker. Every
site can see what you will and will not retrieve from them so they can
see you are blocking their ads which they use as revenue to offset their
costs for their site - that you and I, as leechers, get to visit for
free. Since it is their property, they can decide what you will see.
How well they enforce you seeing all of their content depends on how
aggressive they are in employing later features of newer web browsers.

Anyhow, is there a way to make FF appear to be a newer version for these
annoying sites. I dont know how these sites are able to determine what
version I have anyhow, or what gives them the right to annoy me about
upgrades. Just load the f--king site and shut the f--k up, for crying
out loud....

Use the UA add-on mentioned. It only lets you change the User-Agent
string your web browser sends to the web site. If that is all the web
site uses to decide what web browser you use then you have fooled them.
Of course, that doesn't mean the later features or technologies
available in new versions of the web browsers will magically appear in
your old web browser. You may have fooled them about which web browser
you are using but their content may not fully display or fuctions
(behaviors) of their site don't work. As mentioned, the UA string is
not the only means they can query which web browser you use and what
features it supports. Luckily, for now, most web authors don't do much
testing (it takes time) but then they don't much for graceful error
recovery, either (like testing if an externally referenced file is
actually available before using it in their web page).

I know there is a way to make FF look like it's Seamonkey, or another
mozilla browser, but is there a way to make it look like the version is
newer?

The UA string might do it.

The User Agent will do this. However, the downside is that the server may
then choose to supply content that the client can't handle.

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; rv:36.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/36.0

--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk
http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

I wouldn't argue with what you've said, but I think
UA is still very big. Many big sites use code like so:

!--[if lt IE 9]

Google is especially obnoxious, trying to force people
to use new browsers. And they're not alone. There have
always been a lot of webmasters who value pizzazz over
content. "Your browser is outdated" is just the new,
pushy version of "best viewed in IE 5.123.432 with Flash".
(Everyone wants to be a hotshot artist.

I'm guessing that's the problem the OP is dealing with.
With so many sites using overblown javascript "libraries"
and the very latest CSS for highly interactive sites, their
pages have become very brittle, only working under
specific conditions.

With sites that test for UA, often they'll test for 3 or 4
IE versions. Looking at any major website will usually turn
up some of that. I do something similar on my own site. Older
versions of IE can't handle CSS :hover events, so I give
IE a scripted page and all other browsers a non-scripted
page, in order to make my "flyout" menus work. I also do
it because IE display is not the same as other browsers.
Even different versions of IE differ. Little quirks show up,
like differently sized default borders around things. I found
that with any complexity in my layout the only realistic
approach was to offer one page for all non-IE
browsers, then a different page, in "quirks" mode (no
DOCTYPE tag), for all IE versions. Generally, anything that
works in FF will work in Chrome and Safari. But it won't
work in IE. And anything that works in IE x may not work
in IE x+1 unless one writes it quirks mode.

A well designed site will still check for frames, flash,
script, etc and "degrade gracefully" as much as possible.
They should have non-flash pages and noscript options.
So it's not unusual to see things like "this site requires
script". But I think the new-browser push is a different
issue.

Microsoft is a special case. They introduced all sorts
of compatibility code to make up for the fact that they
break *every* version of IE. There have always been at
least minor changes. So there's quirks mode to match IE6
display, regardless of the IE version, and there are also
the code snippets like the one I pasted above to allow
for special code targetted only at particular IE versions.
Both methods are commonly in use.

Now MS is trying to get IE compatible with standards
because they've lost their browser monopoly in a big way.
And they want to leave the old compatibility behind. That's
a problem for XP because IE is not a true stand-alone
browser and XP can't move past IE8. But MS doesn't want
to support XP, anyway, so that works out well for them.

What I'm saying is that the Microsofties are not being
entirely honest on their blog. They're asking people to drop
usage of the very code MS asked them to use in the past,
saying it's outdated. But what they're really saying is
"Please treat IE like all other browsers. With IE11 we're
compatible enough for that. Anyone not using IE11 can
go jump in the lake, as far as we're concerned."

Fine for them to say. They don't want XP to be used
anymore and don't give a damn about their customers. But
their advice is really lies, misleading webmasters who want
their sites to work.

Since I still want to support older IE versions I had to
change the code on my site to deal with the changes
explained at your link. Formerly I tested for "MSIE" in the UA
string. MS knew that. So with IE11 they dropped "MSIE".
Now I have to check for "MSIE" *or* "Trident". If I don't
then my menus won't work for IE11 visitors. If, on the other
hand, I take Microsoft's advice and give IE the same page
other browsers get then my layout will break in at least
some versions of IE and my menus will break in some
versions.

Also, I'd have to start testing my pages in
*every* version of IE, which is no small task. From what
I've read, IE is still not entirely standards compliant.
Perhps they are with IE11, but that doesn't help when
IE8-10 are still out there. And since I couldn't even get
IE10 to install on my Win7-64 test box, I'm not going to
waste time trying to install and test with IE11, which is
now essentially a boutique browser with extremely limited
OS support.
Microsoft have been digging themselves into a hole for
15 years, forcing a lot of wasted coding on the part of
frustrated webmasters. Now they just want to wash
their hands of the whole mess and leave their customers
helpless.

| Why use Firefox at all?
|
| I know that Off By One will work with Win98 and Win2k
|

I'd never heard of Off By One. Looking at their site it
appears to be a very limited gimmick that doesn't even
support script. Probably it's just an IE wrapper.

| Another one to try is Maxthon.

Maxthon always was nothing more than an IE wrapper.
I think later versions wrap both IE and FF. It's not
really a browser in its own right. I could write a browser
in a few days if I wanted to, but that just because MS
makes it easy to wrap their browser window. It's still
IE, with IE security settings, IE cookies, IE history,
IE rendering. The only difference would be any custom
menu options.

Paul,

I tried confusing a web site with a change of User Agent
string, and it made no difference at all.

As you've not mentioned any specifics (changing the UA will probably not do
much in regard to, for example, Flash) I can only say that I've got a
different experience.

And Microsoft is aiding in this transition to capability
detection.

Pray tell (other than websites utilizing JS ofcourse).

Instead it's a more generic string, intended to confuse
the browser with some other browsers.

Might it be that those "other browsers" are assumed to have the same kind of
abilities ? In that case using less specifics might be a good idea

Oh by the way: though the UA normally includes the "make and model" of the
browser, it also includes the engine. You know, the part that could be used
to "confuse" several "different" browsers as one. That makes me think that
all that MS might be doing is just using that latter part, and doing away
with the former.

So using a UserAgent now for identification, is "so 1980's".

So is sending some "hey, are you there!" messages to the browser, and when
you get an expected answer just assume it has the capabilities. Man, that
makes me think back to the Win 98 method of searching for new hardware ....

Apart from that, how does that method you are referring to* check for, say,
little differences (between the different browsers) in how CSS is handled ?
:-)

*Still am not fully sure what that method might be ...

Considering so many web sites now include changes to
accommodate POODLE, this makes an old browser
pretty useless.

Are you sure ? I've got an IE 5.0 here which (still) does not seem to
have much trouble "surfing the 'web". And no, I've not changed its UA.

But yes, if-and-when the majority of websites decides to go SSL all the way
and than reject older SSL versions than *ofcourse* the older browsers that
are not able to update it will be fail to connect to those sites.

One thing though : what has that to do with how a site recognises the
capabilities of a browser (or even if it needs to) ? huh

And how do I know this ? I regularly use an old browser.

See above. Old enough for you ?

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


-- Origional message:
Paul schreef in berichtnieuws
...
R.Wieser wrote:
Paul,

1) User Agent string. Hardly any site cares about this.

But the UserAgent ? They know exactly what you are,

The OPs question was not about the *ability* of some website to identify
*him*, but just to confuse the common websites enough to think his
browser
is within the range of browsers they "support".

For that changing the UserAgent string is more than enough. Its the
*only*
thing the run-of-the-mill HTML-based websites will ever look at
(if-and-when
they bother at all that is) to check for "compatibility".

But yes, when a website uses that "fingerprinting" technique you will
need
to scrub quite a bit more than only the UserAgent string to remain
relativily unidentifiable/untrackable.

In that case I hope you also considered the browsers cache and how the
"handshake" that is making sure you got the latest version of the needed
resources in there (HTML pages, images, CSS, etc) can be easily abused
to
store and return pretty much unique data.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

I tried confusing a web site with a change of User Agent
string, and it made no difference at all. I removed the
plugin as a result.

And Microsoft is aiding in this transition to capability
detection. Microsoft removed unique UserAgent strings
from their latest versions of Internet Explorer, while
also explaining in an article on their site, why they
were doing it, and what the philosophy was. It no longer
says "Hey, I'm IE11". Instead it's a more generic string,
intended to confuse the browser with some other browsers.
So using a UserAgent now for identification, is "so 1980's".


http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ieinternals/...t-explorer-11-
user-agent-string-ua-string-sniffing-compatibility-with-gecko-webkit.aspx

Bu all means, carry out the experiment if you want.
Ten years ago, this would be a worthwhile thing to try.
Today, not so much.

Considering so many web sites now include changes to
accommodate POODLE, this makes an old browser pretty useless.
(As soon as a site switches to using HTTPS, the show stops.
Because your TLS isn't recent enough. I have one search engine
that returns a diagnostic, because of SSL/TLS.)

And how do I know this ? I regularly use an old browser.
Now I use two browsers, because the old browser is now
only "half a browser". I get enough failures, I'm always
switching over to the other browser. I run the old browser,
because of its lack of DOM storage. A kind of storage
nobody needs.

Paul

On 03/02/2015 10:00 AM, Mayayana wrote:
| Why use Firefox at all?
|
| I know that Off By One will work with Win98 and Win2k
|

I'd never heard of Off By One. Looking at their site it
appears to be a very limited gimmick that doesn't even
support script. Probably it's just an IE wrapper.


No it's not...It's just an extremely simple browser

| Another one to try is Maxthon.

Maxthon always was nothing more than an IE wrapper.
I think later versions wrap both IE and FF. It's not
really a browser in its own right. I could write a browser
in a few days if I wanted to, but that just because MS
makes it easy to wrap their browser window. It's still
IE, with IE security settings, IE cookies, IE history,
IE rendering. The only difference would be any custom
menu options.




Maxthon is an IE wrapper but for Linux and Mac obviously it is not.
I quit using Windows years ago but still support Windows machines and
was surprised that the Linux version of Maxthon mimics IE well enough
that I can get into Microsoft "IE-only" websites.

I am not going to waste my time doing homework for the OP but it might
work on Win98 and Win2k...at least one of the older versions will.


As to you being able to write your own browser...

Yesterday was /March 1st/ not April 1st

David H. Lipman wrote:

The User Agent will do this. However, the downside is that the server may
then choose to supply content that the client can't handle.

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; rv:36.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/36.0

That's what I warned about. If the OP decides to have his web browser
report a different UA string to the server, the server will then figure
it can use the features available in the real version of that web
browser. In fact, you could have Firefox claim it is Internet Explorer.
The problem is that there are still differences in rendering and HTMl
support between the browsers so the server would take the wrong tree for
code and try to use features in one web browsers that aren't supported
or behave differently in another web browser.

Most sites just go ahead with what the client says it is. They assume
the client isn't lying. Some will actually test if the web browser can
do what it claims per it version. A few may note that some features of
their site won't work unless a specific minimal version of the web
browser is used. As I recall, I've even hit some (probably Google
sites) that refuse to work unless you connect using Google Chrome (i.e.,
they use functions in that web browser that aren't available in the
others).

http://www.whatismybrowser.com/
https://panopticlick.eff.org/
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/167820/

Those go beyond just using the UA string to determine what client is
connecting to the server. Obviously any site can perform feature
testing of the client to determine if the site is going to bother
delivering content to the client. Just as obvious is that you could
disable Javascript in your web browser but the site can test this and
decide not to deliver content. Many times on a first visit to an
unknown web site as a safety measure, I have scripting disabled,
meta-refresh disabled, and all add-ons disabled, and many times I've
seen them tell me that I need Javascript enabled to use or view their
content. They can tell and they can decide. I've even found some that
will limit or block their content if you block their ads (a site can see
if your client did not retrieve their ad content).

Typically lying about which web browser or version is used to connect to
a site is to overcome a site that is slow in updating their limits check
when a new version of the web browser comes out. It can take months to
get a site updated. My bank's site was like that so I had to lie about
which web browser and version I was using to connect to their site.
Eventually they updated their site and I didn't have to lie anymore.
This trick compensates for a site's version check that is out of date,
not to force the site to somehow support an ancient version of a client.
This is for when the client is just a version, or two, ahead of the
site's version check so it is rare that the web browser has changed so
much that the site uses functionality not available in the new version
(i.e., problems with backward compatibility).

The OP can use the UA add-on to lie to the site to see it that will get
past the site's version check. That won't make the site magically
support that old version of the client (by not using or requiring
features available in later versions of the client). Lying works as
long as you don't get caught lying. I can use Lynx and SamSpade
(text-only web browsers) at many sites but obviously there will be a lot
of missing content, a multitude of layout problems, and loss of dynamic
content because there is no scripting.

The days of simple HTML at web sites from the early 90's have long past.
I get [pleasantly] surprised when I hit a simple HTML-coded web site.

Mayayana wrote:
attribution lines deliberately omitted by Mayayana were re-added

philo wrote:

Another one to try is Maxthon.

Maxthon always was nothing more than an IE wrapper.

That was true of the old 1.x, a continuation of MyIE2 that was a shell
extension to IE. Never kept up with the 2.x version to know whether it
was a frankenjob wrapper or its own web browser. When I last reviewed
Maxthon, it was at 3.x and no longer a wrapper of enhanced features
added onto the IE libs. It is it's own web browser now and incorporates
both the Trident (IE) and WebKit rendering engines. Yes, the old 1.x
version was a wrapper style of program. That's history, not current.

Version 2 or, at least, version 3 is not a wrapper or shell extension.
Those can use the Trident rendering engine (if that's what you elect
since, I believe, WebKit is chosen by default) but that doesn't make it
an IE wrapper. Lots of web browsers use [or used to use] the WebKit
engine but that doesn't make them all the same web browser, either, or a
"wrapper" program. Lots of programs employ the Trident rendering engine
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident...d_applications)
but that doesn't make them IE wrappers. Of course, if your argument is
that using the same rendering engine makes it a wrapper then there
were/are a multitude of WebKit "wrapper" apps, too.

On Mon, 2 Mar 2015 14:34:50 -0600, VanguardLH wrote:

Mayayana wrote:
attribution lines deliberately omitted by Mayayana were re-added

philo wrote:

Another one to try is Maxthon.

Maxthon always was nothing more than an IE wrapper.

That was true of the old 1.x, a continuation of MyIE2 that was a shell
extension to IE. Never kept up with the 2.x version to know whether it
was a frankenjob wrapper or its own web browser. When I last reviewed
Maxthon, it was at 3.x and no longer a wrapper of enhanced features
added onto the IE libs. It is it's own web browser now and incorporates
both the Trident (IE) and WebKit rendering engines. Yes, the old 1.x
version was a wrapper style of program. That's history, not current.


I've said it here before, but for anyone who hasn't seen my messages
or tried Maxthon, in my view its the best of all available browsers.