Comment on Trend of websites blocking old versions of Chrome -- is this sensible?
daveyOsborn@infosec.pub 2 days agoUnless I am using frogfind.com, which discriminates against recent UAs because it is meant to serve those with old gear.
The UA setting has become relevant to enough instances of enshitification that perhaps we really need a DB that tracks which UA gets the best treatment per website. I would like a browser that chooses the UA string that will minmize enshification. I suspect the answer may be a string that impersonates Google’s crawler would be ideal, particularly with paywalls.
dgdft@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Unless you wanna make life hard on yourself for no good reason, use your real UA where possible and set the closest-to-accurate UA as a site-specific override where needed.
Fake googlebots are extremely easy to spot and will get treated as malicious. Cloudflare will flag you if you’re spoofing browser identity in any obvious way.
daveyOsborn@infosec.pub 2 days ago
I’m not sure you understand the transparency problem. Codeberg is the /only/ service that I have ever encountered that honestly, transparently states that they blocked me on the basis of old chrome. All other blocks on the order of 10s or 100s per day give no reason. As a Tor user, I assume Tor is the problem. But now there are increasingly non-Tor criteria emerging. I cannot investigate every blockade. Hence why establishing a UA string db would be useful, which could then be incorporated into browsers.
I boycott Cloudflare. CF already blocks most of my access attempts and I am grateful for it. What disturbs me is when I discover that I am on a CF website that whitelisted Tor because such cases could lead to me accidentally patronising a Cloudflare supporter. I know there are plugins that would help me avoid those instances but if CF has another trigger to block me from their side, then it is mutually appreciated.
frongt@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
If your point is transparency, and the given justification is to block scrapers, then it makes sense they wouldn’t be transparent about it. You don’t want to give your adversary instructions about how to bypass your security.
daveyOsborn@infosec.pub 1 day ago
That could be a plausible reason for opacity if it were true, but I don’t think it’s true because blocking Tor (for example) is trivially discovered and the non-transparency only frustrates legit users. The opacity of an anti-tor policy has no effect on adversaries. Yet a vast majority of tor-hostile sites are sloppy about informing legit users.
Infosec that relies on secrecy is already out on a limb in despiration. And in this situation, the collateral damage to friendlies based on arbitrary factors creates a heightened need to inform the legit users. An AI scraper bot is not going to be coded to know where to look for such announcements because that’s actually more effort for the attacker than manual trial and error. Note as well we are talking about relatively unsophisticated adversaries considering they were too lazy to code the user-agent header to dynamically blend better in the first place. (They will fix that in the future).
Nonetheless, your point cannot be disregarded because those who take the crude approach of blocking on the basis of UA string are likely not thinking all this through.
dgdft@lemmy.world 2 days ago
daveyOsborn@infosec.pub 2 days ago
If you actually mean the tool that uses the database, sure, but whatever the “closest” is requires a db as input to derive what that would be.
Although consumers should often be blamed for enshitification, this is not one of those cases. If an anti-enshitification tool would state: “this service judges you by your UA”, then I would protest accordingly so as to not be part of the problem of rewarding enshitification.