Browser identification

Software PureOS
11

This was the Chase website looking at the user agent string. When I tried the one that Dwaff suggested, it worked, but Chase decided that I must be on a phone and gave me the lame mobile form of the website. I copied at the useragent string in Firefox running on Ubuntu, and Chase gave me the full website with no complaints.

I suspect that Chase does this to limit what sort of support problems they’ll handle. If someone calls their support line and says that they’re having a problem with, say, Seamonkey, Chase support can say, “You must use Safari, Firefox, Chrome, or Internet Explorer. Have a nice day. Goodbye.”

12

In Mladen’s instructions on these problems, he also mentions a useragent.compat flag for PureBrowser that should be set to ‘true.’

His suggested useragent string uses different versions, but that may not make a difference to Chase. Also, I am not certain his instructions are kept current for the Firefox ESR version PureBrowser is using. PureBrowser is not based on Firefox Quantum, so v 65.0 mentioned above is probably wrong. Last I checked, Firefox ESR is only at 60.

2 Likes
13

You can try LibreFox. It’s just Firefox without unnecessary functionality and services. It portable, and don’t need install.

14

I changed the useragent.override string to show v60.0 instead of 65.0 and added a “true” boolean for useragent.compat. The Chase website does not complain, but only after I added “Ubuntu”, otherwise it gives me the mobile website and tells me my browser is out of date. This is the useragent.override string I am using:

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/60.1.0

Thanks to all for the suggestions. Setting general.useragent.override was best solution for me because I don’t need to install a different browser and can continue using PureBrowser.

1 Like
15

I know I’m a little late to the party, but I’m a pretty big fan of the Brave browser. It is built on top of chromium, so you will easily forget you aren’t using Chrome. It has all sorts of ad/tracker blocking built in, and features a private browsing mode that incorporates Tor for real privacy. Plus they have this neat crypto currency idea to try and replace ads to fund websites.

16

I know there are advocates of Brave, but I have not used it. Nevertheless–and you may agree–built-in mechanisms may not be sufficient.

You may want to look at this article to see why. I think I would be a bit irritated if I learned this after the fact. I do look at code sometimes, but I do not make a habit of reading it for everything I use.

According to one of the comments, Firefox has a problem too with the FB SDK login. I prefer having granular control to stop scenarios like this myself. I too block all scripting and enable only what I need when I need it. Some things on websites break, but I do not care.

1 Like
17

You’re rejecting Firefox? On what grounds? That’s a first I’ve heard anyone not use the goto. :open_mouth:

18

I am not sure if you are asking me because I was the last to post. If so, no, I am not rejecting Firefox. I use Firefox Quantum daily, though I use security add-ons, and I have sanitized it a lot. I am sorry if I was unclear.

My point was that I prefer making changes rather than relying on whitelists that others have created and think I need. (And finding out after the fact that someone allowed something I would not have wanted!) When I used PureBrowser, I made a number of changes to its settings too.

I mentioned Firefox only because one of the comments in the link I provided did.

19

Nope, not asking you. Was asking OP. Could’ve sworn this system links replies somehow but I guess it’s different per site. :sweat:

I also prefer making changes to my browser as I feel it gives me the choice to use what I feel is necessary.

I only use security/privacy-centric add-ons, but I just so happen to use specific ones.

I also modify my UI via CSS. :grin:

20

On the grounds that I prefer to use PureBrowser which is shipped with PureOS instead of installing a different browser because of one website. On the grounds that it annoys me when websites insist that I use a certain browser. On the grounds that there is a simple way to configure PureBrowser so that the Chase website will grant access. On the grounds that I have configured and customized PureBrowser to my personal taste, and I don’t want to redo that process for no good reason.

I’m not “rejecting” Firefox; after all, PureBrowser is built on Firefox Quantum, and I use “real” Firefox on other platforms.

Why are you rejecting my choice of which browser to use? Do you think I should ditch PureOS and use Windows instead? After all, Windows is the “goto” OS with by far the largest user base and the most apps. ; -)

1 Like
21

Last I knew, PureBrowser was based on Firefox ESR, not Quantum.

22

On my apt updated PureOS VM, Purebrowser is based on Firefox 60, which is Quantum (because Firefox ESR is now at 60)

23

Oh. Got it. That would explain why legacy add-ons do not work anymore. Thanks.

24

I’m not “rejecting your choice” to use anything, mate. So, you can take that claim and toss it away. :roll_eyes:

I asked what I did precisely because I knew PureBrowser is a fork of Firefox.

If you wish to use Windows in place of Linux, then be my guest. I never recommended that to you nor did I insinuate it. You have the choice to do what you wish, and in this case you’ve done just that albeit inappropriately.

I agreed with you until you admitted to not wanting to install Firefox—as irrelevant as it may seem.

You have every choice in what you use, especially on Linux.

Incidentally, it goes without saying you have me at a disadvantage since I’ve never used PureBrowser.

I can’t tell you why that site is flagging your “browser of choice”, but if it’s based on Firefox as we know it to be, surely there must be some other reason for this to be occurring.

On the same line of reasoning, if PureBrowser is based on Firefox, surely you can simply adapt your configurations to Firefox.

Unfortunately, I don’t know the answer to the first assumption and since I’ve never used PureBrowser, I cain’t make in on the second one either.

Do I think you should be able to use whatever browser you want to use without being forced to use something you don’t necessarily need to use? Yes.

Do I accept that some forks run into issues every now and then that originating source doesn’t? Yes.

It’s just a fact of life and why I only used Pale Moon for a month until I quit.

I realize it’s a much more daunting issue for you since this is presumably the default browser that ships on PureOS. I’m not saying what’s happened is what you deserve, but rather something that can happen.

My instinct would tell me to report a bug or something. Since I don’t know where to do that, I say Google it.

25

I changed the useragent string as described above. Problem solved. Move along, nothing to see here.

1 Like
26

Thanks! Glad to see it fixed. :grinning:

27

Some closing thoughts:

  1. If you had bothered to read the whole thread before posting, you would have seen that I, the OP, fixed the problem almost two weeks ago with a little help from someone else on the forum.
  2. If you had bothered to read Forum Rules - please read before posting you would have seen this: “This forum is intended only for the PureOS operating system and its software, please refrain from requesting help (or debating) about other operating systems.”

I asked the forum of Librem/PureOS users about a problem I was having with software that is included with PureOS, and someone posted the solution, which solved my problem. Then more than a week later you come along and ask “You’re rejecting Firefox? On what grounds?” which sounds like you want to debate the merits of PureBrowser (which you admit you haven’t used and know nothing about) versus Firefox. Your question was out of line and inappropriate for this forum, which is why you got the snarky reply from me.

4 Likes
28

Take your own advice. :grinning:

Any further comments will be ignored. The mods can close this discussion if they wanted to.

I suggest they do.

Between the both us, you’re the one who obviously wanted to debate, not me.

You yourself admitted to offering a snarky reply while continuously promoting an argument based on straw-man logic. Your “final thoughts” do not apply here since they assume things that were never requirements.

You had the option (i.e. the choice) to either dismiss my post or flag it and report me. What did you do?

You continued on the conversation and willfully chose to provoke me as you’ve continued to do so even after ending the discussion, peacefully, by admitting that the issue had been solved.

Nor I or the community benefited from your “final thoughts” and I shan’t imagine they ever will.

Next time, do use all a favor and simply dismiss what you can’t understand OR take the time to make the situation clearer.

You could’ve summed everything up with a “it’s fixed”.

29

Guys, please relax, no need for this.

30