Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> I am using 115.7.0esr, which is the current version of Firefox for
> Windows 8.1. Their Web site says "current versions of" without
> specifying what the current version is. I am complying with the demand.

That should work. If they're still complaining about Windows 8.1, then
you can adjust the settings for general.useragent.override to use the
same string, but replace Windows 8.1 with Windows 10.

You can find the exact setting of what's being used in Help -> More
Troubleshooting Information. Look for the setting for User Agent.

Smith

NFN Smith <worldoff9908@gmail.com> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>I am using 115.7.0esr, which is the current version of Firefox for
>>Windows 8.1. Their Web site says "current versions of" without
>>specifying what the current version is. I am complying with the demand.

>That should work. If they're still complaining about Windows 8.1, then
>you can adjust the settings for general.useragent.override to use the
>same string, but replace Windows 8.1 with Windows 10.

>You can find the exact setting of what's being used in Help -> More
>Troubleshooting Information. Look for the setting for User Agent.

Thanks. I called the credit union. Again. Let's see if I can get them to
fix it. Otherwise I'll screw with the headers.

On 11/2/23 13:47, micky wrote:
> In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Wed, 1 Nov 2023 12:11:32 -0400, bad
> sector <forgetski@INVALID.net> wrote:
>
>> On 11/1/23 11:41, NFN Smith wrote:
>>> bad sector wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It was bound to happen, my bank (to be publically named on need) has
>>>> just denied me access to my account because I am using Firefox and not
>>>> Google-Chromium. I told them in no uncertain terms that I will never
>>>> use any Google or Microsoft or Apple or other proprietary product. The
>>>> girl at the help-desk could only open a tech ticket si I expect to
>>>> hear from the IT cubicle soon...
>>>
>>> Yes, that's happening.  There are a few sites out there that assume that
>>> everybody is using Chrome, and don't care about anything else.
>>> Sometimes, other Chromium-derived browsers (Opera, Iron, Epic, Edge,
>>> etc.) will work, but occasionally, it's Chrome or nothing.
>>>
>>> You didn't indicate whether you're getting an explicit objection from
>>> the bank or just that the page is not adequately functional.  If the
>>> former (where the page is doing sniffing for the User-Agent string that
>>> you're showing), you may be able to get around that by spoofing a
>>> different UA string in Firefox. To do that, you can make a tweak via
>>> about:config, where you add an entry that's specific to your bank:
>>>
>>> Create an entry for the problem server name:
>>>
>>>   general.useragent.override.www.mybank.com
>>>
>>> Then set the value to show a valid Chrome string (I just copied this one
>>> from a current release):
>>>
>>>   Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML,
>>> like Gecko) Chrome/118.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
>
> All this is very helpful. Thanks.
>>>
>>> If the bank is just checking for a preferred UA string this should be
>>> enough to get around any blocks.  However, it is possible that Google
>>> has already implemented something unique in Chrome (probably related to
>>> scripting) that Firefox doesn't have, but the bank is already using and
>>> may not even be in other Chromium browsers. However, unique features
>>> tend to be more common with entertainment-oriented sites, especially the
>>> ones with DRM content.
>>>
>>> I've found this particular condition of demanding specific browsers and
>>> versions to be especially common with financial institutions.They're
>>> they ones that are most often insistent that you use only the browsers
>>> (and versions) that they permit. Sometimes, objecting to older browsers
>>> is a way of making sure you're running something reasonably recent,
>>> enough that most security holes are patched. Also, objecting to certain
>>> browsers (especially older ones) is a useful way of defending against
>>> bot activity.  There are a lot of bots that also do spoofing, and
>>> keeping the list of authorized browsers short is an easy way of
>>> discarding a lot of bot traffic.
>>>
>>> However, with financial institutions, I'm convinced that a lot insist on
>>> specific browser versions as a function of their customer support. If
>>> they're providing support, then they want you running *exactly* the same
>>> version as their support people are seeing, and if the two don't match,
>>> they don't want to waste time and effort of trying to translate your
>>> display to what they're seeing. Even if an objection message is worded
>>> about capacities, the layout differences even between Firefox 102 ESR
>>> and Firefox 115 ESR are enough that already, some are beginning to
>>> demand Firefox 115 as a minimum, even if the capacities of Firefox 78 or
>>> even Firefox 60 are adequate.  The UI difference between getting to
>>> configs via Edit -> Preferences and Tools -> Settings is enough to cause
>>> them to refuse.
>>>
>>> For your particular case, the same principle applies, just that the site
>>> has decided that Chrome is a standard, and as a result, they're going to
>>> Chrome exclusively, and where they're unwilling to invest anything
>>> (whether development or user support) on anything else. And I think
>>> there's nothing you are going to be able to do to change that.
>>>
>>> At that stage, your choices are:
>>>
>>> - See if you can get spoofing to work with Firefox, as described above.
>>> - See if you can get another Chromium browser (e.g., Epic, Iron, etc.)
>>> to work.
>>> - Accept their demand for Chrome
>>> - Take your business to another bank
>>>
>>> If you move to another bank, I wouldn't even bother with an indignant
>>> message to customer service.  Just leave quietly, because they've
>>> already decided that you're not worth their effort.
>>>
>>> Smith
>>
>>
>> Thanks for the detailed input!
>>
>> First of all I was caught totally by surprise, no advance warning, no
>> NOTHING. I try to log-in to pay some bills and bingo. This bank's IT
>
> Now I do want to know which bank it is.
>
> FWIW, I recently got a few thousand from Unclaimed Property, that I
> guess my mother left me and I failed to find it like I should have, and
> I wanted to open a savings account from which I would buy and sell
> stocks. But instead of the 3% that banks paid on savings accounts in
> the 50's through the 90's, now they pay 0.01 to 0.03%!!!! Unless you
> have a high yield savings account where they pay 4.5%! -- quite a
> difference -- but that one is only available in "eligible markets or at
> select locations", based it seems on where the depositor lives!!!!! and
> which doesn't include where I live. It sounds similar to red-lining,
> except it's not about mortgages but about savings accounts.
>
> Anyhow, I want it to be at another bank in case the one I normally use
> has troubles and I can't get my money. So which one are you hinting I
> should avoid?
>
>
>> department has many times failed to impress me. It took 2 years of
>> argument to get them to accept passwords longer than ten (and at that
>> restricted) characters, today on the phone they wanted me to key-in my
>> since then extended 70 character password. They ain't the sharpest
>
> I would rather have a longer password and not have to put in capitals
> and special characters. Seems to me lengthening the minimum buy even 1
> or 2 characters does just as much good (and people can still use numbers
> if they want to.) Especially with the cell phone where it's extra steps
> to use special characters.
>
>> knives in the drawer to put it very, very politely!
>>
>> If I spoof I just reinforce their lunacy. BTW I doubt very much that
>> security be their objective since on that count their favorites are
>> hanging by threads:
>>
>> https://www.forbes.com/advisor/ca/business/software/secure-browsers/
>>
>> ..but there IS a movenment afoot to so complicate user autentication
>> that only the big COMMERCIAL snoops get a slice of the targetable
>> data-cake (I don't remember the name of the gimmick off hand).
>>
>> Interim I plan to challenge them, as publicaly as possible if necessary,
>> if that don't work then I'm prepared to can the internet iterface and go
>> to the physical cubicle with all my needs.

It's Quebec's oldest bank, I think you need to be a resident.

Their problem is (or was) either an IT department that's not ready for
prime-time or as I suspect 'digitally illiterate' managment. Passwords
should be largely unrestricted because any known restriction just makes
hacking that much easier. I turned them on that issue at least, but
every month there's someting new to piss me off (just as with firefox).
Last month they closed my local outlet, gotta drive 30 clicks from now on.