Re: Version Numbers 52.0 or 52.6.0 in user agent

2018-01-25 Thread David E. Ross 
On 1/25/2018 8:18 PM, Daniel wrote:
> David E. Ross wrote:
>> On 1/25/2018 8:32 AM, WaltS48 wrote:
>>> On 1/25/18 10:56 AM, David E. Ross wrote:
 On 1/25/2018 3:44 AM, Daniel wrote:
> David E. Ross wrote:
>> On 1/24/2018 7:51 PM, Daniel wrote:
>>> Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
 2.49.1 is based on ESR 52.4
 2.49.2 should (hopefully) arrive in the next 2-3 weeks and will be 
 based
 on 52.6

 Firefox does not show minor version numbers in its UA string.

 52.5.3 ESR:
 Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/52.0

 2.49.2 x 64 local build:
 Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/52.0 SeaMonkey/2.49.2

 As you can see almost identical but as usual google and others will do
 incorrect user agent sniffing.

 FRG
>>> That's interesting!! Being a long term SM user, it has always intrigued
>>> me why the Gecko number has not been updated in yonks (20100101)... but
>>> now I see that probably stems from FF, which also doesn't seem to update
>>> its Gecko release date!!
>>>
>>> Presumably the Gecko engine *HAS* actually been updated!! ;-P
>>>
>> Not updating the version date for Gecko in the user agent string is part
>> of Mozilla's plan to obscure user characteristics.  Web servers sniffing
>> user data supposedly find it harder to track individual users.  See bug
>> #1329996 at .
>>
>> I prefer relying on the Secret Agent extension from
>> .
>>
> Then one would have to wonder what use it is to have the Gecko version
> with-in the User-Agent string at all!! ;-(
>
 Some Web servers insist on sniffing the user agent string and expect
 some kind of date for Gecko.  Mozilla-based browsers fail to work on
 such Web sites unless there is a date field.

>>> An example please.
>>
>> I do not have an example.  I recall reading in a bug report (now
>> apparently closed) that omitting the Gecko date was causing problems
>> with Web servers that sniff the UA.
>>
> I seem to recall that some/many sites fail to function for SeaMonkey 
> unless the SeaMonkey UA had FF in it ... in some cases *Only FF* in the 
> SM UA
> 
> So why the mention, now, of some sniffing for Gecko?? Is that Gecko 
> *only* or Gecko *as well* now??
> 

The servers were not sniffing specifically for "Gecko".  When they
sniffed, however, they were programmed to expect certain fields in the
UA string.  One of those fields was the Gecko date, but they did not
parse the date.  Instead, any date in that position of the UA string was
acceptable.

-- 
David E. Ross


President Trump:  Please stop using Twitter.  We need
to hear your voice and see you talking.  We need to know
when your message is really your own and not your attorney's.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Version Numbers 52.0 or 52.6.0 in user agent

2018-01-25 Thread Daniel 

David E. Ross wrote:

On 1/25/2018 8:32 AM, WaltS48 wrote:

On 1/25/18 10:56 AM, David E. Ross wrote:

On 1/25/2018 3:44 AM, Daniel wrote:

David E. Ross wrote:

On 1/24/2018 7:51 PM, Daniel wrote:

Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:

2.49.1 is based on ESR 52.4
2.49.2 should (hopefully) arrive in the next 2-3 weeks and will be based
on 52.6

Firefox does not show minor version numbers in its UA string.

52.5.3 ESR:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/52.0

2.49.2 x 64 local build:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/52.0 SeaMonkey/2.49.2

As you can see almost identical but as usual google and others will do
incorrect user agent sniffing.

FRG

That's interesting!! Being a long term SM user, it has always intrigued
me why the Gecko number has not been updated in yonks (20100101)... but
now I see that probably stems from FF, which also doesn't seem to update
its Gecko release date!!

Presumably the Gecko engine *HAS* actually been updated!! ;-P


Not updating the version date for Gecko in the user agent string is part
of Mozilla's plan to obscure user characteristics.  Web servers sniffing
user data supposedly find it harder to track individual users.  See bug
#1329996 at .

I prefer relying on the Secret Agent extension from
.


Then one would have to wonder what use it is to have the Gecko version
with-in the User-Agent string at all!! ;-(


Some Web servers insist on sniffing the user agent string and expect
some kind of date for Gecko.  Mozilla-based browsers fail to work on
such Web sites unless there is a date field.


An example please.


I do not have an example.  I recall reading in a bug report (now
apparently closed) that omitting the Gecko date was causing problems
with Web servers that sniff the UA.

I seem to recall that some/many sites fail to function for SeaMonkey 
unless the SeaMonkey UA had FF in it ... in some cases *Only FF* in the 
SM UA


So why the mention, now, of some sniffing for Gecko?? Is that Gecko 
*only* or Gecko *as well* now??


--
Daniel

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 
SeaMonkey/2.49.1 Build identifier: 20171016030418


User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 
SeaMonkey/2.49.1 Build identifier: 20171015235623

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Version Numbers 52.0 or 52.6.0 in user agent

2018-01-25 Thread David E. Ross 
On 1/25/2018 8:32 AM, WaltS48 wrote:
> On 1/25/18 10:56 AM, David E. Ross wrote:
>> On 1/25/2018 3:44 AM, Daniel wrote:
>>> David E. Ross wrote:
 On 1/24/2018 7:51 PM, Daniel wrote:
> Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
>> 2.49.1 is based on ESR 52.4
>> 2.49.2 should (hopefully) arrive in the next 2-3 weeks and will be based
>> on 52.6
>>
>> Firefox does not show minor version numbers in its UA string.
>>
>> 52.5.3 ESR:
>> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
>> Firefox/52.0
>>
>> 2.49.2 x 64 local build:
>> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
>> Firefox/52.0 SeaMonkey/2.49.2
>>
>> As you can see almost identical but as usual google and others will do
>> incorrect user agent sniffing.
>>
>> FRG
> That's interesting!! Being a long term SM user, it has always intrigued
> me why the Gecko number has not been updated in yonks (20100101)... but
> now I see that probably stems from FF, which also doesn't seem to update
> its Gecko release date!!
>
> Presumably the Gecko engine *HAS* actually been updated!! ;-P
>
 Not updating the version date for Gecko in the user agent string is part
 of Mozilla's plan to obscure user characteristics.  Web servers sniffing
 user data supposedly find it harder to track individual users.  See bug
 #1329996 at .

 I prefer relying on the Secret Agent extension from
 .

>>> Then one would have to wonder what use it is to have the Gecko version
>>> with-in the User-Agent string at all!! ;-(
>>>
>> Some Web servers insist on sniffing the user agent string and expect
>> some kind of date for Gecko.  Mozilla-based browsers fail to work on
>> such Web sites unless there is a date field.
>>
> 
> An example please.
> 

I do not have an example.  I recall reading in a bug report (now
apparently closed) that omitting the Gecko date was causing problems
with Web servers that sniff the UA.

-- 
David E. Ross


President Trump:  Please stop using Twitter.  We need
to hear your voice and see you talking.  We need to know
when your message is really your own and not your attorney's.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Version Numbers 52.0 or 52.6.0 in user agent

2018-01-25 Thread WaltS48 

On 1/25/18 10:56 AM, David E. Ross wrote:

On 1/25/2018 3:44 AM, Daniel wrote:

David E. Ross wrote:

On 1/24/2018 7:51 PM, Daniel wrote:

Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:

2.49.1 is based on ESR 52.4
2.49.2 should (hopefully) arrive in the next 2-3 weeks and will be based
on 52.6

Firefox does not show minor version numbers in its UA string.

52.5.3 ESR:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/52.0

2.49.2 x 64 local build:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/52.0 SeaMonkey/2.49.2

As you can see almost identical but as usual google and others will do
incorrect user agent sniffing.

FRG

That's interesting!! Being a long term SM user, it has always intrigued
me why the Gecko number has not been updated in yonks (20100101)... but
now I see that probably stems from FF, which also doesn't seem to update
its Gecko release date!!

Presumably the Gecko engine *HAS* actually been updated!! ;-P


Not updating the version date for Gecko in the user agent string is part
of Mozilla's plan to obscure user characteristics.  Web servers sniffing
user data supposedly find it harder to track individual users.  See bug
#1329996 at .

I prefer relying on the Secret Agent extension from
.


Then one would have to wonder what use it is to have the Gecko version
with-in the User-Agent string at all!! ;-(


Some Web servers insist on sniffing the user agent string and expect
some kind of date for Gecko.  Mozilla-based browsers fail to work on
such Web sites unless there is a date field.



An example please.

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Version Numbers 52.0 or 52.6.0 in user agent

2018-01-25 Thread David E. Ross 
On 1/25/2018 3:44 AM, Daniel wrote:
> David E. Ross wrote:
>> On 1/24/2018 7:51 PM, Daniel wrote:
>>> Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
 2.49.1 is based on ESR 52.4
 2.49.2 should (hopefully) arrive in the next 2-3 weeks and will be based
 on 52.6

 Firefox does not show minor version numbers in its UA string.

 52.5.3 ESR:
 Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/52.0

 2.49.2 x 64 local build:
 Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/52.0 SeaMonkey/2.49.2

 As you can see almost identical but as usual google and others will do
 incorrect user agent sniffing.

 FRG
>>>
>>> That's interesting!! Being a long term SM user, it has always intrigued
>>> me why the Gecko number has not been updated in yonks (20100101)... but
>>> now I see that probably stems from FF, which also doesn't seem to update
>>> its Gecko release date!!
>>>
>>> Presumably the Gecko engine *HAS* actually been updated!! ;-P
>>>
>>
>> Not updating the version date for Gecko in the user agent string is part
>> of Mozilla's plan to obscure user characteristics.  Web servers sniffing
>> user data supposedly find it harder to track individual users.  See bug
>> #1329996 at .
>>
>> I prefer relying on the Secret Agent extension from
>> .
>>
> Then one would have to wonder what use it is to have the Gecko version 
> with-in the User-Agent string at all!! ;-(
> 

Some Web servers insist on sniffing the user agent string and expect
some kind of date for Gecko.  Mozilla-based browsers fail to work on
such Web sites unless there is a date field.

-- 
David E. Ross


President Trump:  Please stop using Twitter.  We need
to hear your voice and see you talking.  We need to know
when your message is really your own and not your attorney's.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Expired certificates in the Builtin Object Token

2018-01-25 Thread Andrey ``Bass'' Shcheglov 
Thanks Lee.

Regards,
Andrey.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Expired certificates in the Builtin Object Token

2018-01-25 Thread Lee 
On 1/25/18, Andrey ``Bass'' Shcheglov  wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I see a number of expired certificates under Builtin Object Token
> (vanilla SeaMonkey 2.46 and 2.49.1, fresh user profile):
>
> https://habrastorage.org/webt/5d/ay/ch/5daychmswvrkawglzjk68bp7vfa.png
>
> If I delete those, they reappear under the "Others" tab:
>
> https://habrastorage.org/webt/xa/2q/is/xa2qisg6arve5xwmc6tmpcmwrqw.png
>
> The certificates are expired (expiration year is 2014, below is an
> example for https://addons.mozilla.org):
>
> https://habrastorage.org/webt/5f/ry/ox/5fryoxyqavfrl6hcibhnsbzjxuw.png
>
> They, naturally, differ from their effective counterparts of the said
> web sites:
>
> https://habrastorage.org/webt/rs/rq/we/rsrqwev0r-wnaujxrpacyf-s0s4.png
>
> What's the need for those?

https://askubuntu.com/questions/497923/fake-usertrust-com-certificates-in-chrome

which links to
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/03/iranian-hackers-obtain-fraudulent-https
  March 23, 2011

  On March 15th, an HTTPS/TLS Certificate Authority (CA) was tricked
into issuing fraudulent certificates that posed a dire risk to
Internet security.


As to why they're marked as expired - maybe to make sure those certs
can't be used even if your clock is off by years?  i dunno...

Regards,
Lee
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Expired certificates in the Builtin Object Token

2018-01-25 Thread Andrey ``Bass'' Shcheglov 
Hello,

I see a number of expired certificates under Builtin Object Token
(vanilla SeaMonkey 2.46 and 2.49.1, fresh user profile):

https://habrastorage.org/webt/5d/ay/ch/5daychmswvrkawglzjk68bp7vfa.png

If I delete those, they reappear under the "Others" tab:

https://habrastorage.org/webt/xa/2q/is/xa2qisg6arve5xwmc6tmpcmwrqw.png

The certificates are expired (expiration year is 2014, below is an
example for https://addons.mozilla.org):

https://habrastorage.org/webt/5f/ry/ox/5fryoxyqavfrl6hcibhnsbzjxuw.png

They, naturally, differ from their effective counterparts of the said
web sites:

https://habrastorage.org/webt/rs/rq/we/rsrqwev0r-wnaujxrpacyf-s0s4.png

What's the need for those?

Regards,
Andrey.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Version Numbers 52.0 or 52.6.0 in user agent

2018-01-25 Thread Daniel 

David E. Ross wrote:

On 1/24/2018 7:51 PM, Daniel wrote:

Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:

2.49.1 is based on ESR 52.4
2.49.2 should (hopefully) arrive in the next 2-3 weeks and will be based
on 52.6

Firefox does not show minor version numbers in its UA string.

52.5.3 ESR:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/52.0

2.49.2 x 64 local build:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/52.0 SeaMonkey/2.49.2

As you can see almost identical but as usual google and others will do
incorrect user agent sniffing.

FRG


That's interesting!! Being a long term SM user, it has always intrigued
me why the Gecko number has not been updated in yonks (20100101)... but
now I see that probably stems from FF, which also doesn't seem to update
its Gecko release date!!

Presumably the Gecko engine *HAS* actually been updated!! ;-P



Not updating the version date for Gecko in the user agent string is part
of Mozilla's plan to obscure user characteristics.  Web servers sniffing
user data supposedly find it harder to track individual users.  See bug
#1329996 at .

I prefer relying on the Secret Agent extension from
.

Then one would have to wonder what use it is to have the Gecko version 
with-in the User-Agent string at all!! ;-(


--
Daniel

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 
SeaMonkey/2.49.1 Build identifier: 20171016030418


User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 
SeaMonkey/2.49.1 Build identifier: 20171015235623

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey