this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2024
453 points (98.3% liked)

Programmer Humor

19623 readers
411 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

alt textCaption

Web dev: What browser is visiting the page?

User agent string:

A screenshot of a browser. The URL bar reads firefox://settings, a button on the URL bar is labelled Netscape, a popup from the button reads: "You're viewing a secure Opera page", and the web page title reads "Chrome settings".

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] apprehentice@lemmy.enchanted.social 130 points 2 months ago (8 children)

Functionally useless. With the web standardized, we shouldn't need user agents anyway. It would be more beneficial to ask "do you support X, Y, and Z?"

[–] Maestro@fedia.io 39 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's called feature detection and it goes a long way back, even before Modernizr popularized it.

[–] GammaGames@beehaw.org 7 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Popularized? That gets less than 100k downloads a week

[–] dan@upvote.au 14 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Most developers just write their own feature checks (a lot of detections are just a single line of code) or use a library that polyfills the feature if it's missing.

The person you're replying to is right, though. Modernizr popularized this approach. It predates npm, and npm still isn't their main distribution method, so the npm download numbers don't mean anything.

[–] GammaGames@beehaw.org 3 points 2 months ago

Neat, thanks for clarifying! I’ve never heard of it

It used to be huge.

[–] dan@upvote.au 23 points 2 months ago

That's exactly what you're supposed to do with the modern web, via feature detection and client hints.

The user agent in Chrome (and I think Firefox too) is "frozen" now, meaning it no longer receives any major updates.

[–] elrik@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago (1 children)

User agents are useful for checking if the request was made by a (legitimate self-identifying) bot, such as Googlebot.

It could also be used in some specific scenarios where you control the client and want to easily identify your client traffic in request logs.

Or maybe you offer a download on your site and you want to reorder your list to highlight the most likely correct binary for the platform in the user agent.

There are plenty of reasonable uses for user agent that have nothing to do with feature detection.

[–] DudeDudenson@lemmings.world 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Aren't user agents just a plain text header? Couldn't a malicious agent just spoof a legitimate one?

[–] elrik@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

That's correct, it is just plain text and it can easily be spoofed. You should never perform an auth check of any kind with the user agent.

In the above examples, it wouldn't really matter if someone spoofed the header as there generally isn't a benefit to the malicious agent.

Where some sites get into trouble though is if they have an implicit auth check using user agents. An example could be a paywalled recipe site. They want the recipe to be indexed by Google. If I spoof my user agent to be Googlebot, I'll get to view the recipe content they want indexed, bypassing the paywall.

But, an example of a more reasonable use for checking user agent strings for bots might be regional redirects. If a new user comes to my site, maybe I want to redirect to a localized version at a different URL based on their country. However, I probably don't want to do that if the agent is a bot, since the bot might be indexing a given URL from anywhere. If someone spoofed their user agent and they aren't redirected, no big deal.

[–] Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works 16 points 2 months ago (6 children)

Youtube currently (for weeks now) does not work on Firefox, if you don't use a Firefox user agent. Google doing sketchy things again.

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 33 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I’ve not run into this issue and use Firefox exclusively with ublock origin

[–] Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I use Charmeleon, with the effects described above.

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

So you don't use Firefox, you mess with Firefox. That's on you then. Devs can't be held responsible for you intentionally breaking things. Only do what you know works.

[–] tyler@programming.dev 18 points 2 months ago

YouTube works fine on Firefox…

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What works? YT on Firefox or YT on Firefox when the user agent is changed?

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

Both. I use YT on Firefox constantly, and I just explicitly tried again with a swapped user agent, and there's no issues at all, works perfectly as expected. I saw from your other reply that you use a fairly involved and heavily modifying expansion, not just a user agent switcher.

If you try to "harden" your FF, always keep in mind that a large portion of that means absolutely breaking things left and right and center. It might work, but always expect it will not. Because it's just not something anybody would ever test for when creating web pages. So you're running essentially unknown scenarios. It might be interesting input to the extension-author that this breaks, though. It might be something they think they got working. Of course, it could also be that it's "Yeah that happens, it's intentional". But might as well report it to them.

[–] RustyNova@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Uh... I use librewolf that force a chrome + windows user agent and its totally fine?

[–] Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago

Then charmeleon must change more than just the user agent

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

? I just tested and it worked fine.

[–] Boomkop3@reddthat.com 1 points 1 month ago

again? Did they stop anytime recently?

[–] Xanthrax@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Web UI for touch screens is a lot different than keyboard and mouse. I still switch to desktop most of the time because the mobile site will lack critical info, though. They "have" to streamline the experience for mobile, but I hate it when they fully remove features.

[–] PenisDuckCuck9001@lemmynsfw.com 11 points 2 months ago

You have to use user agents to fool scummy websites into thinking that you're using chrome or edge.

[–] sacbuntchris@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago

Lazy web developers or clueless managers have entered the chat

[–] bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I know Safari 15.3 doesn’t support feature Y, but I also know the current version does. Now I want to know if I can just use the feature or if I need to program around Safari 15.3. It would be nice to just look at the server logs from last month and see if someone still uses it.