User-Agent: Waterfox

[iffin2l]

I'd like to know if it's possible to remove Waterfox after Firefox agent to avoid identification
Most people don't use Waterfox. I believe it's safer to leave as if it was default Mozilla Firefox

[WagnerGMD]

According to this reddit topic, there is also another trouble (related to the user-agent).
Because (I had check again today and) it's seem to be true, CloudFlare block the browser.

[iffin2l]

I believe it would be both safer and better to change from 'Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:54.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/54.0.0.1 Waterfox/54.0.0.1' to Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:55.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/55.0(Firefox/current release)

[MrAlex94]

@iffin2l, do you mean Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:55.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/55.0 (Waterfox/current release) ?

[iffin2l]

@MrAlex94 Hi Alex, I thought it could be a good thing to let as if it is a default Firefox. Like this Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:55.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/55.0
Or.. perhaps having two options, the one with the agent Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:55.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/55.0 Waterfox/55.0 and the other one without the Watefox(current release). This is strictly my privacy concern only. Nothing that would break any website I believe
Thank you

[WagnerGMD]

Just to inform. Right now, I'm able to access to pricehipster.com. So I will suppose the trouble with CloudFlare might be gone.

[juneyourtech]

The User Agent Switcher add-on solves many of the issues I have, though I don't use Waterfox.

Firefox for Android has an about:config option to change user agents, like this:

general.useragent.override.domainname.tld (UA string, supports subdomains, too)
general.useragent.site_specific_overrides (true/false)

These two do not work in desktop versions of Firefox.

For most sites, I'm okay with using the defalt user agent — be it IceCat or Waterfox — just so, that sites would recognise, that an alternative browser is in use. But some sites do require either Firefox or a certain version of it.

[ghost]

It is possible to override the User Agent on Waterfox 52.0.2 at least, which I am using.

WF already has general.useragent.override.chase.com and general.useragent.override.discordapp.com
set to the browser's User Agent with Waterfox[VERSION] removed.

All we have to do is modify (create if editing the about:config) a hidden setting called general.useragent.override and give it the same value as that of general.useragent.override.chase.com (to make it easy and faultless).

For instance at this time I have:
general.useragent.override.chase.com = Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:55.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/55.0

I create/modify my general.useragent.override and set it to above.

If I then check my User Agent on a site such as https://whoer.net/ I'll notice:

Browser
Headers:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:55.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/55.0.2
JavaScript:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:55.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/55.0.2

No Waterfox 55.0.2 mentioned.

A bit cumbersome maybe, and requires modifying the value when Waterfox is updated, but it works.

Personally I admit a conflict between the privacy advantage of having Waterfox removed from the UA and the pleasure of knowing that I am identified as a Waterfox fan.

[juneyourtech]

@mazesy IMHO, since Waterfox is going to keep on supporting XUL, then eventually, it could be meaningful to use a unique user-agent string. And indeed, I have the same feelings wrt the UA string when using GNU IceCat in Android, though for some sites, I must still identify it as Firefox.

[juneyourtech]

Site-specific user-agent strings are possible on desktop Firefox and derivatives, after all, since I now finally got the right extension combination:

UAControl + User-Agent JS Fixer

Works like a charm.
But both have to be installed, or it won't work.

Note also, that it's not just the main domain, but some of the additional domains hosting scripts, too. Especially with Skype for Web.

To find out, which domains a site requires for functioning, use the User Agent Switcher for global UA switching with the default Firefox UA, and NoScript. That should show the list of script-hosting domains, but not all domains are required to be added with most sites, as many are simply domains used for ads and tracking.

The usual combo is www.site.tld and cdn.site.tld, but typically not apis.hugeservice.tld, and certainly not ads.adnetwork.tld

This extension combination should make it possible to use the Waterfox user agent string for most sites, and the Firefox (or other) UA string for sites that specifically require that.

[WagnerGMD]

From my point of view, it's clear one real bad stupid design. Then at first I would say to try to contact these websites... But if you're very patient and very brave because the path might be very long and very hard.

About Dailymotion, sorry but you're sure this link is good ? Because right now, no it doesn't seem to work.
http://www.dailymotion.com/embed/video/xpuyk6
At the contrary, now (with the right adress) it's seem to work fine. I had try anothers videos and it's all right (for the both browsers : Firefox and Waterfox). In the last months, I haven't met any trouble (but I watch on occasion). So I will conclude this trouble doesn't concern Dailymotion.

[grahamperrin]

Dailymotion

With a default string for Waterfox 56.0 on FreeBSD-CURRENT –

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:56.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/56.0 Waterfox/56.0

– and with Adobe Flash Player https://www.freshports.org/www/flashplayer installed, both of the following appear to require activation of Adobe Flash:

• https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xpuyk6
• http://www.dailymotion.com/embed/video/xpuyk6

With a terser string for https://www.dailymotion.com/, neither page requires Flash:

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:56.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/56.0

Maybe relevant:

• https://github.com/dailymotion/uas-parser

---

At least one other service requires a custom string. I treat these issues as service-specific, not an issue with Waterfox.

My preferred extension for site-specific and domain-specific strings:

• Custom UserAgent String also known as Custom User-Agent (Revived)

[grahamperrin]

https://twitter.com/grahamperrin/status/937553230996885504 addresses a suggestion to Dailymotion …

[WagnerGMD]

@007SecretUserAgent The trouble is probably related to the OS, no ? Clarify or remind because I didn't find it.
Because I'm under W10 and no I didn't think about on the moment.

[Squall-Leonhart]

https://www.beamdog.com refuses secure connection with the waterfox user agent on windows, but works on Mac.

[grahamperrin]

https://www.beamdog.com …

Cross reference https://www.reddit.com/r/waterfox/comments/7ov4a3/waterfox_5602_is_now_available_with_important/dscylhe/

… the waterfox user agent on windows, …

For 56.0.2, what's the string? You can get it at https://udger.com/resources/online-parser

[Squall-Leonhart]

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:56.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/56.0.2 Waterfox/56.0.2

If i change it to use one of the linux or OSX user agents, or remove Firefox/56.0.2 or Waterfox/56.0.2 (keeping the other) it works.

The Get request is literally blocked in network console.

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; Win64; x64; rv:56.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/56.0.2 works
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; Win64; x64; rv:56.0) Gecko/20100101 Waterfox/56.0.2 works

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; Win64; x64; rv:56.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/56.0.2 Waterfox/56.0.2 does not work.
These tests were performed in a 8.1 vm, hence the nt build number.

https://www.codedog.pl/ mentioned in #360 has the same facilitating cause.

[grahamperrin]

https://www.beamdog.com/ today:

• does not work with
  Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:56.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/56.0.2 Waterfox/56.0.4
• does work with
  Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:56.0) Gecko/20100101 Waterfox/56.0.4
• does work with my default,
  Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:56.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/56.0.4 Waterfox/56.0.4

I guess that it's reasonable for a secure server to:

• refuse communication with Firefox 56.0.2, which does exist and is known to not have fixes for some known vulnerabilities
• ignore the pretence of Firefox 56.0.4, which does not exist.

[WagnerGMD]

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=useragent
Then yes there is another way. I believe it could be more useful (or easier) for the people which use DDG.

PS : No don't worry @grahamperrin because it's just a little suggestion. Then as you wish but after a little moment (a few weeks), I still believe it might improve a little the previous post (more complete and more choice for the people).

[grahamperrin]

… Skype for Web …

@juneyourtech big thanks for that hint. It probably explains a report that I received, a few days ago, of Waterfox not working for Skype at one of the (Windows) computers in our building.

Debatably the type of thing that should be documented in the Waterfox ESR context, as (with Mozilla) ESR is associated with enterprise use.

[grahamperrin]

Review time. Focusing, with added emphasis:

User-Agent: Waterfox

… remove Waterfox after Firefox agent …

I'm not aware of any significant issue arising from that change.

Should we maybe close this issue?

For subjects other than the UA, I'm almost certain that we have discussions elsewhere in GitHub and/or Reddit.

TIA

[RealRaven2000]

browser-update.org just flagged waterfox as "not compatible" for access to my medical card information site, is there anything we can do to signal Waterfox 56.2 is up to date?
I raised browser-update/browser-update#397 with them.
My UA: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:56.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/56.0
I suggest adding Waterfox to the UA as well

[RealRaven2000]

browser-update.org just flagged waterfox as "not compatible" for access to my medical card information site, is there anything we can do to signal Waterfox 56.2 is up to date?
I raised browser-update/browser-update#397 with them.

My [unmodified] UA: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:56.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/56.0

I suggest additionally appending Waterfox to the UA as well so that website can detect it.

[grahamperrin]

@josselex @MrAlex94 just FYI in lieu of my current default,

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:56.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/56.0

– I'll experiment with this:

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:56.2.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/56.2.0

(Truly there'll never be a Firefox 56.2.0.)

---

Note to self: #thinkbubbles #FreeBSD half-expect problems with the web interface to AMO, but that's not a reason to refrain from the experiment. Postscript, 2018-05-31: the recent fix of https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226919 eases things for me.

[grahamperrin]

From @RealRaven2000:

… Should we fake our UA and just lie about the version number to stay in sync with the real Firefox?

Whilst Waterfox does so – in a way that describes itself as recognisably outdated – the consequences will include some services finding issues with the browser.

---

Outdated Firefox 56 aside, for a moment: from a different angle, 57-oriented 22dcd9a (2018-03-24) caused was in the midst of a different set of issues. And so on …

… there's not an absolute answer, no panacea, for the (naturally) unusual Waterfox situation at this time.

[grahamperrin]

Browser-Update.org

For reference

browser-update/browser-update issue 397 is closed, with this comment:

---

Hi,

I now whitelisted Waterfox by looking for "Firefox 56.2" in the user agent string. A few notes from me:

• Please add a an explicit name of the browser to the user agent string. You can keep the Firefox part but add your own string. This makes it easier to detect the browser. And this is how hundreds of other browsers forked from chrome or firefox or webkit do it. Only then you may even think to "lie" about the firefox version. You will be backwards compatible by default but it will make it possible for services as this to whitelist the browser. I think blacklisting will not occure that often!
• I cannnot recommend Waterfox for users if it will be stuck at the base of firefox 56 forever since sites may require newer technologies. The question is if it will get the features of newer firefox versions. Let's see.

Please move the discussion (to) the Waterfox github page.

---

Special thanks:

• to @RealRaven2000, for taking the initiative in this case
• to the developers and providers of the Browser-Update.org service, for considerate action and observations.

[RealRaven2000]

thanks to browser-update on their action. I agree adding Waterfox to the UA string would be helpful for all sorts of reasons - somebody raised the issue of Fingerprinting, but I am not sure whether simply stating the browser name is such a big problem in this context. Surely the first thing to address would be cookies & IP addresses.

[grahamperrin]

Recently I'm experimenting with this string, which I call 'EXPERIMENT A-01':

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:56.2) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/56.2

– not Waterfox-specific.

Discord

Tonight I briefly used this (EXPERIMENT A-02) solely for a test of Discord:

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:56.2) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/56.2 Waterfox/56.2

Result:

• Unmute is impossible – "UNSUPPORTED BROWSER"
• Undeafen is similarly impossible

– consistent with the earlier report from @bn4t.

Discord finds difficulty with a user agent string that is Waterfox-specific.

Reverting to EXPERIMENT A-01 allows audio to be used, but this is a blunt approach.

Sites that require, or benefit from exceptions

Extensions such as Custom UserAgent String (see #178 (comment)) can be used.

[Squall-Leonhart]

the problem is that we had this previously and it broke secure sessions on some pages

[grahamperrin]

From post-closure discussion in the Browser-Update.org area:

… pretend to be version 60?

This would still be better tan "Firefox 56.2" I suppose, and would actually fix the "outdated" messages.

The pretence of Firefox 60 with Waterfox 56.2.0 can be troublesome for people who might install things whilst seeking or browsing extensions at Add-ons for Firefox – https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/ (AMO).

Fingerprint resistance – privacy.resistFingerprinting

about:config?filter=privacy.resistFingerprinting

If privacy.resistFingerprinting is true with Waterfox 56.2.0 then a pretence of Firefox 60 will not apply; during normal browsing, AMO will behave as if Waterfox is Firefox ESR 52.0. And so on …

privacy.resistFingerprinting.block_mozAddonManager

If privacy.resistFingerprinting.block_mozAddonManager is present for you (boolean, false or true) then you might find interest in:

• uplift "privacy.resistFingerprinting.block_mozAddonManager" feature · Issue #441 … (closed)
• privacy.resistFingerprinting.block_mozAddonManager by laniakea64 · Pull Request #449 … (fixed uplift "privacy.resistFingerprinting.block_mozAddonManager" feature #441)
• and possibly Waterfox 56.1.x to be treated as if it's … 57 for add-on services e.g. AMO · Issue #484 … NB Waterfox 56.1.x to be treated as if it's … 57 for add-on services e.g. AMO #484 (comment)

[grahamperrin]

@Squall-Leonhart I do recall that (yes) … possibly overlapping, at times with a separate issue. Some interpretation challenges IIRC. Details maybe in one of the earlier posts? TBH I'll probably not sift through. (Clearing my head now after a busy week at home.)

[WagnerGMD]

Somewhere (probably on another topics), remember this fact : I had try @grahamperrin to warn you about this trouble.

lockPref("privacy.resistFingerprinting",true);
## It's must remain enable to avoid this trouble.
## Otherwise it will block the installation (a lot of addons).

Because that's true it could be one real trouble on AMO (which use (or rely on) the useragent) specially if you want to install any addons.

PS : Because I haven't see this warning everywhere but only sometimes (on AMO).

[josselex]

What is the current user agent string of firefox now? I want to white-list it for browser-update.org but i can't!
What about the idea to call it 52.0.2 and so on?
I need anything to identify it.

[grahamperrin]

@josselex thanks for asking.

For now:

• the string for Waterfox 56.2.2 is (as before) indistinguishable from the string for outdated Firefox 56.0.

Looking ahead:

• Waterfox Quantum? #267 (comment) there's a quote about Waterfox 60 (with Firefox ESR 60 as its basis).

---

about:config?filter=general.useragent.override

For the past few weeks, around 99% of my browsing has been with this override:

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:56.2) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/56.2 Waterfox/56.2

• problematic in only one area, addons.mozilla.org.

For AMO, I'll add something to open issue #484.

[grahamperrin]

8e978a6

Postscript

… WF already has general.useragent.override.chase.com and general.useragent.override.discordapp.com

NB those overrides were removed by the commit for Waterfox 56.2.3.

Probably related:

• Problem w/ signing in at Chase.com : waterfox

[eleius]

I wanted to remove "waterfox" from the user agent to reduce fingerprinting, so I thought I could use general.useragent.override but I'm worried this could break addon compatibility checks (there's a general.useragent.override.addons.mozilla.org already, not sure if it take precedence overe the other setting?)

[grahamperrin]

general.useragent.override can be set (or reset); general.useragent.override.addons.mozilla.org, if present, will remain effective.

[grahamperrin]

Cross references:

• User Agent : waterfox (2018-09-07)
• User agent (UA) string overrides: discussion : waterfox (2019-09-21)