Some banks may have customer support line...Leaving the bank sadly is not an option for me.
Some banks may have customer support line...Leaving the bank sadly is not an option for me.
… For google/youtube my falkon browser is insecure. …
… settings of kde, this is used by things like x11-fm/konqueror or www/falkon. …
… Team on Firefox, …
… Microsoft's Outlook web interface formerly blocked FreeBSD, but does not block it anymore.
Disclaimer: I work at Microsoft, but not on Windows or Edge. I do work in the Exchange/Outlook umbrella, …
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; Win64; x64; rv:89.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/89.0
I've reported some malware and phishing sites to the Domain Registrar with copy to the RIPE abuse and for my surprise they got removed in less than an hour.
In my case those sites was hosted by GoDaddy and they remove them pretty fast.
Thanks Falkon works now. But the following did not worked out for epiphany (web),Opening poster's case
I doubt that there's active screening against FreeBSD. More likely, it wasn't given thought in whatever solutions were chosen by the bank (you can't always blame the bank).
I use Custom UserAgent String.
If you add overrides for sites used by your bank, you might have better luck with strings that are terse, or Windows-specific.
With <https://udger.com/resources/online-parser> returning this, at the time of writing:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:89.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/89.0
– try this override, for example:
Mozilla/5.0 Gecko/20100101 Firefox/89.0
Firefox aside, here are two (old) examples of terse site-specific overrides that worked with Waterfox Classic:
<https://github.com/MrAlex94/Waterfox/issues/978#issue-445841850> was probably the most unusual example of a site that benefited from an override:
- <https://github.com/MrAlex94/Waterfox/issues/985#issuecomment-568163462>
- <https://old.reddit.com/r/waterfox/comments/buqvm2/-/epi7q68/>
- a Linux-specific string failed
- a FreeBSD-specific string succeeded.
gsettings set org.gnome.Epiphany.web:/org/gnome/epiphany/web/ user-agent "Opera/9.80 (X11; BSD 4.4 x86_64) Presto/2.12.388 Version/12.16"
No customer or user should ever have to do that. Any web site that uses that unreliable indicator to determine deliverance is a moron of the highest level. It was a much talked about subject years ago and it was years ago that it was declared that any web site that uses it is a moron of the highest level.
Any fool can use a computer, many do.No customer or user should ever have to do that. Any web site that uses that unreliable indicator to determine deliverance is a moron of the highest level. It was a much talked about subject years ago and it was years ago that it was declared that any web site that uses it is a moron of the highest level.
No customer or user should ever have to do that. … a much talked about subject years ago …
It's typically not the server administrators that build web applications. They get told, "here's something company XYZ built for us, you make that run in our environment". They'll have zero say in this, and are often not even involved in setting the requirements (speaking from my own experience).Not all of these server administrators are morons.
Many, many years ago I had a discussion, I worked for a large banking/insurance company back then, I mentioned that their brand new website didn't work properly with Firefox and they should fix this to support it. Their answer, no it's not a priority, we can see in the logs that 100% of our visitors use Internet Explorer, nobody seems to use Firefox. The website didn't work on Firefox and only worked with IE. How many Firefox users would end up in the logs if the site didn't work for them? It's just another form of survivorship bias.This blanket policy probably affects too few customers to even measure.
Many, many years ago I had a discussion, I worked for a large banking/insurance company back then, I mentioned that their brand new website didn't work properly with Firefox and they should fix this to support it. Their answer, no it's not a priority, we can see in the logs that 100% of our visitors use Internet Explorer, nobody seems to use Firefox. The website didn't work on Firefox and only worked with IE. How many Firefox users would end up in the logs if the site didn't work for them? It's just another form of survivorship bias.
Logic: It's not just for breakfast anymore.I mentioned that their brand new website didn't work properly with Firefox and they should fix this to support it. Their answer, no it's not a priority, we can see in the logs that 100% of our visitors use Internet Explorer, nobody seems to use Firefox.
That's not the point. Or at least not my point. My point is that no intelligent web programmer uses the user agent string to determine the makeup of a web page. That ANY operating system fails to render a web page is a blunder by an incompetent programmer who thinks he knows computers and stuff.I don't think they're going to discover a few years from now that the majority of their users have switched to FreeBSD and they should have planned better.
The error message is something to the effect of "use our app or try a supported os"
Otter-browser can't play youtube videos. Neither epiphany (web)www/otter-browser, www/falkon and x11-fm/konqueror all have a built-in function to change the user agent in order to mimick another browser.
I don't get a sense of incompetence here. Rather it seems like extra work was done to specifically disqualify FreeBSD as an acceptable client. Paranoia maybe, greed maybe, muscle flexing maybe, but probably not incompetence.That's not the point. Or at least not my point. My point is that no intelligent web programmer uses the user agent string to determine the makeup of a web page. That ANY operating system fails to render a web page is a blunder by an incompetent programmer who thinks he knows computers and stuff.
Thanks, which strings did you try?