Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.software.firefox > #12729 > unrolled thread

CloudFlare is blocking smaller browsers

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.software.firefox

Contents

  CloudFlare is blocking smaller browsers Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> - 2025-03-16 05:47 -0700
    Re: CloudFlare is blocking smaller browsers "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-03-16 15:14 +0100
    Re: CloudFlare is blocking smaller browsers John McCue <jmccue@qball.jmcunx.com> - 2025-03-16 14:24 +0000
    Re: CloudFlare is blocking smaller browsers D <noreply@mixmin.net> - 2025-03-16 14:32 +0000
    Re: CloudFlare is blocking smaller browsers Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-03-16 11:36 -0400
      Re: CloudFlare is blocking smaller browsers ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2025-03-17 01:19 +0000
        Re: CloudFlare is blocking smaller browsers Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-03-17 19:22 +1100
          Re: CloudFlare is blocking smaller browsers "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-03-17 10:55 +0100
            Re: CloudFlare is blocking smaller browsers "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-03-17 13:19 +0100
              Re: CloudFlare is blocking smaller browsers Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-03-17 12:43 +0000
              Re: CloudFlare is blocking smaller browsers "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-03-17 14:27 +0100
                Re: CloudFlare is blocking smaller browsers "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-03-17 20:04 +0100
                  Re: CloudFlare is blocking smaller browsers "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-03-17 20:59 +0100
                    Re: CloudFlare is blocking smaller browsers "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-03-17 21:20 +0100
                      Re: CloudFlare is blocking smaller browsers "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-03-18 07:40 +0100
                        Re: CloudFlare is blocking smaller browsers Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-03-18 08:39 -0400
                          Re: CloudFlare is blocking smaller browsers "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-03-18 15:43 +0100
                            Re: CloudFlare is blocking smaller browsers Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-03-18 15:29 -0400
                              Re: CloudFlare is blocking smaller browsers "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-03-18 21:12 +0100
                                Re: CloudFlare is blocking smaller browsers Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-03-18 18:52 -0400
                                  Re: CloudFlare is blocking smaller browsers "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-03-19 08:28 +0100
                                Re: CloudFlare is blocking smaller browsers Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2025-03-19 01:30 -0500
                                  Re: CloudFlare is blocking smaller browsers "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-03-19 08:08 +0100
                                    Re: CloudFlare is blocking smaller browsers Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2025-03-19 02:49 -0500
                                    Re: CloudFlare is blocking smaller browsers Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-03-19 08:39 -0400
                                      Re: CloudFlare is blocking smaller browsers "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-03-19 14:20 +0100
                    Re: CloudFlare is blocking smaller browsers News <news@triffid.co.uk> - 2025-03-18 07:30 +0000
                      Re: CloudFlare is blocking smaller browsers "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-03-18 09:10 +0100
            Re: CloudFlare is blocking smaller browsers Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-03-18 00:10 +1100
              Re: CloudFlare is blocking smaller browsers "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-03-17 14:32 +0100
                Re: CloudFlare is blocking smaller browsers R Daneel Olivaw <Danni@hyperspace.vogon.gov> - 2025-03-17 15:37 +0100
              Re: CloudFlare is blocking smaller browsers "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-03-17 21:22 +0100
            Re: CloudFlare is blocking smaller browsers micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-03-25 01:57 -0400
              Re: CloudFlare is blocking smaller browsers "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-03-25 20:25 +0100
                Re: CloudFlare is blocking smaller browsers micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-03-25 20:35 -0400
        Re: CloudFlare is blocking smaller browsers R Daneel Olivaw <Danni@hyperspace.vogon.gov> - 2025-03-17 13:02 +0100
          No RCEs to see here [was: Re: CloudFlare is blocking smaller browsers] Dirk Fieldhouse <surname@gmx.net.plusremovethisandtherest.example.com> - 2025-03-17 13:50 +0000
            Re: No RCEs to see here [was: Re: CloudFlare is blocking smaller browsers] ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2025-03-17 18:24 +0000
          Re: CloudFlare is blocking smaller browsers Chris Elvidge <chris@internal.net> - 2025-03-17 22:09 +0000
    Re: CloudFlare is blocking smaller browsers VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-03-16 12:26 -0500
    Re: CloudFlare is blocking smaller browsers not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-03-17 08:12 +1000
    Re: CloudFlare is blocking smaller browsers User One <noreply@invalid.com> - 2025-03-16 22:37 +0000
      Re: CloudFlare is blocking smaller browsers "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-03-17 21:18 +0100
    Re: CloudFlare is blocking smaller browsers ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2025-03-17 01:18 +0000
      Re: CloudFlare is blocking smaller browsers Dirk Fieldhouse <surname@gmx.net.plusremovethisandtherest.example.com> - 2025-03-17 14:05 +0000
    Re: CloudFlare is blocking smaller browsers "David E. Ross" <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2025-03-17 13:45 -0700

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#12729 — CloudFlare is blocking smaller browsers

REF: https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=65&t=32127#p260689

Pale Moon is one of those, and, possibly so are SeaMonkey, Waterfox, and 
LibreWolf.

-- 
Sailfish
CDC Covid19 Trends: https://www.facebook.com/groups/624208354841034
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#12733

Sailfish,

> Pale Moon is one of those, and, possibly so are SeaMonkey, Waterfox, and 
> LibreWolf.

https://slashdot.org/story/25/03/15/236215/cloudflare-accused-of-blocking-niche-browsers

And yes, the three you named are in mentioned in their (non-exhaustive) 
list.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12734

Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@nixcapsunforgettable.com> wrote:
> REF: https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=65&t=32127#p260689
> 
> Pale Moon is one of those, and, possibly so are SeaMonkey,
> Waterfox, and  LibreWolf.

I wish I could be surprised by this, I am sure the day will
come where only Chrome and Edge will be the approved browsers
for everyone.  All other browsers will be blocked from almost
all interesting sites.

That means, Chrome and Edge will be mandated by the US Gov.
to include spyware and ensure we are only allowed to go to
government approved sites.  The Sites will need to be
inspected yearly by a new agency to ensure "correctness".

-- 
[t]csh(1) - "An elegant shell, for a more... civilized age."
                        - Paraphrasing Star Wars

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12735

On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 05:47:48 -0700, Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:
>REF: https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=65&t=32127#p260689
>Pale Moon is one of those, and, possibly so are SeaMonkey, Waterfox, and 
>LibreWolf.

(using Tor Browser 14.0.7 w/o, then w/ bridges, and webtunnel)
https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=65&t=32127#p260689
>403 Forbidden
>nginx
[end quoted plain text]

'much as i've always liked and sometimes use palemoon for certain urls,
any site that won't open tor browser where users are complaining about
"cloudflare" blocking palemoon's browser is hypocritical and unhelpful

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12739

On 3/16/2025 8:47 AM, Sailfish wrote:
> REF: https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=65&t=32127#p260689
> 
> Pale Moon is one of those, and, possibly so are SeaMonkey, Waterfox, and 
> LibreWolf.
> 

    I saw that at Slashdot. The speculation seems to be
that they may be trying to block bots, based on an assumption
that "real people use only the latest version of a standard
browser". Do we need to go back to the days of spoofing
userAgents?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12746

Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> On 3/16/2025 8:47 AM, Sailfish wrote:
> > REF: https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=65&t=32127#p260689
> > 
> > Pale Moon is one of those, and, possibly so are SeaMonkey, Waterfox, and 
> > LibreWolf.
> > 

>    I saw that at Slashdot. The speculation seems to be
> that they may be trying to block bots, based on an assumption
> that "real people use only the latest version of a standard
> browser". Do we need to go back to the days of spoofing
> userAgents?

I already spoof with user agents on some web sites in SeaMonkey. :(
-- 
"You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." --Galatians 3:26-27. St. Patrick's Day eve 2 B green & kick sneks out!
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
  /\___/\   Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
 / /\ /\ \                      Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o   o| |
   \ _ /
    ( )

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12752

On 17/03/2025 12:19 pm, Ant wrote:
> Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>> On 3/16/2025 8:47 AM, Sailfish wrote:
>>> REF: https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=65&t=32127#p260689
>>>
>>> Pale Moon is one of those, and, possibly so are SeaMonkey, Waterfox, and
>>> LibreWolf.
> 
>>     I saw that at Slashdot. The speculation seems to be
>> that they may be trying to block bots, based on an assumption
>> that "real people use only the latest version of a standard
>> browser". Do we need to go back to the days of spoofing
>> userAgents?
> 
> I already spoof with user agents on some web sites in SeaMonkey. :(
> 
(Possibly Stupid Question coming .... ) What's Cloudflare??
-- 
Daniel70

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12753

Daniel,

> (Possibly Stupid Question coming .... ) What's Cloudflare??

Not a stupid question at all (though a quick google might have also given 
you the below link).

Cloudflare is a company which pretty-much acts as a "firewall" for websites.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloudflare

The problem is that they service a *lot* of websites, and when they refuse 
requests from lesser-known browsers its users are cut off of a sizable chunk 
of the internet.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12755

On 2025-03-17 10:55, R.Wieser wrote:
> Daniel,
> 
>> (Possibly Stupid Question coming .... ) What's Cloudflare??
> 
> Not a stupid question at all (though a quick google might have also given
> you the below link).
> 
> Cloudflare is a company which pretty-much acts as a "firewall" for websites.

Don't they do caching?


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12756

Carlos E.R. wrote:

> R.Wieser wrote:
>
>> Cloudflare is a company which pretty-much acts as a "firewall" for 
>> websites.
> 
> Don't they do caching
I suppose they do several things

DDoS protection
CDN (you can think of that as geo-dispersed caching)
DNS

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12758

Carlos,

> Don't they do caching?

Yes (I seem to remember that they started as that), but it seems to depend 
on the website.

I've had error pages telling me that my connection to them was OK, but that 
they could not reach the website itself, so the connection in its whole 
failed.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12766

On 2025-03-17 14:27, R.Wieser wrote:
> Carlos,
> 
>> Don't they do caching?
> 
> Yes (I seem to remember that they started as that), but it seems to depend
> on the website.

I suppose the website has to pay for this service.

> 
> I've had error pages telling me that my connection to them was OK, but that
> they could not reach the website itself, so the connection in its whole
> failed.

Me too.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12767

Carlos,

>> Yes (I seem to remember that they started as that), but it seems to 
>> depend on the website.
>
> I suppose the website has to pay for this service.

Absolutily., CloudFlare is a company, not some altruistic billionare. :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12770

On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 20:59:17 +0100, R.Wieser wrote:

> Absolutily., CloudFlare is a company, not some altruistic billionare. :-)

Does this also mean the user is the product of their 'free' DNS service?
From what I've read they seem to respect privacy. (?)

-- 
s|b

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12775

s|b,

> Does this also mean the user is the product of their 'free' DNS service?

I have no idea.  I never bothered to check it out.

> From what I've read they seem to respect privacy. (?)

Although they are in *the* prime position to track users (they service a 
large number of websites), I can't say I've ever read anything (from 
security researchers or otherwise) about them doing so.  So yes, they do 
seem to do so.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12779

On 3/18/2025 2:40 AM, R.Wieser wrote:

> Although they are in *the* prime position to track users (they service a
> large number of websites), I can't say I've ever read anything (from
> security researchers or otherwise) about them doing so.  So yes, they do
> seem to do so.
> 
    I've had that impression, too. On the other hand, did you know
that much of your traffic goes through Akamai, who announced
some years ago that they were going into the spyware business,
and that you can't block them in HOSTS?

   Microsoft is one of their customers. Any MS webpage might funnel
you through to Akamai to get the actual content, yet you won't see
it without a packet sniffer because it's a kind of pass-through rather
than a referral.

https://www.adexchanger.com/data-exchanges/eating-the-cookie-pixel-free-audience-targeting-now-available-says-akamai-cto-afergan/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12780

Newyana2,

> did you know that much of your traffic goes through Akamai,

Yes, I do.  But unless the webpage itself comes from them too I will always 
be warned about resources coming from elsewhere.

> who announced some years ago that they were going into the spyware 
> business,

I'm living in Europe, which would take that kind of position-abusal very 
seriously.  Also, I can't remember having seen any of the security people 
mention anything about it happening.

> and that you can't block them in HOSTS?

*Ofcourse* you can !  You just won't like being cut off from a large(?) 
number of websites. :-) :-(

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12782

On 3/18/2025 10:43 AM, R.Wieser wrote:

>> and that you can't block them in HOSTS?
> 
> *Ofcourse* you can !  You just won't like being cut off from a large(?)
> number of websites. :-) :-(
> 

Try it. It doesn't work. That's because there's no DNS call.
It's some kind of pass-through, as though it were the
visited server.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12783

Newyana2,

>>> and that you can't block them in HOSTS?
>>
>> *Ofcourse* you can !  You just won't like being cut off from a large(?)
>> number of websites. :-) :-(
>
> Try it. It doesn't work. That's because there's no DNS call.

I would like you to post a link to such a webpage so I can try, as what you 
are telling me does not make any sense to me.

There is *no* situation where a webpage or any of its resources can live on 
Akamai's servers, but no DNS call by my browser to resolve Akamai's domain 
is made.

... other than that Akamai doesn't use a domain name, but a hard-coded IP 
instead.  And thats a trick I've seen last quite a few years ago.

.. or the "pass thru" (both ways) is performed in-and-by the origional 
website - wich would make a joke of any DDOS (or similar) mitigation Akamai 
might offer.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12785

On 3/18/2025 4:12 PM, R.Wieser wrote:
> Newyana2,
> 
>>>> and that you can't block them in HOSTS?
>>>
>>> *Ofcourse* you can !  You just won't like being cut off from a large(?)
>>> number of websites. :-) :-(
>>
>> Try it. It doesn't work. That's because there's no DNS call.
> 
> I would like you to post a link to such a webpage so I can try, as what you
> are telling me does not make any sense to me.
> 
> There is *no* situation where a webpage or any of its resources can live on
> Akamai's servers, but no DNS call by my browser to resolve Akamai's domain
> is made.
> 
> ... other than that Akamai doesn't use a domain name, but a hard-coded IP
> instead.  And thats a trick I've seen last quite a few years ago.
> 
> .. or the "pass thru" (both ways) is performed in-and-by the origional
> website - wich would make a joke of any DDOS (or similar) mitigation Akamai
> might offer.

  I started TCPView and wett to Microsoft.com. I clicked on
Windows 11 or some such. TCPView shows Firefox downloading
from akamaitechnologies.com. *.akamaitechnologies.com is blocked
in my Acrylic HOSTS file. I have all of these blocked:

127.0.0.1 *.akamai.net
127.0.0.1 *.akamaiedge.net
127.0.0.1 *.akamai.com
127.0.0.1 *.akamaitechnologies.com
127.0.0.1 *.static.akamaitechnologies.com

Yet no website is the least bit affected. But if I enter
www.akamaitechnologies.com directly, FF says it's unable
to connect.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.software.firefox

csiph-web