this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2024
450 points (87.9% liked)

linuxmemes

19661 readers
1150 users here now

I use Arch btw


Sister communities:

Community rules

  1. Follow the site-wide rules and code of conduct
  2. Be civil
  3. Post Linux-related content
  4. No recent reposts

Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Firefox on Debian stable is so old that websites yell at you to upgrade to a newer browser. And last time I tried installing Debian testing (or was it debian unstable?), the installer shat itself trying to make the bootloader. After I got it to boot, apt refused to work because of a missing symlink to busybox. Why on earth do they even need busybox if the base install already comes with full gnu coreutils? I remember Debian as the distro that Just Wroks(TM), when did it all go so wrong? Is anyone else here having similar issues, or am I doing something wrong?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 59 points 4 days ago (6 children)

My bank used to complain that my browser was out of date. I wrote an email to customer service explaining to them that:

A) debian's "out of date" browser actually includes all up to date security patches. B) simply reading the browser agent isnt really security. I had simply been spoofing my browser agent to get around their silly browser "security" policy

They removed the browser check 2 weeks later. Not sure if it was because of me

[–] efstajas 21 points 4 days ago (1 children)

simply reading the browser agent isnt really security

It's not for their security, but for that of genuinely clueless people that are just running an actually outdated browser that might have known and exploitable security flaws.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 days ago (2 children)

It is not about security at all. They do not want to test or support old browsers. So, they set a minimum version and tell you that you need to upgrade to that.

If they only support one browser, it is going to be Chrome. Chrome has more zero-day vulnerabilities than any other project I can think of. It is not about security.

[–] efstajas 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

How do you know this? Of course there are lots of reasons for why they'd want to enforce minimum browser versions. But security might very well be one of them. Especially if you're a bank you probably feel bad about sending session tokens to a browser that potentially has known security vulnerabilities.

And sure, the user agent isn't a sure way to tell whether a browser is outdated, but in 95% of cases it's good enough, and people that know enough to understand the block shouldn't apply to them can bypass it easily anyway.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Yeah if it were about security they'd check the version of HTTPS, SSL, TLS and all that stuff.

[–] efstajas 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Doing that would tell you nothing about whether the browser might have un-patched, known vulnerabilities elsewhere.

load more comments (4 replies)