←back to thread

Tell HN: Cloudflare is blocking Pale Moon and other non-mainstream browsers

1343 points Hold-And-Modify | 1 comments | 05 Feb 25 19:08 UTC | HN request time: 0.252s | source

Hello.

Cloudflare's Browser Intergrity Check/Verification/Challenge feature used by many websites, is denying access to users of non-mainstream browsers like Pale Moon.

Users reports began on January 31:

https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=32045

This situation occurs at least once a year, and there is no easy way to contact Cloudflare. Their "Submit feedback" tool yields no results. A Cloudflare Community topic was flagged as "spam" by members of that community and was promptly locked with no real solution, and no official response from Cloudflare:

https://community.cloudflare.com/t/access-denied-to-pale-moo...

Partial list of other browsers that are being denied access:

Falkon, SeaMonkey, IceCat, Basilisk.

Hacker News 2022 post about the same issue, which brought attention and had Cloudflare quickly patching the issue:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31317886

A Cloudflare product manager declared back then: "...we do not want to be in the business of saying one browser is more legitimate than another."

As of now, there is no official response from Cloudflare. Internet access is still denied by their tool.

Show context
arielcostas ◴[05 Feb 25 20:15 UTC] No.42954482[source]▶
A lot of people are failing to conceive the danger that poses to the open web the fact that a lot of traffic runs through/to a few bunch of providers (namely, CloudFlare, AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, and "smaller" ones like Fastly or Akamai) who can take this kind of measures without (many) website owners knowing or giving a crap about.

Google itself tried to push crap like Web Environment Integrity (WEI) so websites could verify "authentic" browsers. We got them to stop it (for now) but there was already code in the Chromium sources. What makes CloudFlare MITMing and blocking/punishing genuine users from visiting websites?

Why are we trusting CloudFlare to be a "good citizen" and not block unfairly/annoy certain people for whatever reason? Or even worse, serve modified content instead of what the actual origin is serving? I mean in the cases where CloudFlare re-encrypts the data, instead of only being a DNS provider. How can we trust that not third party has infiltrated their systems and compromised them? Except "just trust me bro", of course

replies(5): >>42954587 #>>42954636 #>>42954799 #>>42954869 #>>42959969 #
progmetaldev ◴[05 Feb 25 20:47 UTC] No.42954869[source]▶
Maybe it's the customers I deal with, or my own ignorance, but what alternatives are there to a service like Cloudflare? It is very easy to setup, and my clients don't want to pay a lot of money for hosting. With Cloudflare, I can turn on DDoS and bot protection to prevent heavy resource usage, as well as turn on caching to keep resource usage down. I built a plugin for the CMS I use (Umbraco - runs on .NET) to clear the cache for specific pages, or all pages (such as when a change is made to a global element like the header). I am able to run a website on Azure with less than the minimum recommended memory and CPU for Umbraco, due to lots of performance analyzing and enhancements over the years, but also because I have Cloudflare in front of the website.

If there were an alternative that would provide the same benefits at roughly the same cost, I would definitely be willing to take a look, even if it meant I needed to spend some time learning a different way to configure the service from the way I configure Cloudflare.

replies(2): >>42955695 #>>42956106 #
1. ◴[05 Feb 25 21:47 UTC] No.42955695[source]▶