The author was blocked from accessing a work website due to issues with Cloudflare’s browser integrity checks. Despite having credentials to prove his identity, an attempt to bypass the checks by disabling fingerprinting in Firefox resulted in Cloudflare blocking all access. He could still access the site on Chrome, showing the block was based on his browser configuration. This left the author unable to complete important work tasks and questioning how much control individuals really have over authentication in an increasingly centralized web ecosystem dependent on remote attestation. It highlights the need for transparency and user agency in how identity verification is implemented online.
I feel like this is way overblown. If you tamper with browser headers and user agents, you will be blocked.
If you use incognito mode or TOR, you won’t be blocked, and in fact, cloudflare offers onion routes for your website so the traffic is fully secured.
If it weren’t for cloudflare, I would have to pay three times the server costs and put twice as much time into managing it.
The author explicitly says that they didn’t tamper with headers or user agent. I’m neutral/not knowledgeable on the rest of your comment, but wanted to clarify that point.
The problem is that they’re a monopoly abusing their position to make it impossible to have the basic privacy you should be unconditionally entitled to to browse the internet.
It should be blanket illegal to block/discriminate against traffic based on the browser used in literally all contexts.
The situation is analogous to being at sea – if you don’t respond to calls and signals, you are viewed as a potential threat. Altering user agents doesn’t decrease your visibility; in fact, it has the opposite effect. It amplifies the uniqueness of your digital fingerprint, thereby making you more identifiable.
By default, Firefox uses a single identifier for all users, making it difficult to pinpoint individual users, which aligns with the recommended approach as described above.
This is unconditionally unacceptable behavior and an inexcusable and unforgivable violation of privacy. It is not and cannot under any circumstances be your business what a user does on their own computer while connected to your site. There are no exceptions.
Willfully terminating a connection for anything resembling that in any way should automatically get your domain seized with no path to ever getting it back.
Oh, it’s quite evident that you’ve never had the joy of owning or managing a website. Your perspective is truly enlightening, showcasing your vast experience in the world of cybersecurity.
It’s perfectly possible to understand how the internet works without being a piece of shit who thinks they’re entitled to dictate the software choices of their customers.
Well, that escalated quickly. Thanks for proving my point. Blocked.
Escalated like running arbitrary code on someone else’s computer to decide if they’re allowed to visit your site?
It’s not possible to be an acceptable human being and think that’s OK.