XPSP2 and its slightly updated user agent string

SV1?

J. King — Thu, 02 Sep 2004 21:06:00 GMT

Forgive me, but isn't it much simpler to just bump up the version number? IE's UA string is too long to begin with and already quite filled with less-than-obvious information.

Why the insistance on staying at version 6.0 when IE has obviously had several major enhancements?

re: XPSP2 and its slightly updated user agent string

Barry Dorrans — Thu, 02 Sep 2004 22:26:00 GMT

There is a downside. Now the spyware manufacturers can customise their installers and you end up with screen shots like the one I blogged about at http://idunno.org/displayBlog.aspx/2004082901

re: XPSP2 and its slightly updated user agent string

Rory Parle — Thu, 02 Sep 2004 23:36:00 GMT

Why does IE claim to be Mozilla? Or even Mozilla compatible? There are several major browsers more like Mozilla than IE is.

re: XPSP2 and its slightly updated user agent string

Sears Young — Fri, 03 Sep 2004 01:55:00 GMT

FYI, when you install SP2 on a Windows XP Tablet PC Edition machine the UA string will be updated to include "Tablet PC 1.7", in addition to "SV1".

re: XPSP2 and its slightly updated user agent string

snowknight — Fri, 03 Sep 2004 02:03:00 GMT

Rory
Its a legacy of the browser wars. When IE still had little market share, it, like many other browsers, started copying Netscape's UA which has always started with "Mozilla". This was to prevent it from being locked out of sites. When IE became a major web browser, other browsers began to mimic it.

re: XPSP2 and its slightly updated user agent string

Simon F. P. Murray — Fri, 03 Sep 2004 08:23:00 GMT

Regarding the 'Mozilla' prefix on the string- given that things have now inverted, and we find browsers like Opera putting 'IE' etc. in their default using string... do you suspect 'Mozilla' on IE's user agent string will ever be dropped- perhaps as a sign that IE stands on its own feet now, if nothing else?

re: XPSP2 and its slightly updated user agent string

Milan Negovan — Fri, 03 Sep 2004 14:18:00 GMT

The only good reason (that I can think of) to sniff for "SV1" is to accomodate the unwanted status bar in dialog windows. See http://www.aspnetresources.com/blog/sp2_early_tweak.aspx.

Security Version 1

ad Weblog — Sat, 04 Sep 2004 00:28:00 GMT

With Windows XP Service Pack 2 the web browser user agent string changes for internet explorer to SV1 aka "Security Version 1". Like that´s logical! Hence, what did we have before SP2 - only security version 0 ? [small rant]

re: XPSP2 and its slightly updated user agent string

J. King — Sat, 04 Sep 2004 05:23:00 GMT

I'm not so much worried about the past as much as the future. How does this new identifier age? Under what kind of circumstances will we see SV2? Would a hypothetical MSIE 7.0 still be SV1? Will it not have any SV identifier? Has the SV identifier become the new version number with the "MSIE #.#" substring forever frozen?

Logically, all future versions of IE will have at least the same security measures and likely supperior ones as new vulnerabilities are found and addressed. "SV1" would quickly become meaningless.

re: XPSP2 and its slightly updated user agent string

Adam Hauner — Sat, 04 Sep 2004 21:53:00 GMT

Why is such problem to increase minor version of browser? Everybody in browser business is doing such thing, so Microsoft has to do something different? Will MSIE 7 be in UA string "MSIE 6.0; ... SV1a"?

re: XPSP2 and its slightly updated user agent string

Eric — Sun, 05 Sep 2004 15:30:00 GMT

Security Version 1! Haha! I'm glad after six versions, you've finally decided to add security. :D

re: XPSP2 and its slightly updated user agent string

Greg K Nicholson — Sun, 05 Sep 2004 15:31:00 GMT

What's gonna happen if the Mozilla Foundation start insisting that IE can't claim to be "Mozilla" because it dilutes their brand?

re: XPSP2 and its slightly updated user agent string

mangoduck — Sun, 05 Sep 2004 15:38:00 GMT

I reiterate all above comments. And who's idea was it to add sv1 instead of incrementing the version? I have a nice meringue pie for that gentleman/lady. Just how many separate version numbers do we need?

Where's the bit about "Bacon 2.4.x", eh? It is so useful that I can't live without it!

re: XPSP2 and its slightly updated user agent string

Jonathan — Sun, 05 Sep 2004 18:50:00 GMT

Unfortunately, this also allows web sites that used to use pop-up ads to know that the popups would be blocked, and to serve annoying flash ads instead....

re: XPSP2 and its slightly updated user agent string

bob — Sun, 05 Sep 2004 22:47:00 GMT

IE sux

re: XPSP2 and its slightly updated user agent string

realitybath — Sun, 05 Sep 2004 23:44:00 GMT

thanks! updating firefox user agent switcher ie uas

re: XPSP2 and its slightly updated user agent string

Bruce — Mon, 06 Sep 2004 00:18:00 GMT

Popup blockers are usually detectable because the popup window fails to create. That detection method works cross platform and cross browser, so why bother with user agent string stuff?

re: XPSP2 and its slightly updated user agent string

a fish — Mon, 06 Sep 2004 07:04:00 GMT

IE is only Mozilla *4.0* compatible. *snicker* Anyway, if the Mozilla people were gonna whine about Microsoft using its name in their user agent string, that would've (and maybe did?) come up during Netscape/AOL's court case against them, if not earlier.

"soon you’ll see this token show up on other platforms as we bring our security enhancements to them."

aha! So there *will* be updates to IE for other platforms! Good to know.

re: XPSP2 and its slightly updated user agent string

Soren Werk — Mon, 06 Sep 2004 14:39:00 GMT

We need to sniff for SV1 for the following workaround:

Problem:
When a PDF document *residing in a frame* in IE60 under XPSP2 calls an ASP file with [PDF function] submitForm() nothing displays in the browser window. This seems to be a new bug introduced in XPSP2. Anyone have an explanation?

Workaround:
We normally want the PDF document in the frame but are willing to (have to!) place it outside all frames when we detect XPSP2 - by sniffing SV1.

re: XPSP2 and its slightly updated user agent string

Turnip — Mon, 06 Sep 2004 19:00:00 GMT

http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20040811 - lol

re: XPSP2 and its slightly updated user agent string

J. King — Tue, 07 Sep 2004 02:38:00 GMT

Soren Werk:
And what happens when IE is updated to SV2? It would have to a regular expression to be reliable---which would make the whole "SV1" thing moot as the version number could simply be incremented. I -really- don't see the advantage. Indeed, I see only disadvantages in the long run.

IE in Windows Server 2003 SP1 and Windows XP 64-bit edition v2003

IEBlog — Tue, 07 Sep 2004 23:08:00 GMT

re: XPSP2 and its slightly updated user agent string

Soren Werk — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 12:56:00 GMT

I agree - "SV1" is a hackish word.

But has anyone else observed the problem we have? (described above)

re: XPSP2 and its slightly updated user agent string

Iftikhar Ahmed — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 19:26:00 GMT

********************* Soren Werk wrote ***************

We need to sniff for SV1 for the following workaround:

Problem:
When a PDF document *residing in a frame* in IE60 under XPSP2 calls an ASP file with [PDF function] submitForm() nothing displays in the browser window. This seems to be a new bug introduced in XPSP2. Anyone have an explanation?

Workaround:
We normally want the PDF document in the frame but are willing to (have to!) place it outside all frames when we detect XPSP2 - by sniffing SV1.

*****************************

Thanks to Soren Werk on clue to Adobe PDF form submit problem with XP SP2 internet explorer. Although the workaround is really a problem for us as it confuses users when Adobe Form is launched on a separate window.

We will ask Adobe developer support for a solution, we will appreciate if someone can shared with us for any solution to executing PDF forms within Frame/Frameset under XP SP2.

re: XPSP2 and its slightly updated user agent string

Web Designer — Thu, 09 Sep 2004 22:58:00 GMT

The "information bar" is a complete nightmare and disaster for anyone who uses css, layers, gallery type functions, etc. in their designs. Will IE be offering any tools to designers so that every site they've designed this way isn't completely worthless??? Seriously, this is completely unacceptable!

re: How to detect what .NET Framework 1.1 service pack is installed

Aaron Stebner's WebLog — Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:20:00 GMT

re: XPSP2 and its slightly updated user agent string

b0 — Thu, 23 Sep 2004 19:43:00 GMT

Well this is really wonderful. Now a site that wants to run an exploit against a user will know what patches are on the machine so it will know exactly what exploit to run against the client computer. The site running the exploits will not have to guess. Maybe this is an improvement for the crackers. Is this called "BETTER" security????

re: XPSP2 and its slightly updated user agent string

porneL — Fri, 24 Sep 2004 11:32:00 GMT

> Will IE be offering any tools to designers so that every site they've designed this way isn't completely worthless?

IE never did ;)

Maybe instead of doing workarounds add message: "This site looks better in better browser. See Browsehappy.com"

http://sylvana.net/test/AP4.jpg

Fritz — Wed, 29 Sep 2004 15:52:00 GMT

I just heard you will fix IE crashing on this pic
http://sylvana.net/test/AP4.jpg
just with XP SP3.

Is it true?
How should webmasters or guestbook owners react to this? Disabling links and image posting in blogs, guestbooks and so on?

Internet Explorer 7 User Agent String

IEBlog — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 05:19:54 GMT

Internet Explorer 7 Beta 1 is fast approaching.&nbsp; A tiny but significant code change was checked...

All Notes Technical » Using User Agent statistics to detect website conversion problems

Tue, 13 Nov 2007 09:49:11 GMT

PingBack from http://notes.jschutz.net/7/website-optimisation/using-user-agent-statistics-to-detect-website-conversion-problems

Quel est ce navigateur ? | hilpers

Quel est ce navigateur ? | hilpers — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:54:48 GMT

PingBack from http://www.hilpers.fr/538678-quel-est-ce-navigateur

IEBlog XPSP2 and its slightly updated user agent string | Wood TV Stand

IEBlog XPSP2 and its slightly updated user agent string | Wood TV Stand — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 02:34:05 GMT

PingBack from http://woodtvstand.info/story.php?id=5579

IEBlog XPSP2 and its slightly updated user agent string | debt consolidator

IEBlog XPSP2 and its slightly updated user agent string | debt consolidator — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:30:41 GMT

PingBack from http://mydebtconsolidator.info/story.php?id=18725