Web browser not supported
Discussion
I use Brave sometimes on my Linux machines, and always get this notification across the top of the site. Since Brave is underpinned by a current version of Blink/Chromium, I wouldn't expect this to happen. If Chrome(ium) is supported (and it is), Brave shouldn't be specially flagged as not being 'modern, fully supported browser'. It's just a click to dismiss the banner, but it comes back regularly and is an avoidable annoyance.
Information said:
User Agent Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/111.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Screen width 1090 px
Screen height 805 px
OS name Linux
OS version x86_64
Browser name Brave
Browser version
Engine name Blink
Engine version 111.0.0.0
Device model
Device type
Device vendor
CPU architecture amd64
Headers length 3,012
Cookies length 237
Screen width 1090 px
Screen height 805 px
OS name Linux
OS version x86_64
Browser name Brave
Browser version
Engine name Blink
Engine version 111.0.0.0
Device model
Device type
Device vendor
CPU architecture amd64
Headers length 3,012
Cookies length 237
mmm-five said:
Is this not related to Brave (being the 'privacy' browser) providing false/fake user agent strings to stop websites/advertisers from fingerprinting you/your machine?
I wondered as much initially, but PH's own technical info shows the useragent includes 'Chrome/111.0.0.0' and recognises 'Brave' as the browser. It should be trivial to whitelist Brave (or at least recent versions) and/or check for the Chrome version if wanting to still warn for (very) outdated installs. 
mmm-five said:
But most of that is not what I'm running - i.e. I'm on AppleWebKit 613.2.7, and MacOS 13.2 so there's some obfuscation going on, and I'm wondering if that's what's creating this non-conforming browser issue.
I understand now, you're suggesting the versioning being listed as slightly different as part of RFP may be triggering this. Your comment about 'too many user agents' (paraphrased) threw me, as they are indeed all completely correct for a Blink based browser. The point of the OP still stands in that case; if PH can identify Brave by name, rather than a generic 'Chrome', then they can easily whitelist it knowing it obfuscates itself by default. Perhaps they just wish to push users to less privacy focused browsers (i.e. to leak more data and not block ads by default). Who knows? I've explained this in the past but I'll say it again here.
First, we're perfectly happy for you to use Brave so let's get that out of the way.
Yes, Brave is built on Chromium but it's what it does extra that causes problems for us. Privacy is at the core of Brave, and we certainly respect that, but as part of that privacy our website is subject to arbitrary blocked calls to resources which affect the functionality of our website. The majority of questions we get in Website Feedback about something not working are a result of someone using Brave.
Therefore, we made the decision a few years back to not investigate or fix any issues caused by someone using Brave (or DuckDuckGo, or similar) and our stance is simply that we don't support it.
So, you can use Brave. Just don't complain when it doesn't work.
First, we're perfectly happy for you to use Brave so let's get that out of the way.
Yes, Brave is built on Chromium but it's what it does extra that causes problems for us. Privacy is at the core of Brave, and we certainly respect that, but as part of that privacy our website is subject to arbitrary blocked calls to resources which affect the functionality of our website. The majority of questions we get in Website Feedback about something not working are a result of someone using Brave.
Therefore, we made the decision a few years back to not investigate or fix any issues caused by someone using Brave (or DuckDuckGo, or similar) and our stance is simply that we don't support it.
So, you can use Brave. Just don't complain when it doesn't work.
rainmakerraw said:
I understand now, you're suggesting the versioning being listed as slightly different as part of RFP may be triggering this. Your comment about 'too many user agents' (paraphrased) threw me, as they are indeed all completely correct for a Blink based browser. The point of the OP still stands in that case; if PH can identify Brave by name, rather than a generic 'Chrome', then they can easily whitelist it knowing it obfuscates itself by default. Perhaps they just wish to push users to less privacy focused browsers (i.e. to leak more data and not block ads by default). Who knows?
We don't trigger the message by user agent. 
Ha, fair enough. To be clear though, the problem isn't that it doesn't work (it's flawless here ime), but rather that you warn me with an obnoxious banner every time I visit. It's not even a static object that you can hide with the content/cosmetic filter once and forget, it changes each visit and shows again!
Forums | Website Feedback | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff