"Mozilla/5.0 ()" - Is this used by any valid browsers?
physics
7:30 pm on Jan 17, 2015 (gmt 0)
Noticed this in my logs and it smells fishy (having nothing in the parentheses is strange). Tempted to block it but I'm wondering if anyone's seen this as a valid useragent.
keyplyr
2:05 am on Jan 18, 2015 (gmt 0)
Well it's not a valid browser, however it really depends who/what is using it, as it may be beneficial to your interests. Look up the IP address and see who it is.
M$ uses that UA to retrieve images sometimes (not "beneficial" IMO.)
lucy24
2:48 am on Jan 18, 2015 (gmt 0)
Are they recent? What files did they ask for? I find a cluster of them ranging from 2011 to the first half of 2013. But without exception they only asked for robot.txt, which strongly implies that they then went out and changed their clothes before continuing the visit.
All of mine are from 1.202.218-219, with robots.txt followed by the expected costume change to ... well, fancy that. Assorted Chinese robotic UAs-- goso, Jike, that kind of thing.
Naah. Block 'em.
trintragula
10:56 am on Jan 18, 2015 (gmt 0)
I saw a Mozilla/5.0 () in November from Topsy Labs, a Twitter social search and analytics company now owned by Apple. I don't have any recorded bad behaviour from them - other than being uninvited. I've had a few visits from their Butterfly/1.0 crawler, but not for a year. Again apparently well-behaved.
dstiles
8:23 pm on Jan 18, 2015 (gmt 0)
If they cannot be bothered to identify themselves then they are not welcome.
keyplyr
10:35 pm on Jan 18, 2015 (gmt 0)
If they cannot be bothered to identify themselves then they are not welcome.
That may be so for your interests, but not everyone's. This is why I said it depends on who is using this UA.
For example: a couple years ago Facebook retrieved images with a blank UA when someone posted a link to my site. I block blank UAs for the reason stated, however it was to my interests to allow FB to get my images and display them linked to my site. I get tripple-digit daily traffic (and sales) from FB but this would not happen if they didn't see the images associated with the link.
This is not an endorsement for Facebook, just a FYI that sometimes it is to one's benefit to allow otherwise non-exceptable practices. Note: FB now uses various identifying UAs.
