Sometime in late 10/2022 the online website for Citibank stopped allowing logins from firefox-102.x (from slackware64-stable). There is no error message, but the login screen remains up and the login does not happen. I reverted to firefox-91.5.1 from the original slackware64-stable distribution and the problem went away. It is possible to have both versions present by renaming /usr/lib64/firefox to /usr/lib64/firefox91.5 (or anything) while -91.5.1 is installed and then reinstalling firefox-102.4 normally. So I did.

Citibank tech support said (in essence) "so sad, too bad" and stated that they were having "a lot of problems" with Firefox on Linux. They suggested either running Windows or a Chrome browser. Or using my (nonexistent) smartphone app. This was not helpful for obvious reasons. Their website worked fine with firefox-102.3 earlier in October, so the issue is something the bank changed interacting with something Mozilla changed (some time ago).

Slackware-current is using firefox-106.x now, but this requires an upgrade to libc-2.24 and Slackware-stable is using 2.23. Since this has consequences throughout the system, I'm not going to try it just for a test. I'd appreciate feedback from anyone using Firefox on Slackware-current who uses Citibank's online website and IS able to login.

So my workaround is to use the "official" Slackware-stable version of Firefox for everything else, but keep the -91.5.1 version around just for Citibank. Sigh.

Works just fine.

Tried removing cookies? I know a few websites that won't work if I don't delete cookies before login (I installed Remove Cookies Button firefox extension)

Please post your login details, including any security question's answers

(No, really don't do that...)

1 members found this post helpful.

I had to delete cookies to get a different site to work.

Not Citibank, but I did have to specifically allow popups from my banking website to get to work recently.

I have problems now and then with Firefox on various websites.

There is a plugin called 'User-Agent Switcher and Manager' so that Firefox will tell a website that it's actually Chrome, Chromium, etc, and various releases. It can also tell the website you're using Windows, Mac, etc.

Doesn't always work of course.

Also F5 and CTRL-F5 (clear cache) doesn't always work. I use something called 'Reload Skip Cache' which adds a button. Great if you're doing website work and the cache isn't really getting cleared and you don't see your changes. It's an old plugin but works better than the others I tried.

1 members found this post helpful.

Thanks to all the responders. LOL to Tadgy.
I deleted ALL cookies (I had previously deleted the Citi cookies) and cleared the cache. No change in the error, which briefly flashes a "Trouble logging on..." message in red, and then returns to the standard logon screen. I tried enabling popups, which historically Citi doesn't use. No change.

In the past, I've tried advancing piecemeal to slackware64-current (14.2) and it has always created more problems than it solves. Patrick keeps slackware-current pretty darned self-consistent, and fixes problems when they occur. Given that cwizardone reports success with Citi(I presume) on the CURRENT slackware-current, perhaps this problem will go away in time. My "broadband" is more "narrowband" since I live in a remote area, and when I was using -current before, I spent more time and bandwidth keeping -current CURRENT than I did getting anything useful done. -14 stuck around for so long that I eventually had to give in, but I'll wait as long as possible in the hopes that 15.1 is not too far down the pike...

Yes, using -current and have the site open in Firefox, as we speak.
Are you using any sort of "hosts" file or plug-in for Firefox that could be blocking access to the site?

Not a Citibank customer, but in the web developer tools, you have a "Storage" section. It may be worth clearing any DB manually.
The worse offender for breaking many sites is my ad blocker. If you have one, turn it off. GL

On 11/17 slackware64-15.0 was updated with mozilla-firefox-102.5 and this resolved the problem. Given cwizardsone's helpful experience with firefox-106, I had freed up an archive partition and just finished installing a "pure" slackware64-current in it. No multilib, no alien, no local anything, but had not tried it. So this was a mozilla issue after all. Thanks to all.

5 members found this post helpful.

Well, I just experienced the same thing. I last logged in to my bank (a small regional bank) less than a week ago with no problem. Now I get the following message (see the attached screenshot as well):

I need to figure out how to send them a message saying they should support the latest Firefox ESR version. This is ridiculous.

Edit: Thanks to alienbob for providing chromium-ungoogled, which I can use to log in.

Attached Thumbnails

 

1 members found this post helpful.

I saw this similar situation with the web site for L. L. Bean, several months ago. I sent a polite snail mail letter to the CEO of L. L Bean, protesting, then explaining the difference between the latest and the ESR version of a browser.

I just checked today, the 102.5.0 ESR version of FF works at L. L. Bean (the 102.4/3.0ESR versions didn't). Apparently somebody got the message. The page loads queerly and there is a new <media> tag. I assume that the later version of FF plays the media automatically, where as the earlier versions didn't. Presumably, the firm doing L. L. Bean's web site wanted to "persuade" the visitor to see the media, regardless of the visitor's opinion. Perhaps I'm wrong in my analysis.

I suggest a polite postal letter to the bank CEO, also explaining the difference between latest and ESR browser versions. I don't expect CxO types to be educated in these matters. Some subordinate in combination with the firm doing the web site likely decide these things. However, if the CxO types are made aware aware that they are losing visitors/customers then sensible instructions just might be issued. Good Luck.

1 members found this post helpful.

I know this has been solved but figured it was worth mentioning for posterity. I've run into situations where the "browser not supported" error is displayed, yet the problem does not appear to be browser related at all. In one situation recently I was attempting to visit a certain page on weather.gov while on the the phone with another slackware user (same OS version, same browsers) and I received an error saying my browser was not supported, while his worked just fine.

We had a similar probem with our banking site's log in page (we both use the same bank) and while the problem initially appeared to be browser and/or linux related, when we isolated the problem it was clear that the error had nothing to do with the browser or our operating system.

Just thought I'd add that some healthy skepticism when dealing with website errors might be a good idea. I don't see any reason to assume that our browser/OS combination unless the problem is reproducible on at least 3+ identical systems.

2 members found this post helpful.

There is always inherently a battle between security and convenience and it can cost a lot of money so such battles are fought at many ends. Sometimes those ends are in conflict. For example we've likely all seen the intense pressure to adopt 2 Party Authorization that, if it doesn't already, forces most to own and use a smartphone. The trend now is to expand upon that by sites such as banking sites gathering data about origin of location on any logins to add to the authorization scheme. Some browsers or versions of browsers see this gathering as a security fault instead of a security benefit. That battle can cause failed or crippled logins.