Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I have been looking around and trying to work out the best way to protect a few websites of mine.

Appart from the obvious manual monitoring of the site logs and banning extreme/suspicious activity. I have seen many posts etc. about banning user agents. Is this a good route to go down? and would it be a better idea too, instead off banning known bad user agents, just allowing the common mainstream ones such as IE, FireFox, Safari and Chrome?

share|improve this question

closed as off topic by John Gardeniers, womble, Khaled, mdpc, Scott Pack Oct 24 '12 at 20:11

Questions on Server Fault are expected to relate to server, networking, or related infrastructure administration within the scope defined by the community. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about reopening questions here.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

What are you looking to protect from? – Shane Madden Apr 20 '12 at 0:52
up vote 5 down vote accepted

Not worth it.

The User Agent is sent by the client, and is trivial to forge. There's a Firefox add-on that adds alternate UA options to the menu, for example. If the attacker is writing a script, he can specify whatever UA he wants.

share|improve this answer
Indeed, most site suckers give you a list of UAs to impersonate, just so the web server thinks it's dealing with a regular browser. – John Gardeniers Apr 20 '12 at 3:21

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.