Release: SAFE Browser v0.13.0

So what’s changed?

We’re pretty happy with the way we’ve improved the Authentication notifications feature. Here’s what it looks like now…

and how it was before…

Here’s a fuller list of the changes:

Bug Fixes

  • auth-app: adds necessary keys to resolve error message (0261449)
  • blocking: Url blocking canGoBack check added. (afa7c77), closes #689
  • Fullscreen: Fixes fullscreening when triggering on a second browser window (90b954c)
  • icon: Upon clicking experimental icon, experimental mode is turned off (413d667)
  • Links: Opening a link will only open in focussed browser window now (fc6f90c)
  • Menu: Test menu now only shown during testcafe tests (5aabb1a)
  • ui: Adds antd spinner when waiting for webid’s are fetching (9803d41)
  • webId: Dropdown positioning fixed (a00a4ad)


  • Testing: Add testcafe for alternative e2e testing (6ef3bea)

Live version (v0.13.0) - Alpha 2 network

Download the SAFE Browser for the live Alpha 2 network.

Linux (x64) MacOS (x64) Windows (x64)
linux 54x64 mac 64x64 win 64x64
download download download

Development version (v0.13.0) - Mock network

Download a development version of the SAFE Browser which uses a mock network to allow local development (without the need to pay PUT costs on a live SAFE Network).

Source Code

Get the source code for version 0.13.0 here:


Cool, I was just building 0.13.0 from source this morning as the ‘binaries’ weren’t released yet!

The authentication pop-up looks nice, much more familiar (Chromium/Google-like). The change isn’t mentioned in the change log, is there a reason for it?


Glad you like it - I think you might be right about the change log needing to highlight it a little better.
No reason it shouldn’t…

No reason. An unintentional slip up with the commit naming I think. Looks like the commit wasn’t named appropriately for standard-version, which we’re using for generating the changelog these days.

If we’d labelled it a Feat then it would have been included. Something to bear in mind!


Looks good.

Does the “ Ltd” just represent the application’s provided company name? or does it reflect the name of the codesign certificate used to create the dll?

I’ve expressed some concerns about apps impersonating other apps, which you can find in the following link - I’d really appreciate your thoughts @DGeddes and @joshuef

1 Like