Wouldn't it be nice if `User-Agent` was a (set of) client hints?
Branch: master
Clone or download


Explainer: Reducing User-Agent Granularity

Mike West, October 2018

(Note: This isn't a proposal that's well thought out, and stamped solidly with the Google Seal of Approval. It's a collection of interesting ideas for discussion, nothing more, nothing less.)

A Problem

User agents identify themselves to servers as part of each HTTP request via the User-Agent header. This header's value has grown in both length and complexity over the years; a complicated dance between server-side sniffing to provide the right experience for the right devices on the one hand, and client-side spoofing in order to bypass incorrect or inconvenient sniffing on the other. Chrome on iOS, for instance, currently identifies itself as:

User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 12_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) CriOS/69.0.3497.105 Mobile/15E148 Safari/605.1

While Chrome on Android sends something more like:

User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 9; Pixel 2 XL Build/PPP3.180510.008) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.87 Mobile Safari/537.36

There's a lot of entropy wrapped up in the UA string. This makes it an important part of fingerprinting schemes of all sorts. Safari has recently taken some steps to reduce the entropy of the user agent string, initially locking it to a single value, period, and then backing off a bit due to developer feedback. This document proposes a mechanism which might allow user agents generally to be a little more aggressive.


From a developer's standpoint, the detail available in the UA string is valuable, and they reasonably object to dropping it. The feedback to Safari's UA string freeze was right along these lines, noting four broad categories of use:

  1. Brand and version information (e.g. "Chrome 69") allows websites to work around known bugs in specific releases that aren't otherwise detectable. For example, implementations of Content Security Policy have varied wildly between vendors, and it's difficult to know what policy to send in an HTTP response without knowing what browser is responsible for its parsing and execution.

  2. Developers will often negotiate what content to send based on the user agent and platform. Some application frameworks, for instance, will style an application on iOS differently from the same application on Android in order to match each platform's aesthetic and design patterns (https://onsen.io/ was the first example in a quick skim of search results, but there are certainly others).

  3. Similarly to #1, OS revisions and architecture can be responsible for specific bugs which can be worked around in website's code, and narrowly useful for things like selecting appropriate executables for download (32 vs 64 bit, ARM vs Intel, etc). Model information is likewise useful when bugs are limited to particular kinds of devices.

  4. Sophisticated developers use model/make to tailor their sites to the capabilities of the device (e.g. Facebook Year Class) and to pinpoint performance bugs and regressions which sometimes are specific to model/make.

These are use cases that are interesting for us to support. Browsers certainly have bugs, and developers certainly would be well-served by being able to work around them. We'll keep these challenges in mind with the proposal that follows.

A Proposal

By default, servers should receive only the user agent's brand and major version number. Servers can opt-into receiving information about minor versions, the underlying operating system's major version, and details about the underlying architecture and device. The user agent can make reasonable decisions about how to respond to sites' requests for more granular data. We might accomplish this as follows:

  1. Browsers should deprecate the User-Agent string over time, initially locking bits of its value, and ramping up over time to lock the entire string to something generic for the device type. Chrome could perhaps send the following for mobile, regardless of the underlying device type:

    Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 9; Unspecified Device) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Chrome/71.1.2222.33 Mobile Safari/537.36

    And the following for desktop, similarly irrepspective of the underlying device:

    Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/71.1.2222.33 Safari/537.36

    These strings would stay static, adding cruft to every request from now until forever.

    We can ratchet this deprecation over time, beginning by freezing the version numbers in the header, then removing platform and model information as developers migrate to the alternative mechanisms proposed below.

  2. Similarly, user agents would freeze the navigator.appVersion, navigator.platform, navigator.productSub, navigator.vendor, and navigator.userAgent attributes to appropriate values for the frozen User-Agent string.

  3. Browsers should introduce several new Client Hint header fields:

    1. The Sec-UA header field represents the user agent's brand and major version. For example:

      Sec-CH-UA: "Chrome 73"

      Note: See the GREASE-like discussion below for how we could anticipate the inevitable lies which user agents might want to tell in this field.

    2. The Sec-CH-UA-Platform header field represents the platform's brand and major version. For example:

      Sec-CH-UA-Platform: "Win 10"
    3. The Sec-CH-UA-Arch header field represents the underlying architecture's instruction set and width. For example:

      Sec-CH-UA-Arch: "ARM64"
    4. The Sec-CH-UA-Model header field represents the user agent's underlying device model. For example:

      Sec-CH-UA-Model: "Pixel 2 XL"
  4. These client hints should also be exposed via JavaScript APIs, perhaps hanging off a new navigator.getUserAgent() method as something like:

    interface mixin NavigatorUA {
      [SecureContext] Promise<NavigatorUAData> getUserAgent();
    Navigator includes NavigatorUA;
    interface NavigatorUAData {
      readonly attribute DOMString brand;          // "Chrome"
      readonly attribute DOMString version;        // "69"
      readonly attribute DOMString platform;       // "Win 10"
      readonly attribute DOMString architecture;   // "ARM64"
      readonly attribute DOMString model;          // ""

    User agents can make intelligent decisions about what to reveal in each of these attributes. Top-level sites a user visits frequently (or installs!) might get more granular data than cross-origin, nested sites, for example. We could conceivably even inject a permission prompt between the site's request and the Promise's resolution, if we decided that was a reasonable approach.

User agents will attach the Sec-CH-UA header to every secure outgoing request by default, with a value that includes only the major version (e.g. "Chrome 69"). Servers can opt-into receiving more detailed version information in the Sec-CH-UA header, along with the other available Client Hints, by delivering an Accept-CH header header in the usual way.

Note the word "secure" in the paragraph above, and the SecureContext attribute in the IDL: these client hints will not be delivered to plaintext endpoints. Non-secure HTTP will receive only the locked User-Agent string, now and forever.

For example...

A user agent's initial request to https://example.com will include the following request headers:

User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko)
            Chrome/71.1.2222.33 Safari/537.36
Sec-CH-UA: "Chrome 74"

If a server delivers the following response header:

Accept-CH: UA, UA-Platform, UA-Arch

Then subsequent requests to https://example.com will include the following request headers:

User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko)
            Chrome/71.1.2222.33 Safari/537.36
Sec-CH-UA: "Chrome 74.0.3424.124"
Sec-CH-UA-Platform: "macOS 12"
Sec-CH-UA-Arch: "ARM64"

The user agent can make reasonable decisions about when to honor requests for detailed user agent hints and first-parties can use Feature-Policy to decide which third-parties they'd like to privilege with detailed user agent information. In any event, moving to this opt-in model means that the extent of a site's usage can be monitored and evaluated.


Do we really need to neuter the JavaScript interface too?

An excellent question! This proposal assumes that developers with access to JavaScript execution do not need the user agent string in order to determine which resources to load and how they ought to behave. They can examine other parts of the exposed API surface (WEBGL_debug_renderer_info, for example). Developers who need this kind of information at request-time could probably migrate to alternative mechanisms like Client Hints.

Our goal should eventually be to ratchet down on some of this granularity as well, and my intuition is that we'll be able to do that more cleanly if we adjust the UA string in one fell swoop, and then move on to the rest rather than doubling back at some point in the future.

What about the compatibility hit we'll take from UA sniffing?

Locking the User-Agent string will lock in the existing behavior of UA-sniffing libraries. That may break things in the future if we diverge significantly from today's behavior in some interesting way, but that doesn't seem like a risk unique to this proposal.

Should the UA string be a set?

History has shown us that there are real incentives for user agents to lie about their branding in order to thread the needle of sites' sniffing scripts. While I'm optimistic that we can reset expectations around sniffing by freezing the thing that's sniffed-upon today, and creating a sane set of options for developers, it's likely that this is hopelessly naive. It's reasonable to ponder what we should do to encourage sniffing in the right way, if we believe it's going to happen one way or another.

One suggestion is to model UA as a set, rather than a single entry. For example, user agents might encourage standardized processing of the UA string by randomly including additional, intentionally incorrect, comma-separated entries with arbitrary ordering (similar conceptually to TLS's GREASE). Chrome 73's UA value might then be "Chrome 73", "NotBrowser 12", or "BrowsingIsFun Version 12b", "Chrome 73".

We'd reflect this value in the NavigatorUAData.brand attribute.

As a concrete example, what UA string would Chrome on iOS send?

Chrome on iOS (as well as Edge on Android and iOS, Firefox on iOS, and every other non-Safari browser on iOS) are interesting cases in which the underlying browser engine on a given platform doesn't match the engine that the relevant browser built themselves. What should we do in these cases?

I think we have a few options for the string:

  1. "Chrome 73", which has the least entropy, but also sets poor expectations.
  2. "CriOS 73" (or "Chrome on iOS 73", or similar) which is basically what's sent today, and categorizes the browser as distinct.
  3. "CriOS 73", "Safari 12", which is interesting.
  4. "Chrome 73", "Safari 12", which is more interesting.

I think I prefer the second.

(A more verbose alternative could add a Sec-CH-UA-Engine header, containing values like Blink, EdgeHTML, Gecko, or WebKit.)

Wait a minute, I don't see this delegation stuff in the Client Hints spec...

Right. There are more than a few open PRs:

What's with the Sec-CH- prefix?

Based on some discussion in w3ctag/design-reviews#320, it seems reasonable to forbid access to these headers from JavaScript, and demarcate them as browser-controlled client hints so they can be documented and included in requests without triggering CORS preflights. A Sec-CH- prefix seems like a viable approach. This bit might shift as the broader Client Hints discussions above coalesce into something more solid that lands in specs.