Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 20 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.
Chromium user agent should only provide generic information (Android, ideally without a version and Phone vs. Tablet via Mobile) #543
Comments
thestinger
added
Type: enhancement
upstream
labels
Dec 20, 2016
thestinger
referenced this issue
Dec 20, 2016
Closed
Spoof the device ro.product.name ro.product.device #350
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment Hide comment
kewde
commented
Dec 20, 2016
|
I doubt that it will reach upstream, but indeed a nice security enhancement. |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment Hide comment
spacekitteh
Dec 21, 2016
How common is just the generic version? If it's not very common, it itself would still be a fairly good identifier.
spacekitteh
commented
Dec 21, 2016
|
How common is just the generic version? If it's not very common, it itself would still be a fairly good identifier. |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment Hide comment
thestinger
Dec 21, 2016
Contributor
That's why it needs to be done upstream. It always has device information right now.
|
That's why it needs to be done upstream. It always has device information right now. |
thestinger
added
the
Component: Chromium
label
Dec 21, 2016
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment Hide comment
e-lektryk
Dec 27, 2016
I was supprised two days ago when gmail notified that some "Huawei Nexus 6P" has logged to my account, I expected something more anonymously like "android phone"
e-lektryk
commented
Dec 27, 2016
|
I was supprised two days ago when gmail notified that some "Huawei Nexus 6P" has logged to my account, I expected something more anonymously like "android phone" |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment Hide comment
thestinger
Dec 28, 2016
Contributor
So are you interested in contributing changes upstream and convincing them to change this? It isn't going to happen if everyone only sits around complaining about it.
|
So are you interested in contributing changes upstream and convincing them to change this? It isn't going to happen if everyone only sits around complaining about it. |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment Hide comment
e-lektryk
Dec 28, 2016
I am not expecting someone will do this tommorow and deliver next week. Just my voice that it is worth to be prioritezed. Who will fix it or when, I do not care. It is always good to have some feedback from the other people.
e-lektryk
commented
Dec 28, 2016
|
I am not expecting someone will do this tommorow and deliver next week. Just my voice that it is worth to be prioritezed. Who will fix it or when, I do not care. It is always good to have some feedback from the other people. |
thestinger commentedDec 20, 2016
An attempt should be made to get this changed upstream. There's little reason to leak the specific device type and there's even less reason to provide the build id. The very generic version (7.1.1) is a more legitimately useful thing to have and isn't nearly as harmful.