Brave-browser: Desktop :: Implement "Enabling Sites to Determine Brave" Spec

[anthonypkeane]

Description

Please implement the "Enabling Sites to Determine Brave" Spec

Search for "Enabling Sites to Determine Brave" in G-Drive for the Spec
(also described in below post)
cc @snyderp

Android Link: https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/8215
iOS Link: https://github.com/brave/brave-ios/issues/2323

Test plan

1. Visit https://jsbin.com/sexawix/edit?html,js,console
2. Output from console should look like:

"Brave detected"

[FatBirdie]

Please set default to enabled.
Otherwise this feature is more or less useless.

[bsclifton]

@FatBirdie we'll share more details as the spec (not public, it's on our G-Drive as mentioned) gets hardened

As it stands, this would be something always available 😄

[bsclifton]

navigator.brave.isBrave() is exposed and can be called. Per the spec, the IDL roughly looks like:

Promise<boolean> navigator.brave.isBrave()

(BELOW IS OUTDATED) no longer relevant, but here for posterity

Here's the implementation matching what our spec (private) captures:

navigator.getUserAgent().then((response) => {
  if (response.brand === "Brave") {
    // browser is Brave
  }
});

navigator.getUserAgent() is exposed when client hints is enabled. I've got a patch which exposes this method and ONLY populates the brand field. Since client hints is still a work-in-progress, it's possible that this interface might change

[FatBirdie]

Here's the implementation matching what our spec (private) captures:

navigator.getUserAgent().then((response) => {
  if (response.brand === "Brave") {
    // browser is Brave
  }
});

navigator.getUserAgent() is exposed when client hints is enabled. I've got a patch which exposes this method and ONLY populates the brand field. Since client hints is still a work-in-progress, it's possible that this interface might change

Is this 'hints' option default on or off?

[bsclifton]

@FatBirdie client hints is still turned off. The patch I did effectively only allows this one method and nulls out the other fields (architecture, model, platform, etc)

[da2x]

@bsclifton that doesn’t seem to match what I’m observing in the Sec-Ch-Ua request header. My server logs show Sec-Ch-Ua: Brave Browser 78 and Sec-Ch-Ua: "Brave Browser 79" headers. (Not sure what’s up with the inconsistent use of quotes. No quotes are expected.)

Isn’t the navigator.getUserAgent()['brand'] API expected to return the same brand value as the Sec-Ch-Ua request header? As I’m understanding the spec, navigator.getUserAgent()['brand'] should return Brave and the Sec-Ch-Ua header should be set to Brave;v=78.

Or does Brave intend to not ship support for the Sec-Ch-Ua header?

Is this 'hints' option default on or off?

It’s still a draft specification not in the standards track. The spec deprecates the User-Agent request headers in favor of a series of Sec-CH-UA[-*] headers. It’s only backed by Chromium with no support from Gecko or WebKit yet.
https://wicg.github.io/ua-client-hints/
https://www.chromestatus.com/feature/5995832180473856

[bsclifton]

@da2x I can't speak to the standards aspect of this, but the work that was done in my pull request is separate from the Sec-Ch-Ua header. Thanks for calling out though, as these not matching may be an issue

I wasn't aware we are supporting this header yet? Did you have to compile with kUserAgentClientHint added to the enabled features? (ex: in src/brave/app/brave_main_delegate.cc)

[da2x]

Thanks for calling out though, as these not matching may be an issue.

I just re-read the relevant parts of the spec. These should definitely be the same value.

I wasn't aware we are supporting this header yet? Did you have to compile with kUserAgentClientHint added to the enabled features? (ex: in src/brave/app/brave_main_delegate.cc)

Just enable chrome://flags/#enable-experimental-web-platform-features and restart the browser.

[da2x]

Brave on Android identifies as Chromium 79 and macOS/Linux identify as Brave Browser 79.

Correction: Brave Beta on Android also identifies as Brave Browser 80.

[da2x]

@bsclifton, with that flag enabled on the current stable version navigator.getUserAgent().then(d=>console.log(d['brand'])) already returns Brave Browser. So your change to Brave in brave-core#4721 introduces a regression.

[bsclifton]

@da2x thanks for the input- after discussion, we've made some changes 😄 And the PR I created is updated to implement that. Please check out the JS Bin for example usage:
https://jsbin.com/sexawix/edit?html,js,console

[da2x]

@bsclifton so that took an unexpected direction. Is the navigator.brave interface a temporary solution while waiting for the ua-client-hints spec? or have you decided to not support ua-client-hints and do this as a replacement?

I don’t believe that adding the navigator.brave object should cause any interoperability problems. However, the isBrave() function seems unnecessary. It would be enough to check if the navigator.brave object is defined. It could even be an empty object. What value does the explicit detection function add?

[bsclifton]

@da2x I believe the idea would be that we could extend this attribute and add more methods if necessary. But starting off with just the 1. And correct, clients could potentially just check for navigator.brave- but then the recommended way would be navigator.brave.isBrave()

[bridiver]

I agree with @da2x that it seems silly to add isBrave and I think it's only going to lead to websites making inconsistent checks and ignoring the "recommended way". I think we should just keep it simple and let them check navigator.brave !== undefined

[pes10k]

@bridiver the thinking here is that its very likely that we'll want to add more JS functionality in the future, and having a single place to hang them off makes sense. (otherwise the chances of collisions on navigator will just keep increasing)

[jonathanKingston]

the thinking here is that its very likely that we'll want to add more JS functionality in the future, and having a single place to hang them off makes sense.

Will those pieces of functionality not be expected to be somewhat on a standards track? The benefit to not exposing Brave specific functionality would reduce the ability to fingerprint the difference in Brave over any other Chromium based browser.

I'm interested why this also couldn't be agreed with other browsers also. For example the original API promise could resolve as "chrome" in tor/private browsing mode to reduce fingerprinting.

[bridiver]

@pes10k I'm saying it should just an empty object for now. That doesn't prohibit us from adding stuff later

[pes10k]

@jonathanKingston

We're not concerned about Brave being distinguishable from Chrome or other browsers. Folks can easily distinguish already, and will be able to more so going forward. For fingerprinting concerns, our only goal (and the only goal we can reasonably hope to achieve) is to keep Brave users from being distinguishable from each other.

Will those pieces of functionality not be expected to be somewhat on a standards track?

I doubt that we'll be proposing anything like this for standards track anytime soon. FWIW, Client Hints UA is not standards track either currently (its all WICG).

I'm saying it should just an empty object for now. That doesn't prohibit us from adding stuff later

@bridiver I have no strong feeling about this either way other than the precedent it would set. This was proposed weeks ago, and no one objected despite several last calls for comment, and continued debating over the shape of this extremely minor feature has meant this tiny thing has taken weeks to ship, and its needed on all platforms w/in two weeks or so.

[bridiver]

along the lines of what @jonathanKingston is saying, why navigator.brave when chrome has window.chrome? I don't really care that much about isBrave, it just seems silly to me.

[GeetaSarvadnya]

Verification passed on

Brave | 1.5.109 Chromium: 80.0.3987.132 (Official Build) beta (64-bit)
-- | --
Revision | fcea73228632975e052eb90fcf6cd1752d3b42b4-refs/branch-heads/3987@{#974}
OS | Windows 10 OS Version 1803 (Build 17134.1006)

• Verified STR from the description

Verification passed on

Brave | 1.5.109 Chromium: 80.0.3987.132 (Official Build) beta (64-bit)
-- | --
Revision | fcea73228632975e052eb90fcf6cd1752d3b42b4-refs/branch-heads/3987@{#974}
OS | Ubuntu 18.04 LTS

Verified the test plan from the description

Verified passed with

Brave | 1.5.109 Chromium: 80.0.3987.132 (Official Build) beta (64-bit)
-- | --
Revision | fcea73228632975e052eb90fcf6cd1752d3b42b4-refs/branch-heads/3987@{#974}
OS | macOS Version 10.14.6 (Build 18G3020)

• Verified test plan from the description:
  

• Also verified test plan used on iOS (per the spec referenced in the description, it should also work on desktop). See https://github.com/brave/brave-ios/issues/2323 and https://github.com/brave/brave-ios/pull/2374 for iOS results.
  

[2b]

So did I get this right, you've implemented this detection without any way to disable it?

[bsclifton]

@2b that is correct

cc: @pes10k

[bridiver]

@2b what is your specific concern? As @pes10k mentioned we are working on a lot of projects to make Brave users indistinguishable from other Brave users, but hiding the fact that you're using Brave is very difficult because we are intentionally blocking some features that Chrome provides, among other things.

[2b]

@bridiver correct me if I'm wrong but up until now, with brave-related stuff like shields and rewards disabled, it was possible to tell with certainty only that someone uses Chromium-based browser. I understand it's not brave's privacy threat model to keep brave indistinguishable from chrome, as @pes10k mentioned, but don't you think it would be harder to track someone across Chromium users rather than just Brave users, considering the amount of them? Especially in Tor-windows.

[pes10k]

@2b thats not correct. While we sent the Chromium UA, its easy for folks to tell Brave from Chrome/Chromium/etc by (for example) checking to see if the FP apis we modify work as expected, or if the referrer header is as expected, or any of the other features mentioned here https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/Deviations-from-Chromium-(features-we-disable-or-remove). Because of how fingerprinting attacks are carried out, there is no privacy benefit from being different from Chromium in known ways, and then adding an additional explicit way of knowing its Brave. Put diff, theres no change in the anonymity sets.

Happy to share more if the thinking is still unclear, but fwiw, you can be confident that this change does not affect how identifiable you are when using Brave.

[da2x]

You’ll waste less CPU cycles on websites trying to fingerprint your browser to work out if you’re using Brave or not.