browsers

For security reasons, Edge 76+ and Chrome block navigation1 to file:// URLs from non-file:// urls.

If a browser user clicks on a file:// link on an https-delivered webpage, nothing visibly happens. If you open the the Developer Tools console, you’ll see a note: “Not allowed to load local resource: file://host/whatever”.

In contrast, Edge18 (like Internet Explorer before it) allowed pages in your Intranet Zone to navigate to URLs that use the file:// url protocol; only pages in the Internet Zone were blocked from such navigations2.

No option to disable this navigation blocking is available in Chrome or Edge 76+.

What’s the Risk?

The most obvious problem is that the way file:// retrieves content can result in privacy and security problems. Pulling remote resources over file:// can leak your user account information and a hash of your password to the remote site. What makes this extra horrific is that if you log into Windows using an MSA account, the bad guy gets both your global userinfo AND a hash he can try to crack.

Beyond the data leakage risks related to remote file retrieval, other vulnerabilities related to opening local files also exist. Navigating to a local file might result in that file opening in a handler application in a dangerous or unexpected way. The Same Origin Policy for file URIs is poorly defined and inconsistent across browsers, which can result in security problems.

Workaround: IE Mode

Enterprise administrators can configure sites that must navigate to file:// urls to open in IE mode. Like legacy IE itself, IE mode pages in the Intranet zone can navigate to file urls.

Workaround: Extensions

Unfortunately, the extension API chrome.webNavigation.onBeforeNavigate does not fire for file:// links that are blocked in HTTP/HTTPS pages, which makes working around this blocking this via an extension difficult.

One could write an extension that uses a Content Script to rewrite all file:// hyperlinks to an Application Protocol handler (e.g. file-after-prompt://) that will launch a confirmation dialog before opening the targeted URL via ShellExecute or explorer /select,”file://whatever”, but this would entail rewriting the extension rewriting every page which has non-zero performance implications. It also wouldn’t fix up any non-link file navigations (e.g. JavaScript that calls window.location.href=”file://whatever”).

Similarly, the Enable Local File Links extension simply adds a click event listener to every page loaded in the browser. If the listener observes the user clicking on a link to a file:// URL, it cancels the click and directs the extension’s background page to perform the navigation to the target URL, bypassing the security restriction by using the extension’s (privileged) ability to navigate to file URLs. But this extension will not help if the page attempts to use JavaScript to navigate to a file URI, and it exposes you to the security risks described above.

 

Necessary but not sufficient

Unfortunately, blocking file:// uris in the browser is a good start, but it’s not complete. There are myriad formats which have the ability to hit the network for file URIs, ranging from Office documents, to emails, to media files, to PDF, MHT, SCF files, etc, and most of them will do so without confirmation.

In an enterprise, the expectation is that the Organization will block outbound SMB at the firewall. When I was working for Chrome and reported this issue to Google’s internal security department, they assured me that this is what they did. I then proved that they were not, in fact, correctly blocking outbound SMB for all employees, and they spun up a response team to go fix their broken firewall rules. In a home environment, the user’s router may or may not block the outbound request.

Various policies are available, but I get the sense that they’re not broadly used.

 

-Eric

This post covers navigating to file:// uris. Another question which occasionally comes up is “how can I embed a subresource like an image or a script from a file:// URI into my https-served page.” This, you also cannot do, for similar security/privacy reasons. And that’s probably a good thing.

2 Interestingly, some alarmist researchers didn’t realize that this was happening on a per-zone basis, and asserted that IE/Edge would directly leak your credentials from any Internet web page. This is not correct. It is further incorrect in old Edge (Spartan) because Internet-zone web pages run in Internet AppContainers, which lack the Enterprise Authentication permission, which means that they don’t even have your credentials.

This is an introduction/summary post which will link to individual articles about browser mechanisms for communicating directly between web content and native apps on the local computer.

This series aims to provide, for each mechanism, information about:

  • On which platforms is it available?
  • Can the site detect that the app/mechanism is available?
  • Can the site send more than one message to the application without invoking the mechanism again, or is it fire-and-forget?
  • Can the application bidirectionally communicate back to the web content via the same mechanism?
  • What are the security implications?
  • What is the UX?

Application Protocols

Blog Post

tl;dr: Apps can register protocol schemes. Browsers will spawn the apps when navigating to the scheme.

Characteristics: Fire-and-Forget. Non-detectable. Supported across all browsers for decades. Prompts by default, but can be disabled.

Native Messaging via Extensions

Blog Post – Coming someday. For now, see nativeMessaging API.

tl;dr: Browser extensions can communicate with a local native app using stdin/stdout passing JSON between the app and the extension. The extension may pass information to/from web content if desired.

Characteristics: Bi-directional communications. Detectable. Supported across most modern browsers; not legacy IE. Dunno about Safari. Prompts on install, but not required to use.

File downloads (Traditional)

Blog Post – Coming someday.

tl;dr: Apps can register to handle certain file types. User may spawn the app to open the file.

Characteristics: Fire-and-Forget. Non-detectable. Supported across all browsers. Prompts for most file types, but some browsers allow disabling.

File downloads (DirectInvoke)

Blog Post

Internet Explorer/Edge support DirectInvoke, a scheme whereby a file handler application is launched with a URL instead of a local file.

Characteristics: Fire-and-Forget. Non-detectable. Windows only. Supported in Internet Explorer, Edge 18 and below, and Edge 78 and above. Degrades gracefully into a traditional file download.

Local Web Server

Blog Post – Coming someday.

tl;dr: Apps can run a HTTP(S) server on localhost and webpages can communicate with that server using fetch/XHR/WebSocket/WebRTC etc.

Characteristics: Bi-directional communications. Detectable. Supported across all browsers. Not available on mobile. Complexities around Secure Contexts / HTTPS, and loopback network protections in Edge18/IE AppContainers.

HTTPS

In many cases, HTTPS pages may not send requests to HTTP URLs (depending on whether the browser supports the new “SecureContexts” feature that allows HTTP://LOCALHOST), in some cases applications wish to get a HTTPS certificate for their local servers. This is complex and error-prone. There’s a writeup of how Plex got HTTPS certificates for their local servers.

Notes: https://wicg.github.io/cors-rfc1918/#mixed-content

A nice writeup of Amazon Music’s web exposure can be found here: https://medium.com/0xcc/what-the-heck-is-tcp-port-18800-a16899f0f48f

Andrew (@drewml) tweeted at 4:23 PM on Tue, Jul 09, 2019:
The @zoom_us vuln sucks, but it’s definitely not new. This was/is a common approach used to sidestep the NPAPI deprecation in Chrome. Seems like a @taviso favorite:
Anti virus, logitech, utorrent. (https://twitter.com/drewml/status/1148704362811801602?s=03)

Bypass of localhost CORS protections by utilizing GET request for an Image
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=951540#c28

View at Medium.com

WebRTC tricks to bypass HTTPS requirements https://twitter.com/sleevi_/status/1177248901990105090?s=20

Variant: Common Remote Server as a Broker

An alternative approach would be to communicate indirectly. For instance, a web application and a client application using HTTPS/WebSockets could each individually communicate to a common server which brokers messages between them.

 

AppLinks in Edge/Windows

Allow navigation to certain namespaces (domains) to be handed off to a native application on the local device.

https://blogs.windows.com/windowsdeveloper/2016/10/14/web-to-app-linking-with-appurihandlers/

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/launch-resume/web-to-app-linking

Legacy Plugins/ActiveX architecture

Please no!

Characteristics: Bi-directional communications. Detectable. Support has been mostly removed from most browsers. Generally not available on mobile. One of the biggest sources of security risk in web platform history.

Android Intents

Dunno much about these.

Android Instant Apps

Dunno much about these. Basically, the idea is that navigating to a website can install/run an Android Application.

 

By this point, most browser enthusiasts know that Chrome has a rapid release cycle, releasing a new stable version of the browser approximately every six weeks. The Edge team intends to adopt that rapid release cadence for our new browser, and we’re already releasing new Edge Dev Channel builds every week.

What might be less obvious is that this six week cadence represents an upper-bound for how long it might take for an important change to make its way to the user.

Background: Staged Rollouts

Chrome uses a staged rollout plan, which means only a small percentage (1%-5%) of users get the new version immediately. If any high-priority problems are flagged by those initial users, the rollout can be paused while the team considers how to best fix the problem. That fix might involve shipping a new build, turning off a feature using the experimentation server, or dynamically updating a component.

Let’s look at each.

Respins

If a serious security or functionality problem is found in the Stable Channel, the development team generates a respin of the release, which is a new build of the browser with the specific issue patched. The major and minor version numbers of the browser stay the same. For instance, on July 15th, Chrome Stable version 75.0.3770.100 was updated to 75.0.3770.142. Users who had already installed the buggy version in the channel are updated automatically, and users who haven’t yet updated to the buggy version will just get the fixed version when the rollout reaches them.

If you’re curious, you can see exactly which versions of Chrome are being delivered from Google’s update servers for each Channel using OmahaProxy.

Field Trial Flags

In some cases, a problem is discovered in a new feature that the team is experimenting with. In these cases, it’s usually easy for the team to simply remotely disable or reconfigure the experiment as needed using the experimental flags. The browser client periodically polls the development team’s servers to get the latest experimental configuration settings. Chrome codenames their experimental system “Finch,” while Microsoft calls ours “CFR” (Controlled Feature Rollout).

You can see your browser’s current field trial configuration by navigating to

chrome://version/?show-variations-cmd

The hexadecimal Variations list is generally inscrutable, but the Command-line variations section later in the page is often more useful and allows you to better understand what trials are underway. You can even use this list to identify the exact trial causing a particular problem.

Regular readers might remember that I’ve previously written about Chrome’s Field Trials system.

Components

In other cases, a problem is found in a part of the browser implemented as a “Component.” Components are much like hidden, built-in extensions that can be silently and automatically updated by the Component Updater.

The primary benefit of components is that they can be updated without an update to Chrome itself, which allows them to have faster (or desynchronized) release cadences, lower bandwidth consumption, and avoids bloat in the (already sizable) Chrome installer. The primary drawback is that they require Chrome to tolerate their absence in a sane way.

To me, the coolest part of components is that not only can they update without downloading a new version of the browser, in some cases users don’t even need to restart their browser to begin using the updated version of a component. As soon as a new version is downloaded, it can “take over” from the prior version.

To see the list of components in the browser, visit

chrome://components

In my Chrome Canary instance, I see the following components:

Components

As you can see, many of these have rather obtuse names, but here’s a quick explanation where I know offhand:

  • MEI Preload – Policies for autoplay (see chrome://media-engagement/ )
  • Intervention Policy – Controls interventions used on misbehaving web pages
  • Third Party Module – Used to exempt accessibility and other components from the Code Integrity protections on the browser’s process that otherwise forbid injection of DLLs.
  • Subresource Filter Rules – The EasyList adblock database used by Chrome’s built-in adblocker to remove ads from a webpage when the Safe Browsing service indicates that a site violates the guidelines in the Better Ads Standard.
  • Certificate Error Assistant – Helps users understand and recover from certificate errors (e.g. when behind a known WiFi captive portal).
  • Software Reporter Tool – Collects data about system configuration / malware.
  • CRLSet – List of known-bad certificates (used to replace OCSP/CRL).
  • pnacl – Portable Native Client (overdue for removal)
  • Chrome Improved Recovery Unsure, but comments suggest this is related to helping fix broken Google Updater services, etc.
  • File Type Policies – Maps a list of file types to a set of policies concerning how they should be downloaded, what warnings should be presented, etc. See below.
  • Origin Trials – Used to allow websites to opt-in to experimenting with future web features on their sites. Explainer.
  • Adobe Flash Player – The world’s most popular plugin, gradually being phased out; slated for complete removal in late 2020.
  • Widevine Content DecryptionA DRM system that permits playback of protected video content.

If you’re using an older Chrome build, you might see:

If you’re using Edge, you might see:

If you’re using the Chromium-derived Brave browser, you’ll see that brave://components includes a bunch of extra components, including “Ad Blocker”, “Tor Client”, “PDF Viewer”, “HTTPS Everywhere”, and “Local Data Updater.”

If you’re using Chrome on Android, you might notice that it’s only using three components instead of thirteen; the missing components simply aren’t used (for various reasons) on the mobile platform. As noted in the developer documentation, “The primary drawback [to building a feature using a Component] is that [Components] require Chrome to tolerate their absence in a sane way.

Case Study: Fast Protection via Component Update

Let’s take a closer look at my favorite component, the File Type Policies component.

When the browser downloads a file, it must make a number of decisions for security reasons. In particular, it needs to know whether the file type is potentially harmful to the user’s device. If the filetype is innocuous (e.g. plaintext), then the file may be downloaded without any prompts. If the type is potentially dangerous, the user should be warned before the download completes, and security features like SafeBrowsing/SmartScreen should scan the completed download for malicious content.

In the past, this sort of “What File Types are Dangerous?” list was hardcoded into various products. If a file type were later found to be dangerous, patching these products with updated threat information required weeks to months.

In contrast, Chrome delivers this file type policy information using the File Type Policies component. The component lets Chrome engineers specify which types are dangerous, which types may be configured to automatically open, which types are archives that contain other files that may require scanning, and so on.

How does this work in the real world? Here’s an example.

Around a year ago, it was discovered that files with the .SettingsContent-ms file extension could be used to compromise the security of the user’s device. Browsers previously didn’t take any special care when such files were downloaded, and most users had no idea what the files were or what would happen if they were opened. Everyone was caught flat-footed.

In less than a day after this threat came to light, a Chrome engineer simply updated a single file to mark the settings-content.ms file type as potentially dangerous. The change was picked up by the component builder, and Chrome users across all versions and channels were protected as their browser automatically pulled down the updated component in the background.

 

Ever faster!

-Eric

Many websites offer a “Log in” capability where they don’t manage the user’s account; instead, they offer visitors the ability to “Login with <identity provider>.”

When the user clicks the Login button on the original relying party (RP) website, they are navigated to a login page at the identity provider (IP) (e.g. login.microsoft.com) and then redirected back to the RP. That original site then gets some amount of the user’s identity info (e.g. their Name & a unique identifier) but it never sees the user’s password.

Such Federated Identity schemes have benefits for both the user and the RP site– the user doesn’t need to set up yet another password and the site doesn’t have to worry about the complexity of safely storing the user’s password, managing forgotten passwords, etc.

In some cases, the federated identity login process (typically implemented as a JavaScript library) relies on navigating the user to a top-level page to log in, then back to the relying party website into which the library injects an IFRAME1 back to the identity provider’s website.

FederatedID

The authentication library in the RP top-level page communicates with the IP subframe (using postMessage or the like) to get the logged-in user’s identity information, API tokens, etc.

In theory, everything works great. The IP subframe in the RP page knows who the user is (by looking at its own cookies or HTML5 localStorage or indexedDB data) and can release to the RP caller whatever identity information is appropriate.

Crucially, however, notice that this login flow is entirely dependent upon the assumption that the IP subframe is accessing the same set of cookies, HTML5 storage, and/or indexedDB data as the top-level IP page. If the IP subframe doesn’t have access to the same storage, then it won’t recognize the user as logged in.

Unfortunately, this assumption has been problematic for many years, and it’s becoming even more dangerous over time as browsers ramp up their security and privacy features.

The root of the problem is that the IP subframe is considered a third-party resource, because it comes from a different domain (identity.example) than the page (news.example) into which it is embedded.

For privacy and security reasons, browsers might treat third-party resources differently than first-party resources. Examples include:

  1. The Block 3rd Party cookies option in most browsers
  2. The SameSite Cookie attribute
  3. P3P cookie blocking in Internet Explorer2
  4. Zone Partitioning in Internet Explorer and Edge Spartan3
  5. Safari’s Intelligent Tracking Protection
  6. Firefox Content Blocking
  7. Microsoft Edge Tracking Prevention

When a browser restricts access to storage for a 3rd party context, our theoretically simple login process falls apart. The IP subframe on the relying party doesn’t see the user’s login information because it is loaded in a 3rd party context. The authentication library is likely to conclude that the user is not logged in, and redirect them back to the login page. A frustrating and baffling infinite loop may result as the user is bounced between the RP and IP.

The worst part of all of this is that a site’s login process might usually work, but fail depending on the user’s browser choice, browser configuration, browser patch level, security zone assignments, or security/privacy extensions. As a result, a site owner might not even notice that some fraction of their users are unable to log in.

So, what’s a web developer to do?

The first task is awareness: Understand how your federated login library works — is it using cookies? Does it use subframes? Is the IP site likely to be considered a “Tracker” by popular privacy lists?

The second task is to build designs that are more resilient to 3rd-party storage restrictions:

  • Be sure to convey the expected state from the Identity Provider’s login page back to the Relying Party. E.g. if your site automatically redirects from news.example to identity.example/login back to news.example/?loggedin=1, the RP page should take note of that URL parameter. If the authentication library still reports “Not signed in”, avoid an infinite loop and do not redirect back to the Identity Provider automatically.
  • Authentication libraries should consider conveying identity information back to the RP directly, which will then save that information in a first party context.For instance, the IP could send the identity data to the RP via a HTTP POST, and the RP could then store that data using its own first party cookies.
  • For browsers that support it, the Storage Access API may be used to allow access to storage that would otherwise be unavailable in a 3rd-party context. Note that this API might require action on the part of the user (e.g. a frame click and a permission prompt).

The final task is verification: Ensure that you’re testing your site in modern browsers, with and without the privacy settings ratcheted up.

-Eric

[1] The call back to the IP might not use an IFRAME; it could also use a SCRIPT tag to retrieve JSONP, or issue a fetch/XHR call, etc. The basic principles are the same.
[2] P3P was removed from IE11 on Windows 10.
[3] In Windows 10 RS2, Edge 15 “Spartan” started sharing cookies across Security Zones, but HTML5 Storage and indexedDB remain partitioned.

Note: I expect to update this post over time. Last update: 8/29/2019.

Compatibility Deltas

As our new Edge Insider builds roll out to the public, we’re starting to triage reports of compatibility issues where Edge76+ (the new Chromium-based Edge, aka Anaheim) behaves differently than the old Edge (Edge18, aka Spartan) and/or Google Chrome.

In general, Edge76+ will behave very similarly to Chrome, with the caveat that, to date, only Beta, Dev and Canary channels have been released. When looking at Chrome behavior, be sure to compare against the corresponding Chrome Beta, Dev and Canary channels.

However, we expect there will be some behavioral deltas between Edge76+ and its Chrome-peer versions, so I’ll note those here too.

Note: I’ve previously blogged about interop issues between Edge18 and Chrome.

Navigation

  • For security reasons, Edge76 and Chrome block navigation to file:// URLs from non-file URLs.
  • In Edge18 and Internet Explorer, attempting to navigate to an App Protocol with no handler installed shows a prompt to visit the Microsoft Store to find a handler. In Chrome/Edge76+, the navigation attempt is silently ignored.
  • Edge 18 and Internet Explorer offer a msLaunchUri API for launching and detecting App Protocols. This API is not available in Edge 76 or Chrome.
  • Edge 18 and Internet Explorer allow an App Protocol handler to opt-out of warning the user on open using the WarnOnOpen registry key. Edge 76 and Chrome do not support this registry key.

Downloads

  • Unlike IE/Edge18, Edge76/Chrome do not support DirectInvoke, a scheme whereby a download is converted into the launch of an application with a URL argument. DirectInvoke is most commonly used when launching Office documents and when running ClickOnce applications. For now, users can workaround the lack of ClickOnce support by installing an extensionUpdate: In Edge 78, see the edge://flags/#edge-click-once setting.
  • Edge76/Chrome do not support the proprietary msSaveBlob or msSaveOrOpenBlob APIs supported in Edge18. In most cases, you should instead use an A element with a download attribute.
  • Edge18 did not support navigation to or downloading from data URLs via the download attribute; Edge76/Chrome allow the download of data URLs up to 2mb in length. In most cases, you should prefer blob urls.

HTTPS – TLS Protocol

  • Edge76 and Chrome enable TLS/1.3 by default; Edge18 does not support TLS/1.3 prior to Windows 10 19H1, and even on that platform it is disabled by default (and known to be buggy).
  • Edge76 and Chrome support a different list of TLS ciphers than Edge18.
  • Edge76 and Chrome send GREASE tokens in HTTPS handshakes; Edge18 does not.
  • Edge76 and Chrome prohibit connections for HTTP/2 traffic from using banned (weak) ciphers, showing ERR_HTTP2_INADEQUATE_TRANSPORT_SECURITY if the server attempts to use such ciphers. Edge18 did not enforce this requirement. This has primarily impacted intranet websites served by IIS on Windows Server 2012 where the server was either misconfigured or does not have the latest updates installed. Patching the server and/or adjusting its TLS configuration will resolve the problem.

HTTPS – Certificates

  • Edge76 and Chrome require that a site’s certificate contain its domain name in the SubjectAltName (SAN) field. Edge 18 permits the certificate to omit the SAN and if the domain name is in the Subject Common Name (CN) field. (All public CAs use the SAN; certificates that chain to a local/enterprise trusted root may need to be updated).
  • Edge76 and Chrome require certificates that chain to trusted root CAs to be logged in Certificate Transparency (CT). This generally isn’t a problem because public roots are supposed to log in CT as a part of their baseline requirements. However, certain organizations (including Microsoft and CAs) have hybrid roots which are both publicly trusted and issue privately within the organization. As a result, loading pages may error out with NET::ERR_CERTIFICATE_TRANSPARENCY_REQUIRED. To mitigate this, such organizations must either start logging internal certificates in CT, or set one of three policies under HKLM\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Edge\. Edge18 does not support CT.
  • Edge76 and Chrome use a custom Win32 client certificate picker UI, while Edge18 uses the system’s default certificate picker.

Cookies

  • Edge76 and Chrome support the Leave Secure Cookies Alone spec, which blocks HTTP pages from setting cookies with the Secure attribute and restricts the ways in which HTTP pages may interfere with cookies sent to HTTPS pages. Legacy Edge does not have these restrictions.
  • Edge76 and Chrome support Cookie prefixes (restrictions on cookies whose names begin with the prefixes __Secure- and __Host-). Legacy Edge does not enforce these restrictions.
  • Edge76, Chrome, and Firefox ignore Set-Cookie headers with values over 4096 characters in length (including cookie-controlling directives like SameSite). In contrast, IE and Edge18 permit cookies with name-value pairs up to 5118 characters in length.

Authentication and Login

  • In Edge76, Edge18, and Firefox, running the browser in InPrivate mode disables automatic Integrated Windows Authentication. Chrome and Internet Explorer do not disable automatic authentication in private mode. You can disable automatic authentication in Chrome by launching it with a command line argument: chrome.exe --auth-server-whitelist="_"
  • Edge18/Edge76 integrates a built-in single-sign-on (SSO) provider, such that configured account credentials are automatically injected into request headers for configured domains; this feature is disabled in InPrivate mode. Chrome does not have this behavior for Microsoft accounts.
  • Edge18 supports Azure Active Directory’s Conditional Access feature. For Chrome, an extension is required. Edge76 has not yet integrated support for this feature.

WebAPIs

  • Edge18 includes an API window.external.GetHostEnvironmentValue that returns some interesting information about the system, including whether it is running in the “Windows 10 S” lockdown mode. Edge76 and Chrome do not support this API. Update: Edge 78 restored this API with a limited set of tokens:
    {“os-architecture”:”AMD64″,”os-build”:”10.0.18362″,”os-sku”:”4″,”os-mode”:”2″}. The os-mode of 2 indicates a Windows 10 S configuration.
  • Google Chrome ships with the Portable Native Client plugin; Edge76 does not include this plugin. The plugin is little-used and you’re unlikely to encounter problems with its absence except on the Google Earth website. PNaCl is deprecated in favor of WebAssembly and is slated to be removed from Chrome in Q2 2019.
  • The Edge Platform Status site also includes a short list of features that are supported in Edge18 but not Chromium-derived browsers.

Group Policy and Command Line Arguments

By-default, Edge 76 shares almost all of the same Group Policies and command line arguments as Chrome 76.

If you’re using the registry to set a policy for Edge, put it under the

HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Policies\Microsoft\Edge

…node instead of under the

HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Policies\Google\Chrome

node.

If you’re trying to use a Chrome command line argument when launching in the new MSEdge.exe and it’s not working, check whether it has “blacklist” or “whitelist” in the name. If so, we probably renamed it.

For instance, want to tell Edge not to accept a 3DES ciphersuite for TLS? You need to use

msedge.exe --cipher-suite-denylist=0x000a

…instead of

chrome.exe --cipher-suite-blacklist=0x000a

….as you would with Chrome.

User-Agent

Browsers identify themselves to servers using a User-Agent header. A top source of compatibility problems is caused by sites that attempt to behave differently based on the User-Agent header and make incorrect assumptions about feature support, or fail to update their checks over time. Please, for the love of the web, avoid User-Agent Detection at all costs!

Chrome User-Agent string:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/76.0.3809.100 Safari/537.36

Edge77 Beta (Desktop) User-Agent string:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/77.0.3865.19 Safari/537.36 Edg/77.0.235.9

Edge18 User-Agent string:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/70.0.3538.102 Safari/537.36 Edge/18.18362

Edge73 Stable (Android) User-Agent string:
Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 10; Pixel 3 XL) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/73.0.3683.90 Mobile Safari/537.36 EdgA/42.0.4.3892

You’ll note that each of the Edge variants uses a different token at the end of the User-Agent string, but the string otherwise matches Chrome versions of the same build. Sites should almost never do anything with the Edge token information– treat Edge like Chrome. Failing to follow this advice almost always leads to bugs.

Sites are so bad about misusing the User-Agent header that Edge76 was forced to introduce a service-driven override list, which you can find at edge://compat/useragent. Alas, even that feature can cause problems in unusual cases. For testing, you can tell Edge to ignore the list by starting it thusly:

    msedge.exe --disable-domain-action-user-agent-override

Stay compatible out there!

-Eric

Sometimes a site will not load by default but it works just fine in InPrivate mode or when loaded in a different browser profile. In many such cases, this means there’s a bug in the website where they’ve set a cookie but fail to load when that cookie is sent back.

This might happen, for instance, if a site set a ton of cookies over time but the server has a request length limit; after the cookies build up, the 16k header limit is exceeded and the server rejects all further requests.

Fortunately, it’s easy to fix this problem in the new Edge (and Chrome).

Delete Cookies for the Current Site

On the error page, click the icon next to the address bar and see whether there are Cookies in use:

ClearSiteCookies1

If so, click the item to open the Cookies in use screen. In the box that appears, select each server name and click the Remove button at the bottom to remove the cookies set for that server:

ClearSiteCookies2

After you remove all of the cookies, click the Done button and try reloading the page.

 

-Eric

 

One of my final projects on the Chrome team was writing an internal document outlining Best Practices for Secure URL Display. Yesterday, it got checked into the public Chromium repro, so if this is a topic that interests you, please have a look!

Additionally, at Enigma 2019, the Chrome team released Trickuri (pronounced “trickery”) a tool for manual testing of URL displays against tricky attacks.