logologo
  • How it works
  • Why It Matters
  • Statistics
  • Pricing
  • FAQ
  • API
logologo
  • How it works
  • Why It Matters
  • Statistics
  • Pricing
  • FAQ
  • API
HTPBE?

Structural PDF tamper detection API. Catches edits your KYC stack misses.

Product

  • How It Works
  • Use Cases
  • Metadata Viewer
  • Pricing

Developers

  • API Reference
  • GitHub/docs
  • Changelogv2.48.0

Resources

  • About
  • Blog
  • Comparisons
  • Legal & Imprint

© 2024–2026 TMI Iurii Rogulia · VAT ID: FI29845875 · Made in Finland

Status

Algorithm v2.48.0

Tool profile

Headless Chrome

Headless Chrome reads as a institutional generator — its modification rate in our corpus does not sit meaningfully above the baseline. The name alone is never the verdict; each file is judged on its own structure.

Back to all statistics
Forensic verdict

Legitimate origin

Based on this tool’s share of the HTPBE? corpus.

Modification rate
27%-22pp below baseline
Corpus baseline: 49%
Corpus share
0.46%
Share of all analyzed appearances
Modification rate
27%
-22pp below baseline
Role split
100%C/0%P
Creator vs Producer share of appearances

Corpus profile

How Headless Chrome shows up in HTPBE? corpus

Headless Chrome is widely used by SaaS products to render HTML invoices, statements, and reports server-side via Puppeteer or Playwright.

Headless Chrome sits behind a large share of modern SaaS-generated documents. The verdict comes from the file as a whole, with the tool name as one part of the picture.

The signal
Headless Chrome sits behind a large share of modern SaaS-generated documents.

Reading guide

How to read this page

Every PDF stores two software labels: the Creator, which names the application that first produced the document, and the Producer, which names the software that last wrote the file out. This page counts the files HTPBE? has analysed where Headless Chrome fills one of those labels, and shows how often those files carry modification markers, which PDF versions they use and which other tools sit next to them.

A tool name tells you where a file passed through, not whether anyone changed its content. A Creator and Producer that agree usually point to a single pass; a Producer that differs from the Creator means the file was written out again by another program, which has many ordinary explanations such as compression, merging or a print-to-PDF step.

Caveats

  • The figures cover 125 files. Larger than a handful, but still a sample of what was submitted, not of all PDFs in the world.
  • The statistics describe files HTPBE? analysed. They are not a judgement of the quality or trustworthiness of Headless Chrome.
  • Submitted files lean towards documents that someone wanted checked, so rates here can sit higher than in everyday document flows.
  • Metadata can be rewritten by anyone, so a producer name on its own is never treated as proof either way.
Read a PDF’s metadata for freeAll tool statisticsCreator vs Producer explainedPDF metadata fields referenceCheck PDFs through the API

Role in the workflow

How Headless Chrome shows up in metadata

Every PDF carries a Creator (the application that produced the original document) and a Producer (the engine that wrote the PDF). The same tool can appear in either slot, with very different modification profiles.

CAs Creator · 100%
As Producer · 0%P
CAs Creator
  • Share of appearances
    100%
  • Modification rate
    27%
  • Avg file size
    331 KB
PAs Producer
  • Share of appearances
    0%
  • Modification rate
    0%

How to read this

The Creator slot typically reflects where a document started life. The Producer slot reflects whatever wrote the final file, which is not always the same software.

A higher modification rate as Producer than as Creator usually means the tool is acting as a re-saver on documents that originated elsewhere. A higher rate as Creator points to fragile workflows around the original authoring app.

Name fingerprints

Also goes by

Different version strings and spellings observed for Headless Chrome in the wild. All are merged into the same canonical profile.

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) HeadlessChrome/149.0.0.0 Safari/537.3626.4%
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) HeadlessChrome/146.0.0.0 Safari/537.3613.6%
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) HeadlessChrome/151.0.0.0 Safari/537.368.8%
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) HeadlessChrome/142.0.0.0 Safari/537.368.8%
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) HeadlessChrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.364.8%
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) HeadlessChrome/153.0.0.0 Safari/537.364.0%
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) HeadlessChrome/150.0.0.0 Safari/537.364.0%
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) HeadlessChrome/152.0.0.0 Safari/537.363.2%
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) HeadlessChrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.362.4%
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) HeadlessChrome/148.0.0.0 Safari/537.362.4%
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) HeadlessChrome/145.0.0.0 Safari/537.362.4%
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) HeadlessChrome/132.0.0.0 Safari/537.362.4%
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) HeadlessChrome/144.0.0.0 Safari/537.362.4%
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) HeadlessChrome/147.0.0.0 Safari/537.362.4%
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) HeadlessChrome/135.0.0.0 Safari/537.361.6%
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) HeadlessChrome/152.0.0.0 Safari/537.361.6%
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) HeadlessChrome/128.0.0.0 Safari/537.361.6%
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) HeadlessChrome/152.0.0.0 Safari/537.360.8%
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) HeadlessChrome/155.0.0.0 Safari/537.360.8%
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) HeadlessChrome/124.0.0.0 Safari/537.360.8%
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) HeadlessChrome/133.0.0.0 Safari/537.360.8%
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) HeadlessChrome/135.0.0.0 Safari/537.360.8%
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) HeadlessChrome/127.0.0.0 Safari/537.360.8%
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) HeadlessChrome/147.0.0.0 Safari/537.360.8%
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux aarch64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) HeadlessChrome/150.0.0.0 Safari/537.360.8%
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux aarch64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) HeadlessChrome/149.0.0.0 Safari/537.360.8%

Why variants matter

The same tool publishes itself under 26 different metadata strings – version bumps, locale tags, build IDs. We canonicalize them so the corpus reflects one identity, not noise.

Most common
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) HeadlessChrome/149.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
26.4% of appearances
Variant spread
26 distinct strings
Long-tail share: 73.6%
Observed range
05.10.2024 → 26.10.2026

Distributions

What ships alongside Headless Chrome

The PDF versions Headless Chrome writes when acting as Producer, and the other tools that appear in the same documents.

Common Producers when Headless Chrome is the Creator

Skia/PDF writes 83% of these files – read this row as ‘what these documents most often pass through on the way out’.

Skia/PDF83.2%
pdf-lib2.4%
Adobe Acrobat1.6%
iOS Print to PDF1.6%
macOS Print to PDF0.8%
GPL Ghostscript0.8%
4-Heights0.8%

Related profiles

Tools you’ll see next to Headless Chrome

Other tools that frequently share metadata with Headless Chrome in the same documents. Each card links to its own forensic profile.

P2% co-occurrence
pdf-lib
Corpus share0.47%
Mod rate91%
P2% co-occurrence
Adobe Acrobat
Corpus share1.6%
Mod rate63%
P2% co-occurrence
iOS Print to PDF
Corpus share1.8%
Mod rate61%
P1% co-occurrence
macOS Print to PDF
Corpus share3.3%
Mod rate63%
P1% co-occurrence
GPL Ghostscript
Corpus share0.25%
Mod rate43%

Long tail

Notable observations

Smaller cuts of the Headless Chrome corpus – useful context, but treat each row as a single data point rather than a strong signal.

Digitally signed
<1%

Of files carry at least one digital signature

Embedded files
<1%

Of files have attachments inside

Avg pages per document
2.5
Oldest observed
05.10.2024 — about 2 years ago

FAQ

Headless Chrome in PDF metadata: common questions

What is Headless Chrome?

Headless Chrome is widely used by SaaS products to render HTML invoices, statements, and reports server-side via Puppeteer or Playwright.

Why does Headless Chrome appear in the metadata of a PDF?

A PDF can record the software that created it (Creator) and the software that last wrote the file out (Producer). When Headless Chrome generated the file, or re-saved it, it can leave its name in one of those fields. The field is filled in by software, not checked by anyone, so it is a hint about the file’s history rather than a guarantee.

Does Headless Chrome in the metadata mean the PDF was edited?

No. A producer name alone proves nothing about whether a document was changed. Many Headless Chrome files are original output, and a file that was edited can name any tool at all. What matters is the whole picture: how the file is built, how its dates and structure line up, and whether the Creator and Producer fit together.

How should I read the Headless Chrome statistics?

The figures describe the 125 files in the HTPBE? corpus that list Headless Chrome as Creator or Producer. The modification rate is the share of those files that carry modification markers. It is a base rate for this particular set of files, not a property of Headless Chrome and not a prediction for any single document.

Can I compare Headless Chrome with other tools using these numbers?

Only loosely. The corpus consists of PDFs people chose to submit for checking, which skews towards documents someone had a reason to doubt. A tool popular for legitimate bulk output can still show a high rate here, and a rarely seen tool can show an extreme rate from a handful of files. These pages are not a quality ranking of the tools themselves.

How do I check a PDF that lists Headless Chrome?

Upload it to HTPBE? for a modification check, or open it in the free PDF Metadata Viewer to see the Creator, Producer and dates stored in the file. The same check is available through the HTPBE? API.

Secure your workflow

Create your account – check PDFs on the web or with an API key, both ready on signup.
No sales call. Cancel any time.

Start Free – Close the Structural Fraud GapSee Pricing
Read API Docs →