Not the point. Using a chromium browser is a vote for Google domination of the web. Just no.
this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2023
2 points (66.7% liked)
Privacy
31236 readers
765 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
Chat rooms
-
[Matrix/Element]Dead
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Brave has tried one scam after another before. I wouldn't trust it for a second for any use.
load more comments
(15 replies)
Brave isn't more private than Firefox but depending on the platform that Firefox is on, Firefox might be less secure than Brave.
Still waiting for Firefox Android to be secure enough for me to ditch Brave.
OOL, what's up with firefox android's app?
IIRC something along the lines of it not having proper site isolation, making it less secure.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I haven't done an audit of either but here are some points to consider:
- Brave is built on top of chromium, so it "by default" exposes lots of new APIs that Google is introducing that make fingerprinting easier if not outright invade your privacy. For example see https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/ and look at the "negative" items. Many of them such as Web NFC, Web Bluetooth and WebUSB API are against because they don't have adequate protections against fingerprinting or other privacy or security concerns. Brave seems to do a pretty good job removing or disarming these APIs but they are basically trying to keep their balance on a shaky and antagonistic foundation.
- On a similar note Google pushing these APIs work because of the greater market share. Again, derivatives can provide some resistance by disabling these APIs but unless all of them block the same APIs they will still be available widespread. So using a Chromium-based browser harms the entire web over time by allowing Google to have control. Right now Firefox (and derivatives) and Safari are the only browsers that you can use to truly oppose Google's control over the web platform.
Agreed! Many times I faced the fact that the Chrome developers don't follow the W3C standards, but they require it from Mozilla. Therefore, some functionality will only work in Chrome, but not in Mozilla (it's not their bad!).
As hard as it is for me to admit, and based on some tests, Brave had better fingerprinting resistance than Firefox. I don't trust the guys behind Brave, but their product is good.
It's be choice between technology dependence or financial dependence. And between BAT tokens crap and Mozilla Pocket
Its not chromium cringe therefore yes.
Is it more private than brave? Normal Firefox: no Librewolf (Firefox Fork): yes Hardened Firefox: yes
Good answer. Hardened Firefox or LibreWolf with some extensions are awesome options for privacy!
Brave is more secure, in terms of safety, because it's base on chromium and has unique Privacy Features. If you won't use Brave, LibreWolf or hardened Firefox is ur best choice.
Brave is more secure in terms of security. Security and safety are two entirely different attributes from a technical pov. And privacy and security are also not the same, though privacy is greatly impacted without security as you implied.
Firefox is more private than Brave but less secure. Neither is necessarily safer than the other, it depends on how much either app tends to misbehave within the constraints of your own use case. Since the use cases are different (privacy vs. security), it's harder to compare safety on an even playing field.
I would like to see evidence for your claim that Firefox is more private.
Exhibit A: The Tor Browser, which focuses on maximizing privacy, is based on Firefox rather than Chromium. They upstream a lot of their major stuff to regular Firefox.
Exhibit B: Firefox therefore has privacy features that Chromium-based browsers just do not have, like first-party isolation or letterboxing for example.
Brave's preconfiguration is a lot more private than Firefox out of the box, but hardened* Firefox is more private than Brave even with extra work put in.
*: Not just configuration (Arkenfox) but also patches. Like Librewolf (better) or Mullvad Browser (even better) or straight up Tor Browser (best).
Brave and Chromium itself has same good firstparty isolution as Firefox. If you check https://privacytests.org/ you can compare it with LibreWolf which is prehardened Firefox and hardened Brave is stronger then hardened Firefox, due the fact it don't need to have a lot of users to function + it uses the hide in the crowd effect + randomization at the same time which is stronger then only trying to make everyone looking the same.
Librewolf is not really prehardened Firefox, Librewolf is Firefox with the Mozilla stuff torn out. It's more private than regular FF but a long way out from Tor or Mullvad browser. You're right that out of the box Brave will provide better privacy than Librewolf, but everything else you said doesn't really make much sense.
You can't say that Mullvad or Tor are hardened Firefox Browser, that are completly different things and do have any arguments and evidence for what you say? That it doesn't make rly much sense? I mean it do. It seems more like your knowledge about Brave is pretty small while I do know a lot about both.
All right, here goes nothing.
I came to the conclusion that what you said didn't make much sense after you called Librewolf prehardened Firefox, which—while not a completely alien assertion—is not exactly very accurate as I explained in my previous comment.
What's worse though is that you continue making exotic assertions like the hide in the crowd + randomization theory without backing them up with anything, while simultaneously asking for arguments(?) and evidence supporting my relatively straightforward and popular position--both of which I have presented very clearly in my previous comments by the way.
What you fail to deliver in the meantime are explanations as to A) how Brave's approach is different or unique compared to anything that any hardened/forked/otherwise enhanced readily available Firefox could offer and B) why Brave's particular approach to privacy is then also objectively better than the multiple different approaches that various Firefox configs and forks offer.
But wait, I'm not done yet. You also fail to explain why you consider Mullvad Browser or Tor to be "completely different things" as you suggested just now. Brave is the best Chromium based thing out there in terms of privacy, shouldn't it then be fair to match it against the best of Firefox' class? Or is it because Tor Browser targets a very specific user base and is less fit for your average every-day surfing and that's why you think the comparison isn't sound. In that case I bear bad news about your deep well of knowledge on web browsers, because Mullvad Browser is based on Tor Browser but doesn't require any overlay network of any kind in order to function properly.
And since engaging with you has not yet led to anything of value, I will refrain from partaking in this discussion any further unless this changes.
While Chromium itself is a very solid platform, and correspondingly Chrome is a hard exploitation target, it's quite easy to screw up a fork of it. Comodo Secure Browser was a chromium fork that was fixed to an old version of the renderer with known security issues and was built to disable the sandbox. It also added libraries that were compiled without ASLR that worsened security for every application that loaded them.
Chrome has an enormous security team behind it in addition to P0, so bounties on Chrome exploits are around $500k. FF bounties are a fifth of that, which is probably a portion of less security, and a portion of lower target market. Brave could be doing terrible things that without an audit would be unknown. Web3 code is pretty terrible on the whole, so adding that to a secure base may not be great...
load more comments
(12 replies)
By default? I think so.
(these test are done with browsers at their defaults). Librewolf is on par with Brave, but I vehemently hate its interface and refuse to unfuck it wasting my time on CSS.
I'm on Brave as well since 2021, after almost 20 years of being an avid FF user and supporter. I don't like how FF is evolving and what Mozilla is doing and I don't buy the "Chromium domination" argument. If the sole reason to use FF is that "it is not Chromium", well, the developers aren't doing a great job.
However, let's be real: privacy on a browser matters until you go to whatever website that track you on the server side (Google/Facebook/Youtube/Whatever), or when you write an email from from you Gmail account, or when you buy stuff on Amazon... And so on. Just use the browser that works best for you and don't be paranoid.
load more comments
(9 replies)
view more: next ›