qwert230839265026494

joined 1 year ago
[–] qwert230839265026494 1 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Your help is much appreciated!

Question: Why do you think need such high security for a browser?

Good prompt! I actually started questioning my own motivations from this. And I'd say that the best I could come up with was that it's required in order to attain the "peace of mind" from having properly secured my browser activity; which happens to be the primary activity on my device anyways.

[–] qwert230839265026494 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Just a few days ago I tried to pay for flight tickets on flypgs.com. Multiple attempts on Firefox didn't work, while the first attempt on a Chromium-based one did. It might have been a fluke, but every so often issues like these do happen. And for some reason switching the browser does bear a positive result. YMMV though.

[–] qwert230839265026494 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Aight, I'll look into it. Much appreciated!

[–] qwert230839265026494 1 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Man you’ve gone down a security worm hole that makes me wonder if you should really be running qubes-OS rather than Fedora 🤣.

Hahaha 🤣. Honestly I would, if my device could handle.

Seriously if you need more than the chromium sandbox for brave and want simplicity just use firejail.

Madaidan strikes (yet) again. F*ck my paranoia...

The article you linked to is a wonderfully detailed write up but it is more geared towards those using containers that will be providing services (web, sql, etc) if you just want a browser in a secure container then any of the implementations will be fine for you. The browser is not a vector used to gain access to your OS directly but what you download potentially is so with that in mind your downloads folder should really be a CLAMFS folder or a target folder for on-access scanning by clamav.

Very interesting insights! Thank you so much! Would you happen to know of resources that I might refer to for this?

[–] qwert230839265026494 1 points 1 year ago (9 children)

Hehe :P . True dat. Maybe one day ;) . Perhaps I'll just spin up a distrobox in order to get access to Brave through the AUR, but this (excellent) article has worsened my already bad paranoia to clearly unhealthy levels 🤣. So, it seems out of question for now 😅. Though I might be able to spin it up in a Wolfi container. Pessimism doesn't help though 🤣.

[–] qwert230839265026494 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I believe Brave is the most private chromium browser, at least with the installation defaults.

I haven't come across anything that surpasses its defaults yet within the realm of Chromium-based browsers.

As for the controversies with the company, there were some at the beginning stages, but I haven’t heard anything new in quite a while.

Like I said in the original post, those would be secondary reasons after their respective merits in security and privacy had been resolved to a tie. Though, so far, Brave seems to be the clear winner. I would like to thank the Privacy Guides community over at lemmy.one for their engagement and contributions for that*.

Regarding the crypto, vpn, etc bloat, I use Brave on all my devices and all I have to do is hide that stuff after the installation and I’ve never been bothered by pop-ups or similar annoyances. I don’t think it’s more annoying to remove than Firefox with the recommended sites and Pocket.

Yeah, the linked article by Privacy Guides in the original post already shows what should be applied. Some kind of hardening seems to be done first by default anyways, it seems*.

Since you want private browsing, I would also say that a big plus for Brave is that it has built-in Tor browser.

For whatever it's worth, the Privacy Guides team is against using it:

"Brave is not as resistant to fingerprinting as the Tor Browser and far fewer people use Brave with Tor, so you will stand out. Where strong anonymity is required use the Tor Browser."

[–] qwert230839265026494 4 points 1 year ago (11 children)

on other Linux distros the way to get brave is via flatpak if the provided repos are borked for you.

I would love to use the flatpak if it was endorsed. Privacy Guides says the following about it:

"We advise against using the Flatpak version of Brave, as it replaces Chromium's sandbox with Flatpak's, which is less effective. Additionally, the package is not maintained by Brave Software, Inc."

[–] qwert230839265026494 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Chromium vs Brave? Firefox.

“Just use Firefox/Librewolf or any other privacy-conscious browser that isn’t Chromium-based.” I already do, but some websites/platforms don’t play nice on non-Chromium-based browsers due to Google’s monopoly on the web. Sometimes I can afford to not use that website/platform, but unfortunately not always.

😅. Thanks anyways 👍.

[–] qwert230839265026494 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I mentioned Brendan specifically because people like to lump in his flaws as reasons for not using brave in these discussions.

True. His name didn't stick with me as his controversies and the fact that he is co-founder and CEO of Brave weren't necessarily reasons I would forego Brave for. Feelings have to be put aside IMO in favor of merits.

Firefox used to have xulrunner and prism to provide them but now Firefox doesn’t provide a way other than a JavaScript popup via bookmarklet.

It's really unfortunate that Firefox did this. This is actually one of the reasons why I like to have a Chromium-based browser around. I might eventually switch over to Epiphany for that.

[–] qwert230839265026494 1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

~~Brendan’s~~ Brave's controversies

I assume?

app widows

A google search didn't give me any useful pointers. Did you perhaps meant to convey PWAs?

view more: ‹ prev next ›