Is brave the only browser with fingerprint randomization?

Permanently Deleted

63

What is unprivate about brave software? Assuming all telemetry is turned off and the browser is configured for strictest of settings no crypto, no ads, no telemetry, no java, session cookie delete, ect ect. Do we have RCP happening phoning home? I have never set brave up behind traffic analysis to see what outbound traffic gets sent that was not from the user. This can be directed towards desktop and mobile.

Besides the above the only off putting thing I'm aware they have done is installed their VPN software without permission on dekstop which I found myself before I seen the news about it. Edit wording.

1
Maybe Cromite (the main bromite fork) would be better. Vivaldi isn't great, but it also isn't brave. It allows for blocklist importing and user scripts, and is on desktop Windows as well.

1
Unless you stop using Firefox Account or Vivaldi Account, which are both real spy tools, not telemetry, which is indeed harmless and hellpfull not only to devs, but to yourself (to make browser better), Brave accountless sync will always 100% better solution in terms of privacy and security.

-10

You don't want a randomised fingerprint, as that is relatively unique among a sea of fingerprints [1]. What you want is a fingerprint that's as similar to everyone else (generic) as possible; that's what Firefox's resist fingerprinting setting aims to do, and what the Tor browser does.

[1] There are many values you can't change, so the randomisation of the ones you can change could end up making you more unique ... think of it like having your language set to french but are based in the USA — that language setting can't uniquely identify the French in france, but will stick out like a sore thumb if set in shitsville Idaho. It's likely the same if you use firefox but have your user agent set to chrome; that's more rare and unique than not changing the user agent at all.

47

But isn't randomization supposed to give you a different unique fingerprint each time? So yes, you would be unique and easily tracked but only until your fingerprint changes

21
- So what's the benefit of this over blending in each time?
  
  12
- Yes it is, and that's why the EFF recommends it.
  
  6
- Permanently Deleted
  
  1
No, that's absolutely incorrect. You want a new fake fingerprint every single time someone asks your browser for your information. You want it to lie about your plugins, user agent, your fonts and your screen size. Bonus if you use common values, but not necessary.

The randomized data they're providing isn't static and it isn't the same from session to session.

100% White noise is a far better obfuscation than a 40% non-unique tracking ID. Yes, your data is lumped in with 47 million other users, but used in conjunction with static pieces of your data you become uncomfortably identifiable.

8
- The whole point of the poster above is that you can't ramdomise 100%
  
  11
- this is the correct answer
  
  0
Permanently Deleted

1

I believe that Firefox has a mechanism where millions of users all have the same fingerprint, which makes the whole concept of browser fingerprinting useless.

39

Catch is you have to enable it manually

17
- Purged by creator
  
  5

Yes. Brave focuses on providing random data points each time it's asked (e.g. screen size). A hardened Firefox will try to provide a generic fingerprint.

Apples to oranges more or less, I'm unaware of any proof that one or the other is considerably better across the board. Though my gut does tell me that randomization is a lot better in the specific situation of regularly signing in and out of accounts.

14

mullvad browser which is a TOR browser fork, seems to defeat fingerprint.com per-session.

brave strict fingerprint protection on its own actually does not even do this afaik

9

I can't even get that page to load without a lot of JS allowed. I guess I'm not going to get my score anytime soon.

8

Weird, it usually works fine without JS.

2
- It just keeps reloading and after 5 tries it gives up. I could probably go through each domain manually but I'd like it if they could let me keep the 3rd party domains disabled.
  
  3

So far, as far as I can tell, for desktop, yes.

Brave plus privacy badger seems to be the strongest anti-fingerprint that you can lay your hands on at the moment.

I have waded waist deep through about 15 anti-Brave posts where people have told me to try different combinations of plugins and browsers. Somebody claimed duckduckgo would do it, but once I installed it and found out it didn't support plugins, I walked away immediately.

Everybody seems to direct most of their hate toward the CEO and the crypto. As far as I'm concerned those two things don't bother me anywhere near as much as their thirst for funding. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have any qualms about selling 100% of my data off to anyone willing to pay to stay afloat. But in the end that's probably not all that different from Microsoft or Google.

Brave is keeping up with the Joneses for YouTube ad blocking. It's reasonably quick and supports all of my Chrome plugins.

I absolutely cannot get Firefox to pass the fingerprint test. If I could convince Firefox to pass that test I would strongly consider backing off my usage of brave.

-15

It's very telling when the only criticism you really see leveled against Brave is that same article everybody posts as some kind of trap card, despite the fact it can be boiled down to "don't use Brave because the CEO is a bigot or something, and you have to opt out of their crypto stuff." Cool. I don't care about those things, I care about the browser's ability to do what I need it to, and Brave does. Are you putting your trust in a company that could be selling your data? Sure, that's always a risk, but until it's been confirmed, I'm happy to stick with it. I mean shit, it even beats out GrapheneOS's Vanadium in the fingerprinting test, and that's the browser I use on my phone.

imo, the hate against Brave is unfounded and seems to be coming from the anti-Chromium crowd. There are valid arguments to be made against it, but I honestly couldn't give less of a fuck what their CEO believes as long as the product works as advertised, and Brave consistently scores highly in privacy and security tests.

-1
- Brave has been thoroughly tested from many privacy advocate organizations EFF and more known names using default settings and ranks as the highest overall rated fingerprint resistant and anti tracking protected browser, again at default settings I have ran many tests once configured and get even better results even against librewolf with and without extensions and vanilla Firefox with privacy badger and ublock ect as well as without. (I use librewolf on desktop for those who are gonna down vote this) Gecko based browsers are advised against on Graphene and is spoken in length about on reddit from one of their Devs. Chromium and google is a bad combo sure reliance on Google and all to begin with, but so is supporting Google to degoogle with a pixel device. Could brave be a honeypot? Sure and many other services. So could VPN providers and any service for that matter. The biggest advantage I see using Firefox is promoting a non google alternative and balancing the scale against googles monopoly. In some cases Tor adds risk due to it being a giant vacuum for govt or other malicious entities looking to snoop. Its like taping a sign to your traffic. I think it serves a purpose but that varies from each persons use case.
  
  Edit typo.
  
  2
- There is also double standards issue, as CEO done 'horrific' things before even Brave existed, than he was Mozilla CEO and exactly this time Firefox was boycotted by some idiots in favor to use other browser (those argument were exacttly as dumb as nowadays about Brave).
  
  -3
- Permanently Deleted
  
  -4