• [deleted]

  • Post #62
  • Edited

matchboxbananasynergy The issue with Brave is it may give you a false sense of privacy.

Hi, I understand your overall position but how can you say, like @Paflechien , that Brave only gives a "false sense of security" while it EFFECTIVELY passes, following privacytests.org,

  • all the state partitioning test
  • blocks all the tracking query parameter
  • Tracker content blocking tests
    ?

I mean, this is no theories. Brave really does something !

It really blocks Adobe
Adobe Audience Manager
Amazon adsystem
AppNexus
Bing Ads
Chartbeat
Criteo
DoubleClick (Google)
Facebook tracking
Google (third-party ad pixel)
Google Analytics
Google Tag Manager
Index Exchange
New Relic
Quantcast
Scorecard Research Beacon
Taboola
Twitter pixel
Yandex Ads
!

      Icecube
      Sadly, using a DoH provider as your only adblocker won't be as effective as using Brave or Cromite.

          • [deleted]

          • Post #67

          What I don't understand is why people are still asking questions about safety. Vanadium is installed natively, it's the most secure browser, it has no equivalent on android, you won't find better. All the others are inferior. If you want to block ads, you'd better change the DNS at system level, it's written on the website. After that, you can install whatever browser you want, but they'll only be less efficient.

            • [deleted]

            • Post #68
            • Edited

            [deleted]
            What you do not understand is that people like me admit that YES Vanadium is more secure and that YES we know that blocking via DNS level is great for privacy, but not as effective as Brave. Just look at privacytests.org and compare to you own browser privacytests.org/me.html ...

              Icecube
              Its great that it's enough for you, but it's not enough for me sadly.

              I'm using DuckDuckGo for the most part, it used WebView so most of the security should carry over. If you don't want to use a WebView browser there is always Cromite.

                • [deleted]

                • Post #70

                [deleted] Refer to Daniel's response here

                Also, Arthur (Who seems to be the main developer of privacytests.org) responded to thestinger's response here.

                  a month later
                  16 days later

                  I tested both browsers for several weeks in a university fingerprinting study (I wanted to leave my fingerprint rather for academical research rather than at fingerprint.com).

                  The study measures the browser fingerprint based on e.g. navigator, audio, canvas, screen, plugin, connection, WEBGL, mathematical constants and much more.

                  The study determines whether the site:

                  • has seen this fingerprint before
                  • if you are the only participant with this fingerprint and
                  • if you can be tracked uniqueliy over time

                  Without Javascript, both browsers performed equally well in my tests according to the standards of the university project.

                  With Javascript enabled, both browsers always left a unique fingerprint.

                  In the categories "seen fingerprint before" and "can be tracked uniqueliy over time", Brave regularly performed better in my case: Vanadium was trackable over time and could be assigned to my previous fingerprints which was not the case with Brave.

                  Better to do your own comparisons than listen to strangers on the Internet: https://browser-fingerprint.cs.fau.de/?lang=en

                  So for most things I use Brave, when I open sites where I'm more concerned with security than privacy I use Vanadium.

                  10 months later

                  • [deleted]

                  • Post #73

                  NightSky how do you harden Firefox nightly out of curiosity? Sorry for reviving an old thread lol.