undefined | Better HN

0 pointsyupyupyups8mo ago0 comments

Yes it has, unless they plan to do significant changes to how the relevant JS APIs function, which is usually prohibitively expensive to maintain. Standard Chromium allows websites to fetch a lot of fingerprintable bits, this is even true for Brave. Tracking protection on Chromium is a joke.

Firefox on the other hand is better in this respect and even has a setting explicitly for resisting fingerprinting.

0 comments

fastball8mo ago

Last time I checked, Brave was actually the best-in-class for resisting fingerprinting.

yupyupyupsOP8mo ago

Calling Brave "best-in-class for resisting fingerprinting" is quite bold. Especially when it's so easily disproven.

Try some good fingerprint testing sites on Brave and see what comes up (those results alone should chock you). Then try the same sites on Firefox with privacy.resistFingerprinting=true. Unless some truly revolutionary initiatives have been taken at Brave since last I checked, you will see Firefox do A LOT better than Brave.

Brave suck at resisting fingerprinting. It may be better than other Chromium-based browsers, but it's still pathetic.

fastball7mo ago

> Try some good fingerprint testing sites on Brave

Um. Have you tried this? Because obviously based on my comment I've done this before (and I've of course included Firefox).

I just did this again and sites tell me Brave has a randomized fingerprint. Firefox's is "unique". A specific example: the EFF Cover Your Tracks website[1] said that both browsers convey 18.21 bits of identifying information.

Additionally, if you need to enable a certain setting for best performance, that browser is obviously worse for purpose, given that the vast majority of people don't change settings.

[1] https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/

yupyupyupsOP7mo ago

I actually did, but admittedly it was maybe 4 years ago. Brave vs Firefox. Brave gave the fingerprinter a lot of information about my hardware including the exact model of my GPU, while Firefox did not.

I think I wrote some report at one time about this issue, so it was a bit more than just surface level testing. Chromium was always a disapointment whenever I attempted a comparison.

I think a more fair comparison would be today's Brave vs some hardened Firefox such as Librewolf, Mullvad Browser or even Tor Browser. Because the issue is not how vanilla Chromium or Firefox perform, but how well they can be hardened in practice.

Worth noting is that Brave does better when it comes to compatibility, because it leaves WebGL and other APIs enabled, while something like Tor Browser will disable those for privacy reasons. It hints at different priorities between these projects.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse