• ultratiem@lemmy.ca
    6513·
    1 year ago

    Firefox is safer and tbh, has probably the best UX and aesthetics out of anyone. Brave is garbage.

        • Programmer Belch@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          12·
          1 year ago

          It has included some privacy measures to resist fingerprinting like letterboxing and has more privacy focused search engines as default like searx. Also it takes out some firefox utilities like pocket which I don’t really use

          As for Mullwav browser I’m not really sure, it seems to be another reinforced firefox like librewolf

        • Linus_Torvalds@lemmy.world
          2·
          1 year ago

          Btw, here is a detailed, technical review. It is in German, but with transtae and all the code, it should be understandable.

          TLDR: It’s good.

        • eya@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          1·
          1 year ago

          i prefer to use librewolf as my everyday browser, while using mullvad as my browser for other things that dont require tor i like to keep things separated, personally

    • stifle867@programming.dev
      41·
      1 year ago

      As a Firefox user, the only thing Brave does that I wish Firefox would copy is their fingerprinting resistance. I know Firefox does have fingerprinting resistance but it’s nowhere near the same level as Brave.

      • Pantherina@feddit.de
        2·
        1 year ago

        No. Firefox with RFP, Arkenfox user.js, Librewolf or Tor-Browser unifies your fingerprint. Its universal among users. Brave scrambles it, while some may say that is actually not a real fingerprint and can be detected, making you stand out extremely

        • stifle867@programming.dev
          2·
          1 year ago

          Just to be clear, are you saying Firefox with fingerprinting resistance used in conjunction with Arkenfox user.js provides fingerprint unification, similar to what Tor browser does? I’ll have to check that out.

          I think both approaches are valid tbh. Having a unique fingerprint obviously uniquely identified you, but if it’s randomised then your browsing sessions can’t (in theory) be linked.

          • Pantherina@feddit.de
            2·
            1 year ago

            Yes. Arkenfox to my knowledge is 1:1 Tor configs. Librewolf is similar to arkenfox, no real differences afaik.

            For regular browsing though, this means that everything is always deleted. So if you may change some configs, you mayyy be fingerprintable.

            Good thing though, different from Tor-Browser is, that it deletes everything without using the private browsing mode. This means, that it has way more capabilities, and saving session for example has no fingerprinting effect really, as favicons and cache can be cleared.

            The problem with randomized UserAgent is afaik, that in firefox it cant really fake a complete, real browser, fonts and all. So it would be very nice 90% of the time, but big tracking sites would know exactly who you are

            • Stahlreck@feddit.ch
              1·
              1 year ago

              So if you may change some configs, you mayyy be fingerprintable.

              You are fingerprintable either way unless you go all out. Going full on Arkenfox/Librewolf mode (with all settings enabled that decrease convenience) you can at most fool naive fingerprinting. For the more advanced one you need Tor.

              And even for naive fingerprinting, unless you use Tor or a VPN (which you would have to trust) your IP alone + the fact that you use FF (which a few % of people worldwide do) along with some other basic info about your PC will make you very unique.

          • z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml
            12·
            1 year ago

            The Chameleon extension could solve some of the fingerprinting issues as it can randomize the browser and OS info that is sent.

            • stifle867@programming.dev
              2·
              1 year ago

              If anyone who downvotes wants to jump in and explain why instead of doing drive-bys that would be appreciated. I don’t see any reason why this browser extension wouldn’t be an effective tool if it does what it says.

      • ultratiem@lemmy.ca
        81·
        1 year ago

        Brave is just a shill for Google mothership. Firefox is leading privacy and security through browsers.

        • zwekihoyy@lemmy.ml
          61·
          1 year ago

          Firefox has a weaker sandbox than chromium and less mature site isolation and therefore has lower security. privacy is a different story, but remember you’re only as private as you are secure so Firefox is inherently not that private assuming a malicious site escapes the sandbox.

          I’m fully against chrome’s growing monopoly as well as Google surveillance capitalism but let’s not be so dramatic with the “google mother ship” nonsense.

          using chromium as a base does not equal data being sent back to Google, just like using Android as a base doesn’t inherently send data back to Google.

          • TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.ml
            16·
            1 year ago

            Source: madaidan

            Anything you say is as informative and coherent as a baby’s babble, if you believe him or any of the closed source shilling “security zealots” in FOSS community.

            • zwekihoyy@lemmy.ml
              2·
              1 year ago

              what the fuck are you even talking about my guy? do I have to say “oh I use Firefox btw” for you to decide to not be a brick wall?