I’ve been using Brave for the past three or so years but I do know that Linux/privacy enthusiasts tend to swear by Firefox. Wanted to get people’s thoughts on this topic to see if I should be making a potential switch. Thanks!
I haven’t done an audit of either but here are some points to consider:
- Brave is built on top of chromium, so it “by default” exposes lots of new APIs that Google is introducing that make fingerprinting easier if not outright invade your privacy. For example see https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/ and look at the “negative” items. Many of them such as Web NFC, Web Bluetooth and WebUSB API are against because they don’t have adequate protections against fingerprinting or other privacy or security concerns. Brave seems to do a pretty good job removing or disarming these APIs but they are basically trying to keep their balance on a shaky and antagonistic foundation.
- On a similar note Google pushing these APIs work because of the greater market share. Again, derivatives can provide some resistance by disabling these APIs but unless all of them block the same APIs they will still be available widespread. So using a Chromium-based browser harms the entire web over time by allowing Google to have control. Right now Firefox (and derivatives) and Safari are the only browsers that you can use to truly oppose Google’s control over the web platform.
Agreed! Many times I faced the fact that the Chrome developers don’t follow the W3C standards, but they require it from Mozilla. Therefore, some functionality will only work in Chrome, but not in Mozilla (it’s not their bad!).
Brave has tried one scam after another before. I wouldn’t trust it for a second for any use.
Please provide any evidence for your false claim.
- argv_minus_one ( @argv_minus_one@beehaw.org ) English2•1 year ago
Cryptocurrency is a scam, son.
Its not chromium cringe therefore yes.
Is it more private than brave? Normal Firefox: no Librewolf (Firefox Fork): yes Hardened Firefox: yes
LibreWolf nd Brave are on the same Level if both are hardened.
Good answer. Hardened Firefox or LibreWolf with some extensions are awesome options for privacy!
Short version: Firefox on desktop, something chromium-based on Android. See https://www.privacyguides.org/en/tools/ for the long version!
For security - yes, chromium-based. But for privacy Mull (Fennec) with extension support would be superior!
No sync that way though, so I’m not sure how someone would access bookmarks, history, and open tabs that way.
Up to you if you think that feature is worth the security/privacy loss. Personally I’ve not missed syncing tabs across devices, I do most things on the one device anyway.
I don’t think there would be any privacy loss, Firefox sync is encrypted and all that. I work on multiple devices so I absolutely need it.
I meant the security/privacy loss of using Chromium on desktop or Firefox on Android
I did not find any justification of why they arbitrarily did not considered Gecko browsers in privacyguides. They just made that statement. I am not surprised that certain chromium browsers are more secure simply because Google has a bigger budget, but I did not see any justification for it. Then again the EFF will say that Tor Browser is better then Brave so we can argue about these minor points forever.
Then again none of that minor stuff matters to me. I care more about the goals of the organizations themselves and I am not convinced that any of the Chromium browsers take us down a sane path. So I will be staying with Firefox thank you very much.
On Android, Firefox is still less secure than Chromium-based alternatives: Mozilla’s engine, GeckoView, has yet to support site isolation or enable isolatedProcess.
From this page (which has links to Mozilla if you want to read more)
Thanks, I did not see that before.
Other interesting thing is that about:config is disabled on mobile except maybe nightly. Wonder why?
The other advantage of Brave is that it is more secure out of the box. From privacy point of view that should be better at blending in to the crowd depending on user base size. In Firefox I usually add an extension and configure it and some about:config settings. Somewhat minimal but probably quite unique.
Not sure about
about:config, though it’s the kind of discussion that pops up in !privacyguides@lemmy.one so you might have better luck asking there.I never know what to think of Brave. They do seem to have some serious privacy tooling available, but they also seem to get up to so much dodgy behaviour when it comes to money that I don’t really trust them.
Browsers are very complex and fast moving tech. This means expensive. This implies professional paid staff. Then comes how to raise money. The big companies have revenue streams. Smaller groups have to do it any way they can which is always compromising something.
Mozilla too makes compromises… setting default search to places I would not use. Trying to offer a subscription set of services which is actually not a bad plan but is not exactly to the point. So I trust them more and want to see them succeed but they have challenges too.
Some ways huge parts of tech relies on questionable income streams including the tracking, ad, and personal information broker business. Google of course but Mozilla is funded largely by Google as far as I know. Apple may get similar funding but larger. Microsoft even in Windows installs crapware from partners. So it is everywhere. HP laptops typically do too.
As hard as it is for me to admit, and based on some tests, Brave had better fingerprinting resistance than Firefox. I don’t trust the guys behind Brave, but their product is good.
Iirc isn’t it more like Brave is better out of the box, but given sufficient configuration, both are more or less equal?
Out of the box - yes, maybe. But I think that with some extensions (uBlock Origin, CanvasBlocker, Chameleon) and tweaking hardened Firefox (LibreWolf, Mull) would be way better!
By default? I think so.
(these test are done with browsers at their defaults). Librewolf is on par with Brave, but I vehemently hate its interface and refuse to unfuck it wasting my time on CSS.
I’m on Brave as well since 2021, after almost 20 years of being an avid FF user and supporter. I don’t like how FF is evolving and what Mozilla is doing and I don’t buy the “Chromium domination” argument. If the sole reason to use FF is that “it is not Chromium”, well, the developers aren’t doing a great job.
However, let’s be real: privacy on a browser matters until you go to whatever website that track you on the server side (Google/Facebook/Youtube/Whatever), or when you write an email from from you Gmail account, or when you buy stuff on Amazon… And so on. Just use the browser that works best for you and don’t be paranoid.
Don’t forget that https://privacytests.org/ is run by a Brave employee!
That hasn’t do anything with the results. You can test everything yourself. Techlore also made a interview with him.
As I said in another comment, if you work for Brave you’re probably going to write tests that play to Brave’s strengths
There is enough evidwnce that this is wrong. I would recommend to watch Techlores Interview too.
Are you telling me that you don’t think a Brave employee would write tests based on the areas of expertise they have, that they may well already have implemented fixes for? Or, on a more sinister level, do you think Brave would allow their employee to have a web page up that made their browser look bad?
I’m not trying to be agro here, I’m just pointing out that you can’t really consider this an unbiased source even if you are happy with all the tests!
I would suggest checking the Interview that Techlore made, he ask the owner of the site similar questions.
It discloses that on the front page, below the test table. Anyway, the tests are open source and they check pretty common stuff. I can’t see the problem there if Firefox comes out having actually worse defaults.
It is how it is, there isn’t much more to say. As a matter of fact, Librewolf gets a lot more green ticks, same or more than Brave. Thus, I can hardly see bad faith on what the website does.
It’s not necessarily bad, and I assume all the tests are legit, it’s just that someone working for Brave will have a bias towards writing tests for things that Brave does well (and on the flip side, Brave will make them take the site down if it makes them look bad)
I understand that, and what you say is entirely possible, in theory. On the other hand, I see that the tests performed there are pretty standard. I mean, there is nothing exotic that only Brave does well there and Librewolf shines as well. Then, c’mon, Brave surely had missteps in the past, but is generally know to be a solid choice with regard to privacy.
That said, there’s an open issue with the same concerns. Even if I’d say that nobody would complain about the employer of the author if Firefox came out with better score from those test…
@Engywuck do you mind expanding on this? Genuinely curious: “I don’t like how FF is evolving and what Mozilla is doing”
No, sorry. I have had endless arguments and discussion about this topic. I’m tired of talking about it. I’m just using a browser that works better than FF for me and I don’t want to support Mozilla anymore (after 20 years). That’s it.
Not the point. Using a chromium browser is a vote for Google domination of the web. Just no.
Brave is more secure, in terms of safety, because it’s base on chromium and has unique Privacy Features. If you won’t use Brave, LibreWolf or hardened Firefox is ur best choice.
Brave is more secure in terms of security. Security and safety are two entirely different attributes from a technical pov. And privacy and security are also not the same, though privacy is greatly impacted without security as you implied.
Firefox is more private than Brave but less secure. Neither is necessarily safer than the other, it depends on how much either app tends to misbehave within the constraints of your own use case. Since the use cases are different (privacy vs. security), it’s harder to compare safety on an even playing field.
I would like to see evidence for your claim that Firefox is more private.
Exhibit A: The Tor Browser, which focuses on maximizing privacy, is based on Firefox rather than Chromium. They upstream a lot of their major stuff to regular Firefox.
Exhibit B: Firefox therefore has privacy features that Chromium-based browsers just do not have, like first-party isolation or letterboxing for example.
Brave’s preconfiguration is a lot more private than Firefox out of the box, but hardened* Firefox is more private than Brave even with extra work put in.
*: Not just configuration (Arkenfox) but also patches. Like Librewolf (better) or Mullvad Browser (even better) or straight up Tor Browser (best).
Brave is so unsecure because it uses chromium. The only unique thing i saw on brave was the crypto miner included. Chrome can easily just change terms so that brave looses his licence for chromium. Firefox is more secure in the way it is more secure, because they are not focused on stealing your data and there is librewolf yeah that one is open source and is the most secure of those 3
Yep. They definitly added a crypto miner into their opensource code. 👍
It was rumored sometime that they did or even thought about it.
It would be the stupidiest thing ever.
https://lemmy.world/post/1510069
LMAO something other happensd
If you read it, you realize it isn’t bad as it sounds and has nothing to do with there browser and really less with trustworthyness of the company in terms of privacy and security. So instead of trying to find evidence why “Brave is bad” make a Pro and Con List for Brave and compare it with the google infected Firefox and you will see why I prefer Brave as the browser of trust and use LibreWolf as second, because it’s like a real private version of Firefox.
Ok Chrome but in orange.
While Chromium itself is a very solid platform, and correspondingly Chrome is a hard exploitation target, it’s quite easy to screw up a fork of it. Comodo Secure Browser was a chromium fork that was fixed to an old version of the renderer with known security issues and was built to disable the sandbox. It also added libraries that were compiled without ASLR that worsened security for every application that loaded them.
Chrome has an enormous security team behind it in addition to P0, so bounties on Chrome exploits are around $500k. FF bounties are a fifth of that, which is probably a portion of less security, and a portion of lower target market. Brave could be doing terrible things that without an audit would be unknown. Web3 code is pretty terrible on the whole, so adding that to a secure base may not be great…
While Chromium itself is a very solid platform, and correspondingly Chrome is a hard exploitation target, it’s quite easy to screw up a fork of it. Comodo Secure Browser was a chromium fork that was fixed to an old version of the renderer with known security issues and was built to disable the sandbox. It also added libraries that were compiled without ASLR that worsened security for every application that loaded them.
Chrome has an enormous security team behind it in addition to P0, so bounties on Chrome exploits are around $500k. FF bounties are a fifth of that, which is probably a portion of less security, and a portion of lower target market. Brave could be doing terrible things that without an audit would be unknown. Web3 code is pretty terrible on the whole, so adding that to a secure base may not be great…