• Lemongrab@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

  • halfempty@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • virtualbriefcase@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • privacybro@lemmy.ninja
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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