undefined | Better HN

0 points0-_-05y ago0 comments

"Firefox BAT extension might not work in the future" is still better than no Firefox BAT extension. I like the idea of Brave but my preference for Firefox is greater.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

jonathansampson5y ago· 1 in thread

It's not a matter of "might not work in the future," it would be broken on arrival due to the limited abilities offered by the current extension APIs.

As for Firefox vs Brave, I would encourage you to check out the independent study by Leith, of Trinity College in Dublin. Leith found Brave to be in its own class as the "most private" browser tested (including Firefox): https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/browser_privacy.pdf.

You could perform a similar test yourself. Setup Fiddler on your machine (installing the root cert to inspect HTTPS traffic), set aside %localappdata%/Mozilla and %appdata%/Mozilla, then launch Firefox. The traffic (without any user interaction) is a surprise to many. Compare with Brave (be sure to set aside %localappdata%/BraveSoftware beforehand).

annoyingnoob5y ago

I've never quite understood why I would want to use Brave as its just another chromium browser with some ideas about advertising. I found your post interesting.

The paper you linked to is limited in scope to the browser itself calling home with unique identifiers. The paper says nothing about what happens when the browser visits say Facebook.

In terms of the browser calling home and uniquely tracking you all by itself, the paper says Brave does a good job. But Brave still calls home for things and Brave can still collect IP addresses and browser fingerprints the same as any other site.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse