Privacytools.io: 🌐 Website Issue | Explicitly mention that using Brave is highly discouraged

[kafano32]

So I read through the entirety that is #649 (#1169 etc.) and I would like to add that you should explicitly mention that using Brave is highly discouraged and it is the exact same as using Chrome (in any case including privacy) just with a little less security.

Reasoning: When someone visited your website and saw Brave they installed it. But when it gets removed they either won't notice or they won't stop using Brave since they have no clue why it got removed. This is how 99.99% of software users are. If you don't explicitly tell them why they couldn't care less.

[dawidpotocki]

Nope. We don't need another shitstorm.

[Mikaela]

I don't think we highly discoiurage Brave even if we don't list it anymore. I think the biggest issue is currently https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/3420, I don't know much about fingerprinting, but Brave doesn't send data to Google by default and when they do, they use themselves as a proxy for safe browsing to not send IP address to Google.

[beerisgood]

I don't know much about fingerprinting,

Brave have better Anti-Fingerprinting then Vivaldi or Firefox.
Tested with https://www.bromite.org/detect

[kafano32]

Nope. We don't need another shitstorm.

Well then your choice (though I dont get why its a shitstorm informing users that software is insecure/not private) just be aware that people are now running around using Brave despite it having the same privacy properties as Chrome thinking it is more private because you told them so.

Brave have better Anti-Fingerprinting then Vivaldi or Firefox.

You don't know much about fingerprinting either do you?
Firefox has by far the best anti fingerprinting capabilities (since it uses Tors). Braves fingerprinting protection is literally invalid. What you people are doing (just like all the other random shit websites ranking Browsers) is going to random websites (like panopticlick, bromite and browserleaks) which checks random vectors in terribly outdated ways. Go try to check the entire JS/HTML/CSS APIs and compare Chrome, Braves and Firefox (with resistFingerprinting) responses. If you actually do that you should after couple minutes begin to see what I mean and never again touch Brave.

[kafano32]

I don't know much about fingerprinting

Which is evident by you thinking that connecting to google for version/addon checks and dns probes is the problematic thing.
Fingerprinting allows every website to easily deduce who you are and which websites you visited regardless how much you clear cookies or whatever. And seeing from your response it is more than highly likely that companies like Google, Facebook and Amazon (and probably another 500 companies worldwide) have stored your entire browsing history on their servers even if you use Ungoogled-Chromium which does less "random" connections than Brave, it does zero.

I think the biggest issue is currently brave/brave-browser#3420

If that legitimately is the biggest issue for a website calling itself privacytools than something is really wrong. User namespaces are one of the most insecure technology inside the kernel ever. There used to be JavaScript exploits that could get root on the host because Browsers like Chrome used User namespaces to "sandbox" the JS.

[dawidpotocki]

Nope. We don't need another shitstorm.
Well then your choice just be aware that people are now running around using Brave despite it having the same privacy properties as Chrome thinking it is more private because you told them so.

People are using Chrome, Vivaldi and other crap but we don't tell them
to avoid it, so why we would say to avoid Brave. It is the same as with
VPNs, we are not going to make a list of delisted VPNs saying that they
are trash, it makes no sense. If something is not listed, it's not
recommended, nice and simple.

[beerisgood]

@kafano32 you didn't test my link didn't you? Firefox isn't best in anti fingerprint. Not even with FPI. See the lot of problems in Tor browser