That’s not a good way at all to evaluate strict vs standard mode.
1 Like
I didn’t test strict vs standard mode. I compared OOTB standard mode between 2 browsers, in which Brave did better than Firefox.
I see. But tbh it doesn’t matter, because it’s a flawed approach in general, no matter which browsers or modes you compare.
Could you elaborate? Or if it doesn’t matter regardless, what is the point you want to say in this thread?
Also, I didn’t say that any approach is perfect. However, there’s one browser that’s objectively better than another browser in this particular aspect of privacy. This is simply the fact that you can’t deny until it’s proven otherwise.
- uses only old and easy methods for fingerprinting. Nothing new or even remotely advanced. If you add more advanced methods you will get partially very different results.
- reported statistical values are meaningless because the dataset is extremely skewed
- the dataset is way too small to be meaningful
- the whole approach has been flawed from the beginning
- coveryourtracks has done more damage than good by displaying seemingly easy to understand results, without warning people about the massive shortcomings, which leads users to using this tool to tweak or select their browsers to get a better result, which might actually worsen their security or privacy and wastes many people’s time to explain this stuff again and again on forums
1 Like
I would be a bit more cautious with such bold claims.
Thanks for the explanation! However,
If the methods they use are basically outdated, then, why does Firefox fall behind the others in this outdated/non-advanced tested? It would be totally understandable if every browser has the same result due to the outdated testing methods that are also probably well-known flaws that should be fixed/patched already. Does this mean that Firefox is totally out of their mind to let those flaws loose/unfixed?
Which data set is extremely skewed? And which one they should use instead?
Could you care to elaborate? You keep saying that the test is flawed, but what flaw actually?
Why displaying the easy-to-understand results is a con?
What are their shortcomings? Or are you trying to say that having a randomized fingerprint is worse than having a unique fingerprint, for example?
If you think it’s a waste of your time, you don’t need to participate. Or, at least, you can link to a related thread if you believe that the test’s flaws had been explained on this forum many times already.
I just posted my test result, also with the link (https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/) that anyone can use it to test for themselves whether it’s true. In fact, I didn’t claim anything to date, since the reason I think Brave is OOTB objectively better than Firefox in this aspect is not based on my opinion.
On the contrary, you have such many unexplained claims, mostly, not on my point or missing my point entirely.
You simply can’t deduce that based on this website.
Its own dataset and all statistical values coming from it. Evaluating fingerprinting is a statistical problem.
Because it is not easy. It’s only seemingly easy.
I already explained them to you. But you neither seem to understand how fingerprinting works in general, nor individual methods, nor the statistical nature. And you know what? I have no problem with that. But if you make strong claims about it, I have a problem with it.
Lol, whatever. No point in arguing with people who lack even basic knowledge about a topic. I explained more than enough which you could make you understand if you did your own research (and I mean actual research, not visiting a few test websites), but I can’t explain to you a complicated topic and starting from zero. I don’t have the time to do so. This will get you started: GitHub - prescience-data/dark-knowledge: 😈📚 A curated library of research papers and presentations for counter-detection and web privacy enthusiasts. .
Have a nice day.
1 Like
I didn’t deduce my question based on anything on that website. I deduced the question because you accused the website’s methods to be outdated and non-advanced.
Now, if the methods on the website are simply too old and non-advanced, why does Firefox still fail the test?
Then, what’s your recommended test that’s not based on statistic?
You had never explained anything. You explained that to me just now, that it’s a statistical problem. But never mind. However, you still didn’t explain about why having a randomized fingerprint is worse than having a unique fingerprint. I believe this is not related to statistic issues, as it’s just a simple math value (randomized value vs 1 unique value).
I didn’t make any claim, as explained before that it’s not coming from my opinion, but from the tool which you claimed that it’s not advanced enough and outdated.
Why does assuming my knowledge related to this topic in any way? I believe this against the forum rule, as it is a personal attack, not a topic attack.
Let’s all keep it respectful.
5 Likes
Something to reflect upon:
https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/browser-tracking.html
I found the articel quite usefull, especially for me to not drift off in my perfectionism
1 Like
Agreed, it’s a very good article. Here’s the key point I get from the article:
The only real approach to preventing browser tracking/fingerprinting is by using a browser that is designed to prevent this by default and the users do not change it.
Which means the strict mode probably wouldn’t matter much, and it’s better for the browser vendors to improve on their default settings. At least, this will not make some of their users stand out from the crowd.
1 Like
Just here to say that strict fingerprinting do cause some breakages. Quite low-key but some websites only have fingerprint based captchas so you have to put in on medium settings. The good thing is that Brave will remember this so you end up having your own list of websites with less protection which means after a few weeks websites breakage is minimum.
The new change doesn’t affect the aggressive tracker blocker right ?
2 Likes
The only way to know is to check in the nightly release. But since it’s nightly, there could be some changes when it actually lands on beta and stable channel.
According to the news, I would assume the change will make the standard mode stricter than ever before, while retaining the website’s compatibility intact.
To be fair - if Brave ever wants to be a contender for mainstream browser they need to reduce the ability for every day users to break things. This means removing the amount of things newbies can play with. They should just do what uBlock does and hide these features behind a warning screen. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
1 Like
Warnings, and setting expectations properly are good, but to enable the setting a user would literally need to click on the option called: Strict , may break sites so users can/should be reasonably expected to understand there is some risk. (and considering that Brave claims only 0.5% of users, use the strict mode, it appears it is an effective deterrent)
I do very much agree with you that uBO strikes a good balance between advanced features being included and supported, but in such a way that inexperienced users would have to go out of their way to find/enable them and won’t just stumble upon them.
Firefox is another good example of this. There is tons of advanced functionality built into Firefox but not exposed in settings.
I wish Brave would take this approach as opposed to just entirely removing the option of strict fingerprinting protection.
4 Likes
The announcement sounds like it only affects strict fingerprinting option, but not ads and tracker blocking.
If Brave wanted to seriously tackle more advanced fingerprinting, they would need to massively cut down on fingerprintable settings, because there are way too many, and also improve mitigations. At best with one or two easy security/privacy sliders like on Tor/Mullvad browser. But removing mitigations like by removing the strict option is not a good step.
1 Like
- In order to block fingerprintable APIs, Strict mode frequently causes certain websites to function incorrectly or not at all. This website breakage means that Strict mode has limited utility for most Web users.
And disabling javascript in settings also breaks websites ,so now brave should remove javascript option as well right ? 
- Fewer than 0.5% of Brave users are using Strict fingerprinting protection mode, based on our privacy-preserving telemetry data.
Like really ? how do you get this statistics when you have an opt-out toggle even for daily usage pings . We all have followed PG’s privacy settings for brave , so does that mean there is still some telemetry i can’t opt-out ? Such a questionable statement i would say.
Atleast they should stick to the valid reasons only for supporting their decision instead of giving made up reasons.
I hope that what Brave claims and other users in this forum say about defualts becoming stronger and “extensive” turns out to be true in reality and not on just paper.
Or else i may have to make major changes in my browser habits now unless i regain trust in Brave.
Would be interesting to know what PG makes of this move as ?
1 Like
To add on to what @Encounter5729 shared, I also recently encountered a breakage that was fixed by downgrading the Block Fingerprinting setting from ‘Strict’ to the default: Google Docs. The strict setting botches the text alignment and messes with how the cursor displays after clicking anywhere in a document.
EDIT
I encountered another breakage: FluffyChat does not load properly under Strict Fingerprinting Blocking, and Brave prompts you to wait or kill the page. Fixed with the same method as the one I mentioned for Google Docs.
1 Like
Here’s an update on the removal of Strict fingerprinting
https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/31229#issuecomment-1913689548