Donut Browser, Fingerprint Chromium?

Questions
1

Has anyone used these self-proclaimed privacy tools?

Found this discussion, mentioned a few tools I am unfamiliar with:

OOP uses them to define a methodology for anti-fingerprint browsing. Though the original post is written for Qubes, it should hypothetically apply for other OSs as well

Before I spend some time looking at these, has anyone already done so? I could find no mention of either tool in the PG annals

This is NOT a tool recommendation request, just a request for information

2

Never heard of these tools. Thanks for sharing though, will check ā€˜em out.

1 Like
3

I think for anything to be truly fingerprint resistant it has to be widely used, otherwise you are fingerprintable as someone who is unusually un-fingerprintable. So, I am fairly skeptical of how useful something like these would actually be even if they are otherwise strong solutions.

1 Like
4

On the surface, Fingerprint Chromium seems like a no-go; itā€™s based on Ungoogled Chromium, and likely inherits its same issues

Donut Browser looks more interesting. Claims to randomize your browser fingerprint, akin to Braveā€™s antifingerprinting techniques. Ill be taking a closer look at it eventually

5

Donā€™t use Fingerprint Chromium; it has a terrible history of updating to newer Chromium releases.

6

I opened Donut and it is using Camoufox Anti-Detect v135, which I assume refers to Firefox 135, which is out-of-date.

It displays Firefox 145 to websites, but about:support clearly shows the true version. I wouldnā€™t use it. Not saying they have to have one-day security updates but months is just wild.

3 Likes
7

Hi lyricism, what you are describing is the philosophy used by the TOR browser. Iā€™m a big fan of the proejct myself and have used it extensively :stuck_out_tongue:

Just to clarify any confusion, both TOR and Donut are anti-detect browser, but TOR does it by making browser identity of every user look the same, while Donut makes your browser identity look like a different unique computer, so that the website thinks you are a different real device. This allows you to present your browser identity in a way that works for you (e.g. some websites expose different features for different platforms) while protecting your real browser identity.

8

Hi, Iā€™m the creator of Donut Browser. Thanks for checking it out!

It is true that Camoufox is terribly outdated. This is because its creator is having health problems that prevent them from working on the project right now. As they have planned to return before the end of 2025, I was betting that by that time the project will catch up to the latest playwright-patched Firefox which is usually only 1 or 2 major versions behind, which receive security updates.

Itā€™s January 2026 and there is still no activity from Camofoxā€™ creator, so Iā€™m working on my own engine that is based on Chromium and provides comparable level of fingerprint spoofing. I will deprecate Camoufox and release my engine before the end of January.

As a sidenote, the fact that the base version of Firefox used is 135 but you see 145 on web pages is completely intentional. This is because your browser fingerprint is spoofed, covering many things from user agent to webgl shader information. Only websites that test differences between newest and older version of Firefox at a very low level (like experimental css features or math operations) can detect that maybe your browser fingerprint is spoofed, but there are no strong indicators that are not covered in Camoufox.

Sharing this as in the absolute majority of cases zero-day exploits are deployed selectively and are executed when it is clear that it will work for the browser, even if the exploit is already public and has a CVE assigned to it, so that the operators avoid getting their IPs/domains burned.

I want to be clear that there are risks in running an outdated engine inside an anti-detect browser and you are right to flag this. That said, the practical risks are still low.

2 Likes
9

This is not true. Tor Browser does not have a single fingerprint, instead it reduces the possible ā€œbucketsā€ you can fall in.

You are not really achieving anything by doing this. Having such an ancient Firefox just makes it even worse.

2 Likes
10

Youā€™re right, I oversimplifiedā€”Tor reduces the fingerprint surface to create smaller anonymity sets rather than making everyone identical. I should have been more precise.

Donutā€™s use case is different from Torā€™s. Donut is for situations where you need distinct browser identities that appear as normal unique devicesā€”for example, managing multiple accounts on platforms that would otherwise flag you, or browsing without the endless captchas youā€™d encounter with Tor. It also prevents sites from learning your real device specs, which is valuable for privacy-conscious users like myself.

11

Pretty much all of the freemium anti detect browsers export the entire user profile to their servers. People typically use such browsers for fraud. Think of crypto advertisement campaigns fraud, airdrop botting etc. but a browser developer has an ability to defraud the fraudster by stealing metamask secrets/cookies.

I wouldnā€™t use any of them without carefully analyzing the entire codebase. Itā€™s not uncommon to have an open source frontend UI while compiling v8 with relevant tweaks in shades. And if the v8 modifications were public, it wouldnā€™t make any sense since itā€™s essentially a gift to antifraud teams.

3 Likes
12

I just think that being up-to date is a good heuristic for the project quality.

Also, there is a lot of overlap between the security and privacy folks, especially when going in those ā€˜extremeā€™ solutions.
Nice to see you are working on a replacement.

Whith that being said all the best to you and Camouflox (hope they get better)

1 Like
13

@zhom 1. Hi there! I noticed that you updated the site and added a paid plan. Would it be possible to donate instead?
2. I see thereā€™s now a Chromium-based option alongside the Firefox-based browser. Is there a specific reason to choose one over the other?

14

Hi there :slight_smile:

  1. Thank you for the offer! I donā€™t accept donations as I donā€™t see it as a sustainable way to support the development. Instead I added features that are valuable for people who use the project commercially. Iā€™m also not a fan of asking for donations on top of offering paid services. If you are unable to pay or donā€™t need it, please donā€™t pay for it. Iā€™m happy if you are getting value out of the project.
  2. I develop Wayfern and it is currently following the latest Chromium release, while Camoufox is developed by a different group and hasnā€™t been updated for almost a year, although there is an update being in the works. Other than your personal preference, you may choose one versus the other if a specific website you want to use works better in one versus the other. I stripped almost all Google integrations (except for webstore to easily install extensions), so both browsers offer the same level of privacy.
1 Like
15

Thanks for the quick reply. Iā€™ll take a look at the Chromium version

16

Donut sounds a little like Psylo on iOS? Every tab is a separate profile essentially all in its own container?

17

i tried downloading donut browser and it wasnt a great experience. the app downloaded ok, but it required 3 other little downloads that just hung and never started (they were supposed to be automatic). Then even though i quit the application it was persistently running in the background so i couldnt remove it off my machine (just had to force quit it, no biggy really).

I will try again anothet ime maybe it just need an update or somthing

18

Iā€™m experiencing the same or similar issues. Previously, the only version that didnā€™t work was the .AppImage. It wouldnā€™t run properly, even after following the instructions in the README. Now the new .rpm version also fails to run, although some earlier .rpm versions worked fine.