# IronFox (a new Mull fork) **URL:** https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/ironfox-a-new-mull-fork/23638 **Category:** Tool Suggestions **Tags:** waiting **Created:** 2025-01-01T15:18:10Z **Posts:** 174 ## Post 1 by @BlackDog — 2025-01-01T15:18:10Z Came across this today and thought it might be of interest to some folk here. > IronFox is a fork of DivestOS’s Mull Browser based on Firefox. Our goal is to continue the legacy of Mull to provide a secure, hardened and privacy-oriented browser for daily use. From: [IronFox](https://gitlab.com/ironfox-oss/IronFox) --- ## Post 2 by @rottenwheel — 2025-01-01T15:57:53Z Interesting, good to see. No releases yet, no? Any channel/group chat set up yet? Self-hosted F-Droid repository forthcoming, or Obtainium all the way? Will keep an eye out for further information on this. I was not looking forward to leaving Mull behind. --- ## Post 3 by @Sectional2932 — 2025-01-01T17:32:47Z I’ll keep an eye on this project, as you never know when you might need a different app. Right now, I’ll fairly happy with DuckBrowser for mobile, but anything can happen with organizational changes etc. so having a plan B is good. --- ## Post 7 by @baby_bat — 2025-01-02T06:40:23Z Hey! We have a discord already up for the project and just dropped the first test build tonight :slight_smile: --- ## Post 8 by @TrashPanda — 2025-01-02T09:30:01Z We aren’t using discord here, but we will cheer for the project! Thank you for your work. --- ## Post 10 by @rottenwheel — 2025-01-02T12:44:39Z Thanks! Just saw it on GitLab [releases](https://gitlab.com/ironfox-oss/IronFox/-/releases). > This is the initial test build of IronFox, based on Firefox 133.0.3. IronFox [v133.0.3](https://gitlab.com/ironfox-oss/IronFox/-/releases/v133.0.3). Time to add it to Obtainium! --- ## Post 11 by @FlipSid — 2025-01-02T16:49:44Z Even if I’m using Vanadium (or Brave), heads up for keeping the former Mull Browser running. We (others) will see if it lifes up. Until then. Cheers :face_with_monocle: --- ## Post 12 by @celenity — 2025-01-02T19:14:29Z Was wondering where the sudden influx of users was coming from… Hi folks - I’m one of the maintainers of IronFox, and I’ll gladly answer any questions or concerns you have. > [@rottenwheel](#): > > Self-hosted F-Droid repository forthcoming, or Obtainium all the way? We haven’t properly discussed yet how we’re going to distribute the app - but yes, in addition to Obtainium, a self-hosted F-Droid repo will definitely be considered. I’d also like to look into Accrescent. > [@TrashPanda](#): > > We aren’t using discord here, but we will cheer for the project! Thank you for your work. We’re looking into setting up a Matrix room as well - I’m also not a fan of Discord… :confused: > [@sha123](#): > > Don’t let me start with FF-based browser’s security deficiencies on Android … > [@vsucs](#): > > This is pointless effort to improve the fundamentally flawed browser its forked from. > > Any chromium based browser is better than this, but Brave has better fingerprinting resistance and it has an actual content sandbox. If being hacked or being infected with malware is allowed by your threat model, by all means use this, Mull, or Firefox. This topic has been beaten to death in various other threads, so I don’t have much to add here. It’s true Firefox has security deficiencies compared to Chromium (especially on Android), and it’s unfortunate Mozilla hasn’t put a higher priority on catching up to Chromium like they should’ve here. We’re always going to be upfront and honest about that fact, and it’s left up to the user whether they’re comfortable with the risks, depending on their threat model. That being said, I feel like it’s silly to ignore the value that Firefox-based browsers can provide - as evident by PG’s recommendation of Mull before its discontinuation… --- ## Post 13 by @anon80779245 — 2025-01-02T19:59:18Z Amazing! I actually haven’t quit Mull yet (I know…) and this is the last post written from Mull, from now on will be IronFox. It’s basically the same as Mull which is great. For recommending on this website, we don’t need to debate whether Firefox-based browsers are appropriate since we already settled yes by including Mull. What we do need to know is ensure that this project is long-term. [spoiler] @celenity We would need to know whether this is a 1-person project or a group, and what this invidual/group resources are. And whether they plan to seek donations, etc (for sustainability) --- ## Post 14 by @anon42475305 — 2025-01-02T23:48:37Z [Two weeks ago, you wrote](https://codeberg.org/celenity/Phoenix/wiki/commit/4e9d3a1a23c5a4e504dc48c5f9e02c6df8c02a66): > Why not just fork Firefox and create your own browser like LibreWolf? > **One Major reason: Security updates**. I am the only person working on this project, and I am not currently in a position to guarantee consistent & timely browser security updates. Things happen. [The majority of browser forks are simply hobbyist projects that do not take matters like this seriously](https://web.archive.org/web/20231214153202/https://github.com/Alex313031/thorium/issues/463), but Phoenix is different: We put privacy & security at the forefront of everything we do. I am not willing to put my users at risk, now or ever. Why is this project any different (security updates wise), and what is to prevent it going the way of Mull (sustainability, etc.)? * * * For your Dove project, you require: > :warning: **macOS users must have [Homebrew](https://brew.sh/) installed, and must grant Terminal the `App Management` Permission.** The reasons why granting the app management permission is a serious security risk are documented **[here](https://github.com/drduh/macOS-Security-and-Privacy-Guide?tab=readme-ov-file#homebrew)**. I’m concerned about a security-first attitude which is crucial for a worthy successor to Mull. --- ## Post 15 by @celenity — 2025-01-03T00:41:28Z > [@anon80779245](#): > > We would need to know whether this is a 1-person project or a group, and what this invidual/group resources are. And whether they plan to seek donations, etc (for sustainability) Currently, including myself, there’s 4 of us working on it. We’re still discussing how to handle funding internally; but for the time being, as we start out, we’re just self-financing. We’re going to consider taking donations in the future. > Why is this project any different (security updates wise). I stand by everything I said there. The key difference is that IronFox provides unique value over standard Firefox, unlike LibreWolf (& other Firefox desktop forks). All of LibreWolf’s privacy & security benefits can be easily applied to any Firefox installation via several methods _(Ex. a user.js file, a mozilla.cfg file, an autoconfig.js file, etc. etc.)._ Why introduce the added risk of using a fork when it’s not necessary? The case with Android is completely different. You simply don’t have as much control over Firefox as you do on desktop, and there are fundamental issues that can’t be fixed with a simple config file _(Ex. the proprietary libraries we remove…)_. To put it simply: You can make any standard Firefox desktop installation as private & secure as LibreWolf. You **can’t** make any standard Firefox Android installation as private & secure as IronFox or Mull. So, yes, the same risks as with LibreWolf generally still apply to IronFox (as they also did to Mull); the difference is that unlike LibreWolf, we provide meaningful benefits to offset those risks. As I stated above, there’s also 4 of us working on this; so we have the time, resources, & full intention on keeping up with security updates. For comparison: Mull was maintained by **1 person** _(a person who was also maintaining a Chromium-based browser, an entire mobile Android operating system, and various other works)_, yet was still able to keep up with Firefox updates within a day or 2 after release for several years. I just want to make it clear that as a user, I completely understand your concern here & the importance of security updates, and I wouldn’t have anything to do with IronFox if I wasn’t comfortable guaranteeing we could keep up with them. At the end of the day though, like nearly everything in the privacy & security world, this all comes down to your threat model and what you’re comfortable with. If you value getting the quickest updates possible directly from Mozilla more than the privacy & security hardening of IronFox, then use standard Firefox instead. This same logic also applies to any other Firefox fork & Chromium fork regardless of platform. > The reasons why granting the app management permission is a serious security risk are documented **[here](https://github.com/drduh/macOS-Security-and-Privacy-Guide?tab=readme-ov-file#homebrew)**. I’m concerned about a security-first attitude which is crucial for a worthy successor to Mull. This is incomparable, and not at all a reasonable comparison IMO. ~~Dove is a project designed for hardening Thunderbird on desktop, and it **fundamentally** works by modifying the application’s files and adding a custom mozilla.cfg file, prefs.js file, and policies.json file. I’m aware of the security risk & spent several hours researching & trying to find a better way to support Dove without needing to give Terminal the `app management` permission, and was unable to find one. _If anyone here has any ideas, let me know!_.~~ I make it clear to the user that this permission is required _(As evident by you quickly noticing it)_, and we support manual installations for users who are uncomfortable granting the Terminal this permission. We can’t fix fundamental problems with macOS. Apple needs to allow more fine-grained controls _(Such as the ability to grant permission to manage only specific applications rather than all or nothing, etc…)_, and Mozilla needs to allow reading config files for Firefox & Thunderbird without directly modifying the app’s contents. If you don’t trust IronFox due to fundamental limitations of an unrelated project by 1 of the 4 maintainers, then don’t use it. I won’t tell you who you should or shouldn’t trust at the end of the day; that’s for you and you alone to decide. All I’ll tell you is that every project I’ve ever designed in this space has been done so with a security-first attitude. Myself & the other maintainers take this extremely seriously, and we’re not going to create a project that claims to improve privacy & security, while doing the opposite. * * * Edit: As of [2025.02.18.1](https://codeberg.org/celenity/Dove/releases/tag/2025.02.18.1), Dove’s macOS package no longer requires the `app management` permission :slight_smile: --- ## Post 16 by @anon42475305 — 2025-01-03T01:01:38Z Thanks a lot, I really appreciate you taking the time to write such a fleshed out response. I hope it was clear from my original post that I really don’t want to detract from what you are doing, I just felt these were important questions for the community to get answers to. > [@celenity](#): > > This is incomparable, and not at all a reasonable comparison IMO. That’s completely fair. Thank you for taking the time to explain anyways, it’s clear you are serious about prioritising privacy and security wherever possible. --- ## Post 18 by @anon80779245 — 2025-01-03T08:11:16Z > [@celenity](#): > > Currently, including myself, there’s 4 of us working on it. Did this project idea predate Mull end? > [@celenity](#): > > We’re still discussing how to handle funding internally; but for the time being, as we start out, we’re just self-financing. We’re going to consider taking donations in the future. Okay that’s good to know. I still believe we might want to wait a couple of months to recommend it. --- ## Post 24 by @divestosuser — 2025-01-03T17:06:56Z This is excellent. I am glad to see one of the developers is on this forum and very thoroughly addressing user concerns here. If the team is able to keep up with upstream security updates promptly then I see no reason why this cannot become a direct replacement for Mull as PG’s recommendation. --- ## Post 25 by @Gavin — 2025-01-05T22:28:52Z The gitlab repo’s only existed for 6 days… Don’t think its responsible to recommend it, given it has zero history. --- ## Post 26 by @freyja — 2025-01-06T03:38:21Z suggesting and recommending things, especially newer projects, is a long-ish process. (as it should be, especially considering the Skiff incident) --- ## Post 27 by @Niek-de-Wilde — 2025-01-06T08:13:22Z Even if the project does everything right, we would still have to wait for them to build up a track record, to see how close they stay to upstream regarding timely updates. We can proceed with this discussion once they got that done. --- ## Post 32 by @anon54160479 — 2025-01-06T21:49:23Z you’re kidding us, right? --- ## Post 33 by @ph00lt0 — 2025-01-06T22:16:54Z > [@anon56653282](#): > > reputable company such as Google or Microsoft Neither are quite “reputable” to say the very least. --- ## Post 34 by @Niek-de-Wilde — 2025-01-06T23:43:26Z I was not saying that it will be included. Nor was i saying that i even agreed with mull being listed in the first place. Getting a proper update track record is just a first hurdle to get over before we consider discussing this further. Anyhow, Writing off Brave as a whole because it still supports manivest v2 is rather extreme. Here at privacyguides we do threatmodeling, not everyones security needs are that high, and its not like supporting manivest V2 causes people to be hacked left and right. Like, I get what your mindset is, one needs security to enforce privacy, sure, totally agree with that, but to a point. Throwing out every project that might have a security tradeoff seems unrealistic and unproductive. You have to realise that not everyone has the same needs and capabilities/funds. Like if a person has no money for a new phone, but say 50 bucks, would you recommend him to not use a computer or phone as at all as he cannot afford pixel to flash graphene os on? Ofcourse not! What matters most is that we inform people of the choices are out there, and what kind of pro s and con s the entail. P.s. welcome to the forum. --- ## Post 35 by @brinerustle — 2025-01-07T15:25:16Z agreed, someone who can install a custom ROM on an older device they bought off ebay/swappa/wallapop for 50 bucks is still upping their privacy. Security concerns? For sure. But if the OEM abandoned the device at android 11, they might get cracked on stock faster than you can say “pwned”. --- ## Post 36 by @anon80779245 — 2025-01-07T20:14:00Z > [@anon56653282](#): > > Browser never should have been recommended to begin with (neither should Cromite have). Hobbyist projects like Cromite, Mull, LibreWolf, and Ungoogled-chromium don’t take security seriously and always lag behind in updates. This is just pure misinformation. Mull didn’t lack in security updates. --- ## Post 40 by @anonymous266 — 2025-01-08T03:12:30Z > [@anon56653282](#): > > Google Chrome will always be the first to receive security fixes. Due to staged rollouts of updates, this is false. Forks like Vanadium and Mulch frequently shipped major and minor updates to their userbase before Google Chrome even hit 50% rollout. --- ## Post 46 by @ImTooPhaT — 2025-01-08T16:56:38Z Even if I grant you that Chrome and Edge is more secure than any other browsers, PRIVACY is more important in a website called PRIVACY guides, so boasting about security is irrelevant. Even before I found out about PG, I would never use Chrome because they don’t have an option to clear your browsing data automatically, which is standard in every other browsers. And as far as I’m aware, neither browsers have built-in anti-fingerprinting. If you want to recommend Chrome and Edge over other browsers, feel free to explain why these browsers are more private than say… Tor Browser. --- ## Post 47 by @Gavin — 2025-01-08T20:21:11Z Lmao wtf. Are you like a google employee? No way you just recommended using a in heavy quotes “”“reputable”“” browser from Google or Microsoft… You are aware this is privacy guides, not spyware-guides. Also if you consider Librewolf taking about couple hours to update as a “security risk”, then guess everything is a security risk sense they don’t immediately fix and publish security fixes. Like this has to be rage bait right? No way someone sane would actually think this. --- ## Post 48 by @TinFoilHat — 2025-01-09T11:56:57Z (Patiently waiting for your first F-Droid (official of your self hosted repo) release, so I can ditch vanadium and go back to hardened Firefox) I personally am quite relaxed about the “Track Record” thing, as unlike PG team I am just a user, besides, every new-born projects need to build userbase before really building a “Track Record”. More importantly, IronFox is not for high risk activities (e.g. activism & whistleblowing), so the risks associated is really not that high. I really do hope upstream FF issues would be fixed though (so I can ditch vanadium completely, including for PWA), but those upstream issues are not enough to deter me from supporting diversity of browser ecosystem. Lastly, its a bit late, but a big thanks for picking up Mull. :hugs: --- ## Post 50 by @anon80779245 — 2025-01-11T10:10:22Z It give error 404. Edit: you need to open-it in F-Droid. However, it would be nice that the link gives the QR code + the SHA-256 fingerprint. --- ## Post 51 by @TinFoilHat — 2025-01-11T10:17:38Z ![Screenshot_20250111-101655](//forum-uploads.privacyguidesusercontent.com/original/2X/c/c4ee88801565208eb3ad64d5ec275d95d2751ebf.png) :clap: --- ## Post 53 by @TinFoilHat — 2025-01-11T12:55:03Z Glad I can re-sync my Desktop browser with mobile (bookmarks and addons) --- ## Post 54 by @anon48875053 — 2025-01-24T17:48:06Z Now available on Accrescent. --- ## Post 55 by @anon80779245 — 2025-01-25T11:31:01Z New Release [v134.0.2-1](https://gitlab.com/ironfox-oss/IronFox/-/releases/v134.0.2-1) Minor changes, but good to see they are working on under-the-hood stuff such as removing a legacy Safe Browsing API that has long been deprecated. (Safe Browsing is disabled by default as they work to make a new implementation that will be more secure and private (proxy through their server for example). --- ## Post 56 by @taivlam — 2025-02-09T18:14:55Z I am very glad that IronFox is on Accrescent, as this makes it very easy to keep a Firefox-based browser updated on GrapheneOS. When DivestOS ended, I thought that was really going to be the end of using FireFox-based browsers on Android for me. I know I could have just used FireFox from Aurora Store or a widely known third-party F-Droid repo, which I can’t remember now; but I would rather use a FireFox fork that I don’t have to intensely reconfigure to my liking every time I reinstall it on a new GrapheneOS device. --- ## Post 58 by @SpunkyEatsYou — 2025-03-21T19:37:49Z Hi, sorry if i do this here, but I wanted to report that IronFox suddenly deleted all my settings except for the internal ones of the extensions. The device is a Pixel 8a with GrapheneOS, hope that helps :slight_smile: --- ## Post 59 by @jonah — 2025-05-07T02:30:29Z How long do we feel is a good enough amount of time to establish a track record? --- ## Post 60 by @mangomango — 2025-05-20T11:04:01Z I would say at least 1 year (without errors, fails, or other concerning event). The duration should probably not be the only factor to consider for evaluating the stability of a project though. We may look at who is behind it ? is it a part-time hobby ? Are they accepting donations, if yes do they get enough to continue the project for a at least some (5,10) years ? On who or what does the project depend ? --- ## Post 61 by @anon80779245 — 2025-05-20T16:50:06Z A few months seems good. No need to wait too long. --- ## Post 62 by @bashln — 2025-05-20T18:59:20Z We can just ask @celenity to come here and answer your questions if you like. As far as I know (and for what i already talked with them on matrix) they do not accept donations yet. --- ## Post 63 by @Anonymous57 — 2025-06-10T14:18:24Z Nearly a month has passed, is this not enough time? Ironfox uses Ublock, which is a pretty powerful content blocker compared to brave and cromite’s. --- ## Post 64 by @KevPham — 2025-06-10T14:38:56Z Updates are consistent for now. Latest release was 3 days ago according to their GitLab releases page: [Releases · IronFox OSS / IronFox · GitLab](https://gitlab.com/ironfox-oss/IronFox/-/releases) --- ## Post 65 by @Anonymous57 — 2025-06-14T06:54:54Z Last release was now 7 hours ago. I think they’re consistent enough but should we wait longer? --- ## Post 66 by @TinFoilHat — 2025-06-14T10:34:51Z My personal take would be wait for around 2 years before PG really recommending it. Not saying PG should not mention the project at all, but from my experience if a project / team could survive the first 2 years, they have the stability and commitment to stay around for much longer. If PG has a honorable mention / Candidate list, I would suggest putting them there. Just to be clear, I used Mull, I am using Ironfox, and I am more than happy to donate when they are ready to receive from Librepay / OpenCollective. --- ## Post 67 by @Anonymous57 — 2025-06-14T11:35:21Z While I am aware that commitment and consistency matter a lot, I think 2 years is overkill for a browser like Ironfox, which is way more secure and private than the current mobile options, excluding Tor of course. I feel personally that a month or just two months should be enough time to judge its consistency in releases. --- ## Post 68 by @TinFoilHat — 2025-06-14T12:06:14Z I think the weight of recommending things from a personal and community / organizational level is different. As an org or community you cannot sway like a normal person, unless they position themselves as salesman where they just follow and sell hypes. Everything PG evaluates/ recommends are kind of serious and sensitive in nature, which heavily relies on reputations built upon good track record. I don’t see any benefit that justifies gambling with the hard-earned reputation unnecessarily just to recommend a software that still in evaluation stage. While I recognize the [general critieria](https://www.privacyguides.org/en/about/criteria/) as well as [Mobile browser criteria](https://www.privacyguides.org/en/mobile-browsers/) do not specify all evaluation details, including probation that could be used to evaluate the stability of the Dev Team, financial sustainability (if applicable), etc. Theses elements should be thoroughly assessed based on the sensitivity level and potential disruption of the tool. In this case, browser activities are highly sensitive, switching browser could be quite disruptive, imagine if the user does not use Mozilla accounts for syncing, and use Ironfox to install many PWAs. * * * Edit: In my head, the length of probation could be calculated based on the sensitivity and migration difficulties of the candidate: Tool Sensitivity: Low (6 Months) / Medium (9 Months) / High (12 Months) Migration difficulties: No (3 Months) / Low (6 Months) / Medium (12 Months) / High (24 Months) e.g. For Ironfox, it is highly sensitive and migration difficulties is in medium level, that makes the probation period to be 12 + 12 = 24months For email services, would be 12+24 = 36months (so Skiff would be failed and not being recommended) This is only an example. --- ## Post 69 by @anon42475305 — 2025-06-14T12:48:55Z > [@Anonymous57](#): > > which is way more secure and private than the current mobile options This simply isn’t true. IronFox is no more private while being less secure than Brave. --- ## Post 70 by @Anonymous57 — 2025-06-14T12:50:12Z I don’t think a simple formula and waiting time alone can assess the trust of a software. It depends on the software, how effective is it privacy-wise, security-wise. I don’t really consider migrating to or recommending “IronFox” as sensitive. Security-wise, it’s just better than the current recommendations and I don’t really like repeating but it has uBlock which is a hundred times more effective than brave’s blocker or cromite’s. If you doubt the developer’s dedication or consistency in updates, I can just call them here if you want. --- ## Post 71 by @Anonymous57 — 2025-06-14T12:51:47Z How is it less secure? It has RFP. --- ## Post 72 by @anon80779245 — 2025-06-14T12:55:57Z > [@anon42475305](#): > > This simply isn’t true. IronFox is no more private while being less secure than Brave. IronFox is more private than Cromite and Vanadium which have poor trackers and or FP protection. > [@TinFoilHat](#): > > For email services, would be 12+24 = 36months (so Skiff would be failed and not being recommended) Easy to come up after the fact, but this is not fool proof. We did recommend DivestOS which had been there for years and it did shutdown. --- ## Post 73 by @TinFoilHat — 2025-06-14T13:24:12Z > [@anon80779245](#): > > been there for years and it did shutdown. Nothing’s everlasting but it reduces the chance that PG recommends projects that fail in early stage. It also provides clarity and support for PG Team and community, to better protect them from being pushed to recommend any projects. This is my personal take and my practice for recommending products to friends and family, anyway. --- ## Post 74 by @sha123 — 2025-06-14T13:31:03Z > [@Anonymous57](#): > > How is it less secure? It has RFP RFP has nothing to do with security. Regarding security: [Firefox finally rolling out Fission on Android - #6 by sha123](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/firefox-finally-rolling-out-fission-on-android/26456/6) > [@anon80779245](#): > > IronFox is more private than Cromite and Vanadium which have poor trackers and or FP protection It’s wrong to assume that you provide less fingerprinting information just because there are stronger mitigations in place. --- ## Post 75 by @mangomango — 2025-06-14T14:17:55Z > [@Anonymous57](#): > > a month or just two months > [@TinFoilHat](#): > > wait for around 2 years I would rather wait two years than two months! If we recommend Ironfox, then we have to assume that people will download it based on our recommendation. And if it fails to meet the the expectations, we would be screwed. I think that we should at least AT LEAST wait six months. But better one year. Because who knows if devs will be able to keep the development strong all the year along, even in periods like religious celebrations, Thanksgiving, New Year, Holy weeks, etc ? Are they able to face unforeseen events (health, deaths, births, family issues and events, military conscription) and even to clear some holidays maybe ? These are things that happen yearly and that could slow down the development so in my view we should wait one year to see how they handle these. What’s more, there is no urgency as there are alternatives (Firefox/Focus/Klar(?), Brave, Vanadium). However, this would be a double standard because we are still recommending Stingle photos which no one is trusting I think and which has done a much worse job than Ironfox if we look at the last few months. --- ## Post 77 by @anon80779245 — 2025-06-14T18:33:32Z > [@sha123](#): > > It’s wrong to assume that you provide less fingerprinting information just because there are stronger mitigations in place. How so ? That’s the principle of FP protection. --- ## Post 78 by @sha123 — 2025-06-15T07:12:57Z > [@anon80779245](#): > > How so ? That’s the principle of FP protection. You need a crowd, sane defaults and little room for adjustments through the users, so they don’t stick out from the crowd through their adjustments (including extensions, extension settings and so on). FP mitigations on Ironfox are not strong enough to hide all hardware information, so you also need enough people on the same hardware information to blend in. There are also other factors which could play a role, but these should be the most significant. --- ## Post 79 by @anon80779245 — 2025-06-15T10:38:29Z I don’t disagree with most of what you said. It **does hide most hardware information** though. The only thing I can think of is it doesn’t hide screen size, but no browser on Android does (even Tor on Android doesn’t have letter-boxing). But you aren’t wrong that the pool is small, and you could definitely sort users by screen size, which would then give you maybe a few possible devices. Then combined with using IronFox, and potentially the IP (even if it’s a VPN, the point is this will reduce the pool - and many people always connect to the same VPN City), and you have a pretty good FP. That being said, this is advanced FP, and most websites probably have more rudimentary techniques. That’s why FP protection isn’t black and white, it’s a radiant. * * * Just to be clear, only Brave and Tor do not suffer from the problems of the small pool. Cromite has less FP protection, and Vanadium is only for Pixel GOS users, and with screen size you can know the exact Pixel model. --- ## Post 80 by @iluvprivacy — 2025-06-19T01:47:41Z Hey guys, so what’s the consensus on Ironfox? Is it a private and secure browser? Is uBlock Origin installed by default? Can I install a few extensions? I still don’t get how it’s more private and secure than Firefox after it’s been configured with hardened settings. --- ## Post 81 by @Anonymous57 — 2025-06-19T10:34:08Z It’s a good, secure browser. Right now, we’re just inspecting its release consistency. --- ## Post 82 by @sha123 — 2025-06-19T11:14:03Z > [@iluvprivacy](#): > > Is it a private and secure browser? Private yes, but security is many years behind Chromium-based browsers. Ignore the people who claim it is secure without providing a technical basis. FF still lacks features which Chromium has had for 10 years on Android. Read the other comments I wrote about FF’s security for technical arguments. --- ## Post 83 by @thickness — 2025-06-21T07:19:52Z I love Mull and therefore I’ve start using IronFox from its very early stage. But it’s not for extreme privacy or smth, just my personal favor. For example I value their practice to have presets of doh providers set to Quad9, DNS0, Mullvad, AdGuard and NextDNS. These options are better than FF default. But it doesn’t really matter to me because I’m using my own NextDNS account anyway, it’s just the spirit to make default better for average user that win my heart :smiley: Btw their repo is at GitLab, and available with Obtanium or Accrescent. I like this but I have to admit these trivials have nothing to do with privacy or security… --- ## Post 84 by @iluvprivacy — 2025-06-21T21:58:30Z What about using extensions with Ironfox? --- ## Post 85 by @thickness — 2025-06-22T15:06:56Z It’s possible, just like any gecko based android browser I installed uBO(im not sure? maybe it’s installed by default) and immersive translation. Worked prefectly fine --- ## Post 86 by @iluvprivacy — 2025-06-23T00:01:52Z My plan is to configure uBlock Origin on Ironfox with the same settings that I use on Firefox. Other than that, how is Ironfox more hardened than a fully configured Firefox? --- ## Post 87 by @thickness — 2025-06-23T01:40:17Z Afaik, not really --- ## Post 88 by @iluvprivacy — 2025-06-23T01:44:53Z So basically if I configured Firefox and uBlock Origin’s settings correctly, then it’ll be as harden as Ironfox for the most part? --- ## Post 89 by @thickness — 2025-06-23T03:00:09Z Yes, I think so. --- ## Post 90 by @Anonymous57 — 2025-06-23T11:46:25Z Six months have passed since this thread was created. Last release was four days ago. Still very consistent in its updates. --- ## Post 91 by @RegaliaEscalator — 2025-06-23T15:00:23Z > [@iluvprivacy](#): > > My plan is to configure uBlock Origin on Ironfox with the same settings that I use on Firefox. Other than that, how is Ironfox more hardened than a fully configured Firefox? > [@thickness](#): > > Afaik, not really Have you considered looking into the documentation first? - Your uBlock Origin configuration is likely less tailored for use on Firefox for Android than IronFox’s defaults for this add-on. See `uBlock/assets.main.json` in the IronFox repo on GitLab. - IronFox has hundreds of settings built in, to mitigate fingerprinting and increase security, some of which aren’t exposed to the user, even from within `about:config`. Just have a look at the [documentation here](https://ironfoxoss-org-cf159c.gitlab.io/patches/overview/) for descriptions of the “patches” made (AFAIK this website is still WIP). For more specific info, see [patches/preferences/\*](https://gitlab.com/ironfox-oss/IronFox/-/blob/dev/patches/preferences/) for the customized settings. Also, since the bulk of these IronFox settings is based on the Phoenix project, that wiki (`codeberg.org/celenity/Phoenix/wiki`) is also a treasure trove of information. - By default, the Safe browsing component is proxied, so no connections are made to Google’s servers, unlike Firefox’s defaults. --- ## Post 92 by @RegaliaEscalator — 2025-06-24T16:58:17Z I think all this talk of “requirements” in terms of how long for an app should have “proven itself” is completely arbitrary. I also think that problems incurred when needing to switch browsers if anything would happen to this one is rather exaggerated in this topic. This holds especially for Firefox-based browsers, because it’s easy enough to synchronize the settings without having to worry about privacy (E2EE data and you can even self-host Firefox Sync). What matters a lot more in my opinion is how well-documented it is, the way issues are dealt with and how questions are answered. I’ve rarely seen devs go out of their way as much as celenity to deliberate on the choices that were made and to answer all questions thrown at them. And even if I didn’t agree with a choice made, they were receptive to critique and sought for a solution where possible, or betterment in handling such issues in the future. Privacy Guides could (and in my opinion _should_) be instrumental in making IronFox a lot more useful in terms of fingerprint mitigation, because the simple fact remains that it is now a niche product. By recommending it and the influx of new users that would follow, the uniqueness of the browser configuration would dwindle. This is pretty much the only thing Tor Browser relies on in terms of pursuing anonimity, while IronFox (intended for _regular_ browsing use) adds a lot more than that in terms of reasonable defaults and a curated (and pre-installed) uBlock0. --- ## Post 93 by @anonymous347 — 2025-06-24T17:03:05Z > [@RegaliaEscalator](#): > > I think all this talk of “requirements” in terms of how long for an app should have “proven itself” is completely arbitrary. I agree, Privacy Guides already takes so much time as it is to finalize a recommendation there is no need to add an additional “wait and see” requirement. > [@RegaliaEscalator](#): > > By recommending it and the influx of new users that would follow, the uniqueness of the browser configuration would dwindle. I don’t think Privacy Guides is popular enough for this to make any difference at all. --- ## Post 94 by @RegaliaEscalator — 2025-06-25T00:06:38Z > [@anonymous347](#): > > I don’t think Privacy Guides is popular enough for this to make any difference at all. It’ll still help. --- ## Post 95 by @Anonymous57 — 2025-06-28T08:53:14Z Updates seem consistent. I really think there’s no point in not recommending it anymore. It’s, at the very least, equal to the other recommended browsers or arguably better. --- ## Post 96 by @Cincinnatus — 2025-06-28T09:43:44Z I’m with you on that. I think two years is crazy. I’d say maybe a year…maybe… --- ## Post 97 by @Anonymous57 — 2025-07-18T15:14:17Z What are you all thinking now that a month has passed? I see no problem with recommending it just like before. What is everyone else’s consensus? --- ## Post 98 by @anon39816623 — 2025-07-18T18:05:27Z I think it should be recommended but with a warning saying that it is a small project run by a few people so its longevity cannot be guaranteed. I would apply the same approach with Cromite. --- ## Post 99 by @Anonymous57 — 2025-07-19T02:58:48Z I agree, that seems like the most reasonable thing to do. --- ## Post 100 by @Niek-de-Wilde — 2025-07-19T03:09:18Z To give this some context, Cromite came onto our radar in july 2023, and was added on 14 november 2024, so thats 17 months including the the fact that its current maintainer was a major contributer to the Bromite project which we used to list before this. In any case we are still monitoring this project, once we believe the updates are done jn a timely an reliable manner, we can move on to discuss whether in todays software landscape, we still want to recommend a firefox based browser on the android platform. We used to recommend on, but tech moves quickly, and we should monitor if anything changed since that last consensus. --- ## Post 101 by @anonymous372 — 2025-07-19T03:56:50Z > [@Niek-de-Wilde](#): > > whether in todays software landscape, we still want to recommend a firefox based browser on the android platform. For reference, here are some other recent discussions over Firefox’s security and/or PG recommendation status > [@Clarification on PG's browser recommendations](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/clarification-on-pgs-browser-recommendations/26185/5): > > I personally think Firefox should be removed as a recommendation entirely. A hardened brave browser is significantly more secure while arguably being more private. > [@Ironfox (Firefox on Android) now has enabled early-stage Fission](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/ironfox-firefox-on-android-now-has-enabled-early-stage-fission-per-site-isolation/24009/12): > > I didn’t looked at specific issues but 80% or so seemed to have been fixed. Good to know. My question is what is enabled already? > [@Consider ranking Brave above Firefox](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/consider-ranking-brave-above-firefox/28808): > > Brave uses Chromium, and its security benefits over Gecko give it greater resilience to threats, allowing it to enforce privacy better than Firefox. I understand the ideological reason that using Firefox stands up against the Chromium monopoly. However, I don’t really care for Mozilla being the one to compete against Google, especially in light of their recent decisions. I would want to root for something like Servo or Ladybird, and PG can simply encourage others to do so. I’m not asking Firef… --- ## Post 102 by @sha123 — 2025-07-19T07:49:44Z Why do you keep pushing this so hard despite the big security concerns with FF-based browsers on Android? --- ## Post 103 by @RegaliaEscalator — 2025-07-19T09:30:08Z Cromite is pretty much run by 1 person, not 4 like IronFox. uBlock Origin is pretty much run by 1 person. To my knowledge, [Addy.io](http://Addy.io) is run by 1 person. The same goes for RethinkDNS, VeraCrypt and so many more projects on PG that don’t have this warning. If bus factor really is an issue for PG, which makes sense, then the entire site should be overhauled. > Why do you keep pushing this so hard despite the big security concerns with FF-based browsers on Android? @Niek-de-Wilde I my opinion these “big” security concerns are vastly overstated, primarily by GrapheneOS employee(s) and groupies, and outdated. Plus, IronFox has a lot more in terms of security than regular Firefox by simply shipping a pre-configured uBlock Origin that blocks more malicious scripts than any Chromium based browser to begin with and by enabling additional security like Fission by default. It’s a trade-off and hackers vs. inherent browser app security, and (uBlock0) blocklist use are _both_ a cat-and-mouse game, but I’d rather use a uBlock-enabled browser with protection against practical threats than a theoretically more secure browser that fails the necessary tools to browse the web to begin with. --- ## Post 104 by @anon39279085 — 2025-07-19T10:36:57Z This is literally a more hardened version of Firefox that also implemented things that are normally present in Vanadium like the Toggle for JavaScript JIT And as seen above. It also has Fission (per-site isolation) on As a Firefox alternative I endorse this alongside chromium based like Vanadium and Brave. I cannot preface this enough, if the threat model is high enough it needs perfect security, then yes go for chromium based only Edit: the creators of IronFox has put in the limitations and it is advised to read especially for specific threat models, I agree with them and for many lighter threat models, IronFox is really good. This isn’t a perfect one and if you need perfect security, go use chromium based, but this is destined to be a decent alternative to the chromium of the likes. Finally here’s the link: [Limitations](https://gitlab.com/ironfox-oss/IronFox/-/blob/dev/docs/Limitations.md) --- ## Post 105 by @sha123 — 2025-07-19T11:56:44Z > [@anon39279085](#): > > It also has Fission (per-site isolation) on Stop repeating this nonsense. Read the whole discussion about it. It has _no_ site isolation! Also this is only one of the many problems with FF security on Android. --- ## Post 106 by @anon39279085 — 2025-07-19T12:02:43Z the creator proves you otherwise wrong, it is not nonsense: [https://gitlab.com/ironfox-oss/IronFox/-/blob/dev/docs/Features.md#security](https://gitlab.com/ironfox-oss/IronFox/-/blob/dev/docs/Features.md#security) You love to make assumptions without researching don’t you? Well if you wanna keep doubting, do it but you will only be more wrong I bet (to be clear there are valid points but this is not one) I preface again, **if your threat models calls for ultimate security, then I agree here that Chromium based browsers are better for this situation and avoid using IronFox** --- ## Post 107 by @Niek-de-Wilde — 2025-07-19T12:06:50Z I think that @sha123 is trying to point out that even though fission has been enabled, it is currently not comparable to chromiums site isolation and that there is a reason its still disabled by firefox by default on android. --- ## Post 108 by @anon39279085 — 2025-07-19T12:07:50Z this is an example of valid complaint to have which is why I prefaced this in the last line. --- ## Post 109 by @sha123 — 2025-07-19T12:30:16Z > [@anon39279085](#): > > the creator proves you otherwise wrong, it is not nonsense: > [docs/Features.md · dev · IronFox OSS / IronFox · GitLab](https://gitlab.com/ironfox-oss/IronFox/-/blob/dev/docs/Features.md#security) You have proven exactly nothing, only that he enabled a very early version of Fission. This is not proper site isolation in its current state! And if you just read the whole discussion around it you would have realized that: > [@Ironfox (Firefox on Android) now has enabled early-stage Fission](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/ironfox-firefox-on-android-now-has-enabled-early-stage-fission-per-site-isolation/24009/3): > > You need to check Selinux labels. I bet it does not even use isolatedProcess and thus is only multi-process, but neither running with a sandbox nor with site isolation. Edit: Still no isolatedProcess: > [@Niek-de-Wilde](#): > > @sha123 is trying to point out that even though fission has been enabled, it is currently not comparable to chromiums site isolation No, not only not comparable, there is no proper site isolation in its current state. Pls change the title of the above thread because people just stop at reading the title without the discussion and draw wrong conclusions. --- ## Post 110 by @Niek-de-Wilde — 2025-07-19T13:33:02Z Gave it an edit. --- ## Post 111 by @sha123 — 2025-07-19T14:25:45Z That’s better. Thx --- ## Post 112 by @anon63378630 — 2025-07-19T17:10:40Z Yes, isolated process enforced by SELinux is still not used in any of these afaik. - [moz.configure - mozsearch](https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/source/mobile/android/moz.configure#42) - [scripts/prebuild.sh · dev · IronFox OSS / IronFox · GitLab](https://gitlab.com/ironfox-oss/IronFox/-/blob/dev/scripts/prebuild.sh#L449-555) --- ## Post 113 by @dminca — 2025-07-19T18:11:38Z hi @celenity , love the project! :heart: Do you know if the Matrix room is still up? I just found out about the project and wanted to join the room to keep myself up to date with the development. Thank you in advance. --- ## Post 116 by @sha123 — 2025-07-19T21:14:39Z > [@celenity](#): > > Is there a reason you’re this aggressive against our project? I have nothing against your project. I am against recommending _any_ FF-based browser on Android, including Ironfox. It is not your fault that Mozilla has treated Android security like it did. You do what you can to make the best out of it. Nevertheless security shortcomings are significant (again, not your fault), should be clearly mentioned and discussed before a recommendation can even be considered. You might also want to change your documentation because it makes it seem like site isolation is actually properly enforced, which it is not. --- ## Post 118 by @dminca — 2025-07-19T22:56:56Z hmm, @celenity I think something is off with the room because it says I’ve no permission to write there. Also can’t see anyone writing. ![image](https://forum-uploads.privacyguidesusercontent.com/original/2X/5/5e29955e74f6c6d8e35a58a0fb9180464bc94993.jpeg) --- ## Post 120 by @dminca — 2025-07-20T19:06:03Z thanks @celenity , this one works fine :clinking_glasses: --- ## Post 121 by @anon94117004 — 2025-08-19T19:09:22Z IronFox (and Phoenix) must not be recommended at all. They’re wrongly applying an egregious amount of per-site overrides, fundamentally breaking the given crowd aspect of either FPP or RFP on their own. This results in users of IronFox having uniquely evident fingerprints. Additionally the criteria for these exceptions is completely arbirtary and undefined. It also breaks the given understanding of how fp resistance should work. They’re basically pulling a KickSecure: taking something insecure (Debian) and putting 1 trillion million changes on top to make it “secure” to fool users. Avoid! --- ## Post 122 by @JohnSmith — 2025-08-19T20:39:20Z For the curious (i was), here’s the devs reasoning for what AstraKitten pointed out: > **[[DISCUSSION] Fingerprinting Protection](https://codeberg.org/celenity/Phoenix/issues/46)** > > Hi everyone, > > I'd like to propose some changes to how Phoenix handles fingerprinting. Posting this here so that we can discuss it - because I'd really like to hear if there's any opposition to these changes, anything I'm missing, etc. > > I'll try to... IMO, this seems like a reasonable approach for the threat model they’re aiming to protect against, i.e. naive finger printers, per their own Limitations and FAQ pages. While this does result in not maintaining the same finger print as firefox users with RFP enabled, the overrides seem relatively minor and make it so you’re NOT stuck needing to choose between RFP+breakage or no protection at all. This was a good reminder for me to actually review a projects github/lab/codeberg tho, I wasn’t aware of this. edit: messed up the link, lol --- ## Post 123 by @anon11657877 — 2025-08-19T21:08:22Z Does IronFox have site isolation at all? Does Firefox on Android still not support it? > [@anon94117004](#): > > They’re basically pulling a KickSecure Or a Secureblue. You could also say the same for Proton and Tuta since email can’t be made secure or private (E2EE is useless at best). --- ## Post 124 by @anon94117004 — 2025-08-19T22:05:00Z > [@JohnSmith](#): > > reasonable approach It is absolutely **not** reasonable. It completely goes against the entire goal of what FPP and RFP seek to achieve. They’re selectively altering the profile of each depending on website based solely on @celenity’s arbitrary judgement. If their goal is to minimize breakage they should solely use FPP. If their goal is maximum resistance they should solely use RFP. Doing something in between like they are is a _very wrong_ approach to the compatibility issue. > [@anon11657877](#): > > Does IronFox have site isolation at all? Does Firefox on Android still not support it? As others like @sha123 have said for months: no it does not. --- ## Post 125 by @anon11657877 — 2025-08-19T22:54:10Z Seems like IronFox has enabled site isolation. > **[IronFox/docs/Features.md at dev](https://codeberg.org/ironfox-oss/IronFox/src/branch/dev/docs/Features.md)** > > IronFox - The private, secure, user first web browser for Android. If security is the top priority here even Opera is leagues ahead of Firefox, and Opera is a Chinese privacy nightmare. --- ## Post 126 by @xardas — 2025-08-20T12:50:23Z I’ll wait until we have solid proof that this is secure and private. [Their website](https://ironfoxoss.org/) provided on gitlab isn’t even on https. With how simple it is to set up https, I wouldn’t ignore that for now. --- ## Post 127 by @anon94117004 — 2025-08-20T23:17:42Z > [@anon11657877](#): > > Seems like IronFox has enabled site isolation. It doesn’t do anything. The Fission implementation on Android simply runs some tasks in a separate process, there is zero security boundary between processes. And said processes can still read/write all data the app has access to. This question has been repeatedly asked in this thread. I don’t understand why people refuse to read. Any page that can successfully gain RCE can trivally phone home with your cookies and passwords without worrying about a sandbox. Firefox 142 even fixed an issue like this in their GMP process, although it didn’t apply to Android, it shows that such issues can and do exist. > [@anon11657877](#): > > Opera is leagues ahead This kind of talk does not belong on this forum kindly. --- ## Post 128 by @anon11657877 — 2025-08-21T14:40:29Z > [@anon94117004](#): > > This kind of talk does not belong on this forum kindly. I wish I didn’t have to say that but any maintained Chromium fork is most likely way more secure than Firefox. --- ## Post 129 by @SYST3M_D3STR0YER — 2025-11-22T19:54:45Z - Non-Blink Browsers are insecure. This may be true, but if this would be such an important Criteria that if a Browser doesn’t fulfills that Criteria it wouldn’t be recommended, FireFox wouldn’t be recommended by Privacy Guides. But since that isn’t the case, this can’t be used as an argument for don’t recommending IronFox. - We have to wait and then to see if the security updates are regular and timely applied to IronFox. I did a table on that. And if you look at that table, you can clearly see: Yes, they are. They are even much faster applied to IronFox than to Cromite, which is recommended. ![image](https://forum-uploads.privacyguidesusercontent.com/original/3X/e/e/ee77c4f509c0145402adfc7d385272c0af2c3f9a.png) (By the way, I couldn’t upload the original .odt–File, I’m wondering why .odt-Files aren’t allowed for upload? ![Why is odt not supported](https://forum-uploads.privacyguidesusercontent.com/original/3X/5/e/5ee42b6988dc1c6c7720fec77f106a53bd97f58c.png) ) - Brave is IronFox, but better since it uses Blink which is more secure and the security fix delay is shorter than the security fix delay of IronFox. With this argument you could remove many existing Privacy Guides Recommendations, so unless this many Recommendations aren’t removed (which I think won’t happen :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes: ), it’s not valid. - IronFox doesn’t add something to Firefox what can’t already be archieved. That’s not true, see that reply: [IronFox (a new Mull fork) - #15 by celenity](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/ironfox-a-new-mull-fork/23638/15) Finally, I wan’t to add a thought that is completely independent of the above arguments and separate, this isn’t an argument for adding IronFox (unless it is valid). And this is maybe or even probably big trash, this may be the biggest shit you’ve ever read. But I thought, that Gecko could be not that more insecure than Blink because it has a market share of only 2 %, so if a cracker wanted to use security vulnerabilities, he would probably look to the source code of Blink to find security vulnerabilities instead of looking to Gecko since Blink has a market share of 80 %. So unless Gecko would be 40 times more insecure and easy to crack, I think a cracker would go to Blink so he has more profit with having less work and when I look to the different security fixes of Chrome and FireFox, it seems to me like the security fixes are so completely different that I think, security vulnerabilites found in Blink which a cracker would use aren’t in Gecko (or at least with a very low probability) because these two rendering engines are completely different. --- ## Post 130 by @Average_Joe — 2025-12-07T09:33:18Z > [@anon11657877](#): > > I wish I didn’t have to say that but any maintained Chromium fork is most likely way more secure than Firefox. zzzz this is too much of a generalisation and sends the wrong message. especially when people are trying to avoid using Chromium based browsers… --- ## Post 131 by @null — 2025-12-15T06:37:27Z I have a question if I enable add-ons and download LibRedirect and disable add-ons again would LibRedirect still get updates? --- ## Post 132 by @certainty — 2025-12-15T07:08:16Z Yes, you’ll even get notification if the updated extension requests for new permissions. Edit: Firefox desktop showed warning⚠️ for disabled [video downloadhelper](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/video-downloadhelper/) when it requested new permissions. So it might apply for android too. --- ## Post 134 by @privacyisconsent — 2025-12-20T13:08:12Z @celenity maybe a silly question but what does enabling memory tagging support for IronFox actually entail? Is it modifying Firefox’s memory allocator to make it MTE-aware or maybe opting in to MTE/Advanced Protection when it is available? Is there any change if you were using IronFox on GrapheneOS and had not disabled “Memory Tagging”? --- ## Post 135 by @any1 — 2025-12-20T13:45:14Z > [@privacyisconsent](#): > > Is there any change if you were using IronFox on GrapheneOS and had not disabled “Memory Tagging”? No, it is the same. --- ## Post 136 by @GurrenLagann114 — 2026-01-07T10:10:49Z How good could IronFox be as a forgetful browser, like searching on the fly the name of a movie then delete all data on exit? Just to note, trying the browser on coveryourtracks.eff says that, on default settings, gives off a unique fingerprint. --- ## Post 137 by @anon96101359 — 2026-01-07T13:30:48Z I deleted Iron Fox after noticing with Rethink DNS that it sends data in the background. Even when closing the browser with the “clear all on closing” feature enabled, the history still remains in the recently closed tab, which is very bad for forensics. --- ## Post 138 by @any1 — 2026-01-07T14:22:50Z > **[Cookie monster!](https://codeberg.org/ironfox-oss/IronFox/src/branch/dev/docs/Network-Connections.md)** --- ## Post 139 by @GurrenLagann114 — 2026-01-07T18:15:36Z Anyone else??? --- ## Post 140 by @JP1 — 2026-01-07T18:36:54Z Never used Mull as have only just started using the various privacy tools and being aware of them. I use Tor as a browser. Would Iron Fox offer anything different/better? --- ## Post 141 by @JohnSmith — 2026-01-08T16:06:31Z All of those connections are perfectly reasonable for my threat model… except for geolocation. Am I reading it right that unless you go out of your way to remove the beacondb URL from the geo.provider.network.url setting in about:config, and if location is disabled system wide, ironfox will basically override and provide geolocation data anyway? If so that should really be OPT IN not OPT OUT. Hopefully I’m just misunderstanding…. Edit: okay I think I jumped to an erroneous conclusion. That must be for if geolocation IS enabled systemwide and the default, for whatever reason, is unavailable. I have geolocation DISABLED system wide, and without changing anything in about:config, browser checks for geolocation are returning “denied by user” and such messages. --- ## Post 142 by @Average_Joe — 2026-01-18T14:29:23Z Is there any chance that we’ll be seeing an iOS/Windows version --- ## Post 143 by @shadowwwind — 2026-01-18T15:04:20Z The IronFox dev is also the creator of [celenity/Phoenix: Phoenix is a suite of configurations & advanced modifications for Mozilla Firefox, designed to put the user first - with a focus on privacy, security, freedom, & usability. - Codeberg.org](https://codeberg.org/celenity/Phoenix) which IronFox also largely uses. However personally I would prefer using Librewolf --- ## Post 144 by @Ganther — 2026-01-27T10:56:06Z > [@shadowwwind](#): > > However personally I would prefer using Librewolf Why? --- ## Post 145 by @Encounter5729 — 2026-01-29T20:35:13Z > [@jonah](#): > > How long do we feel is a good enough amount of time to establish a track record? It’s been a year now that IronFox has consistently delivered. @celenity has among other things, removed a lot of Mozilla tracking that was still present in Mull and in Fennec. They have also shown great care in having sane defaults and options. For example only proposing privacy-respecting search engines and DNS providers. They also include uBlock Origin in the box. They removed uBlock Origin privileges to their own list for security reasons. Should we add it ? Adding it around September this year would seem fine so everyone is satisfied and doesn’t think its too early. --- ## Post 146 by @ty89 — 2026-01-30T10:47:21Z Word of warning: IronFox does not properly protect the canvas. According to [this test](https://arkenfox.github.io/TZP/tests/canvasnoise.html) IronFox provides access to unaltered canvas, one of the main fingerprinting vectors. --- ## Post 147 by @anon51983832 — 2026-01-30T13:53:42Z Maximum respect for those who want to escape from Chromium and its derivatives. But if Firefox or Ironfox doesn’t offer any advantage in terms of privacy, because it can only protect you against naive scripts like Vanadium and Brave do, why recommend a less secure browser? Also maximum respect for the developers of this project. --- ## Post 148 by @TinFoilHat — 2026-01-30T14:10:11Z Because only Gecko based browsers support uBo on Android? --- ## Post 149 by @anon51983832 — 2026-01-30T14:18:30Z And does that make you block more trackers or something like that? What’s the use of that if they can still identify you despite Brave’s Shields, uBO, etc? --- ## Post 150 by @any1 — 2026-01-30T14:24:35Z > **[Fingerprinting - IronFox](https://ironfoxoss.org/docs/features/#fingerprinting)** > > This list is not exhaustive… | The private, secure, user first web browser for Android > We allow first-party canvas data extraction, due to prompts unfortunately not being supported on Android _(Third parties are still blocked from extracting canvas data, and canvas data is still randomized when extracted)_ You do realize that using arkenfox would produce the same result. --- ## Post 151 by @ty89 — 2026-01-30T15:04:57Z > [@any1](#): > > You do realize that using arkenfox would produce the same result. Haven’t rechecked default FPP canvas for a while. You’re right, they’ve managed to break it completely now. Since Arkenfox switched to FPP I’ve been always adding `+CanvasImageExtractionPrompt, +CanvasExtractionFromThirdPartiesIsBlocked, +CanvasExtractionBeforeUserInputIsBlocked` to my FPP overrides in desktop Firefox profiles to have RFP behavior for canvas. --- ## Post 152 by @SYST3M_D3STR0YER — 2026-01-30T15:42:22Z It‘s less probable that they‘ll track you (yes, this is a weigh question; less tracking but also less security, I am not able to jugde / weigh these two (dis)advantages). Also browsing is less annoying due to lesser ads. And you don‘t support the Google monopoly. --- ## Post 153 by @SYST3M_D3STR0YER — 2026-01-30T15:44:19Z This is not meant in any kind of objection or something, but do you then think the past Mull PG recommendation was good / justified? --- ## Post 154 by @anon51983832 — 2026-01-30T15:46:02Z I feel attracted to not supporting Google, without a doubt. I’ve tried Ironfox and it’s very good, although it was quite a bit slower for me. But as for ads, I haven’t noticed the difference compared to Brave. On the other hand, I haven’t tried Mull. I started getting interested in privacy very recently. --- ## Post 155 by @null — 2026-01-30T23:12:14Z It’s mostly just convenience for me. The modern web has become almost unusable without accounts for everthing. More and more websites has a paywall, force you to login or block you if you’re using a VPN. Etc. Gecko based browsers is alot more convenience for me especially on mobile. With addons like uBO and LibRedirect. You can easily bypass most paywall’s and can automatically redirect annoying websites to a frontends. Chromium based browsers on mobile really sucks at this alot links you click on a search engines you will likely get blocked or paywallet. Ofc their are ways to get round it on Chromium based browsers but all the ways I have tried was either buggy or annoying to do on mobile. You’re more locked down on what you can do. I don’t mind sacrificing a little security for user freedom I have been a Firefox user for my hole life. I have never got hacked or been in a data leak because of Firefox that I know of, so I thinking I’m doing fine. --- ## Post 156 by @null — 2026-01-31T10:34:21Z > [@anon51983832](#): > > Ironfox and it’s very good, although it was quite a bit slower for me. I’m honestly really impressed how fast IronFox is. I don’t really notice a big difference if I use IronFox or Vanadium. Idk if because of I’m using a pixel 9 pro or gecko has become a lot faster over the years on Andriod or IronFox config. I remember back in the Mull era, I always wanted to use Mull but everytime I tried Mull, it was painfully slow I was always going back to Bromite/Cromite. --- ## Post 157 by @Encounter5729 — 2026-01-31T10:59:07Z > [@ty89](#): > > Word of warning: IronFox does not properly protect the canvas. How does the test tell you that? --- ## Post 158 by @ty89 — 2026-01-31T11:09:19Z > [@Encounter5729](#): > > How does the test tell you that? Canvas readouts match exactly whatever the canvas is being set to. Therefore canvas can be used for fingerprinting. Readouts were being slightly altered while the FPP canvas protection [partially worked in previous Firefox versions](https://github.com/arkenfox/user.js/issues/1813). The readout is completely random in Tor Browser and Mullvad Browser. --- ## Post 159 by @SYST3M_D3STR0YER — 2026-01-31T11:52:55Z > [@any1](#): > > We allow first-party canvas data extraction, due to prompts unfortunately not being supported on Android _(Third parties are still blocked from extracting canvas data, and canvas data is still randomized when extracted)_ Does this apply to all android browsers or only to all gecko android browsers @any1? --- ## Post 160 by @any1 — 2026-01-31T14:31:45Z By prompts they mean the prompts that Firefox creates (e.g., canvas extraction). This is not an Android-based restriction, it just isn’t implemented to work on Android atm. --- ## Post 161 by @Encounter5729 — 2026-02-01T12:14:38Z I don’t understand how that is an issue if the canvas is random and changes regularly. I _believe_ Firefox generates a random canvas every time but I could be wrong. --- ## Post 162 by @Roast — 2026-03-04T21:50:35Z Sooo… Has this soon been showed to be a reliable tool that can be suggested, or…? --- ## Post 163 by @Xoxohelloes — 2026-05-09T05:22:55Z I wonder myself and also why this is not in the recommendations section. Is there a reason for it? --- ## Post 164 by @Lukas — 2026-05-09T05:35:14Z IronFox is a cool project and pretty much pushes Firefox to its limits, but at the end of the day it’s just polishing a turd. On Android, Firefox is way behind Chromium when it comes to security, so there is only so much that IronFox can accomplish without Mozilla starting to take the security of its browser seriously. --- ## Post 165 by @any1 — 2026-05-09T10:49:03Z The point, rather, is that Mull was recommended before being discontinued, but IronFox isn’t. --- ## Post 166 by @Lukas — 2026-05-09T15:21:49Z My guess would be that the PG team realized that the security posture of Firefox Android isn’t acceptable in 2026. --- ## Post 167 by @any1 — 2026-05-09T15:43:41Z > [@Niek-de-Wilde](#): > > In any case we are still monitoring this project, once we believe the updates are done jn a timely an reliable manner, we can move on to discuss whether in todays software landscape, we still want to recommend a firefox based browser on the android platform. As far as Firefox browser security goes on Android, IronFox is easily putting in the most work. --- ## Post 168 by @Xoxohelloes — 2026-05-23T15:30:10Z Does Ironfox now have some kind of sandboxing as well? Is it usable now and on par with Chromium based browsers on Android? --- ## Post 169 by @any1 — 2026-05-23T16:20:19Z Since it is based on Firefox, being on par with chromium in terms of security is not really gonna happen until Mozilla decides to make drastic changes. You still have some improvements in IronFox, like fission, which Firefox shipped and then quickly removed again on Android. --- ## Post 170 by @Xoxohelloes — 2026-05-23T16:44:18Z Why did they remove it again? And what do I miss on Android when using Ironfox? Fizzing is not the same as Sandboxing right? --- ## Post 171 by @any1 — 2026-05-23T17:49:42Z > [@Xoxohelloes](#): > > Why did they remove it again? > **[2011886 - Switch off isolated processes by default](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2011886)** > > VERIFIED (polly) in Firefox for Android - General. Last updated 2026-01-27. > [@Xoxohelloes](#): > > And what do I miss on Android when using Ironfox? > **[Security - IronFox](https://ironfoxoss.org/docs/limitations/#security)** > > While we do as much as possible to improve the situation, it should be noted that Firefox-based web browsers, including IronFox, have security deficiencies when compared to Chromium. This is especially notable on Android. For more details, see this... > [@Xoxohelloes](#): > > Fizzing is not the same as Sandboxing right? Fission is process isolation --- ## Post 172 by @Xoxohelloes — 2026-05-23T18:17:25Z This is unfortunate. I hope this will improve in the future so I can contribute helping Browser diversity. --- ## Post 173 by @kyrpajosif — 2026-05-23T18:36:27Z It is hard to suggest when browser is so slow. Speed and security from Vanadium and ad blocking from Iron Fox would be great combination. I hope they can increase speed in the future because I just don’t want use products from Brave’s owners. --- ## Post 174 by @Roast — 2026-05-23T19:07:22Z If speed is a parameter we’re judging by, then Tor shouldn’t be recommended either, lol.