I did some tests on both with CreepJS, Brave gets tracked by it between both incognito and normal tabs, while Cromite gets a new fingerprint every single time, Brave even gives out what GPU your phone uses (which is VERY fingerprintable on Android devices), while Cromite does not.
Reminder that all of the FP test sites are misleading you.
The big corporations have vastly higher resources for constantly developing new FPing algorithms to track their users.
5 Likes
Are you setting the shields and the various options to Block? Or are you testing this with out of the box Brave without any modification to the settings?
2 Likes
I believe I set everything according to the privacy guides website sadly 
Conclusively, Yes. Cromite applies more aggressive fingerprinting mitigations. As an example, Cromite neuters Client Hints properties while Brave doesn’t. It also has toggles for webgl and other device properties that websites can use to fingerprint users and by default disables most of them.
1 Like
It is difficult hide your device model on Android, which also includes the GPU.
1 Like
Cromite does some very questionable things, and some of them significantly reduce security.
As for fingerprinting protection, Brave will be a better choice too.
Very interested in what bad things for security Cromite does? May switch to Brave in that case…
Also, are you sure fingerprint protection really is better in Brave? another person in this thread says the opposite lol
3 Likes
I have no idea what you are talking about, Cromite is better!
Cromite uses Adblock Plus which is a sketchy adblocker owned by a sketchy company. It’s also written in C++.
Cromite adds JPEG-XL support, there is a reason why Google hasn’t added this to Chromium and that reason is huge attack surface.
When CFI broke, the Cromite developer just left it be: Chromium 117 and Control Flow Integrity (CFI) crashing on Android · uazo/cromite · Discussion #292 · GitHub
Brave uses randomization for their fingerprinting protection. Other browsers like Tor Browser tries to make all the users look as similar as possible.
Fingerprinting sites are completely flawed and you should just forget that they exist, imo.
3 Likes
Something to note here is that one should not forget that there are 2 main ways to defend against fingerprinting
The first one is to make everyone look the same so you blend together, this is what Tor browser and to a lesser extend Mullvad browser does.
The other method is randomizing your browsers fingerprint so you look like someone else every time. This way you don’t blend in with anyone, even your past self, which is the point, it (attempts) disconnect you from your past browsing sessions. This is what Brave does.
Both methods have their own set of pros and cons.
As @Valynor mentioned you shouldnt rely on those sites to tell you whether you are fingerprintable or not. The first issue is that they completely ignores the second model, which will always show you as unique (which is the point).
The second one is that those sites are often biased to privacy enthusiasts, as those folks are most likely to visit those sites, all while using special browsers setups, which can make private browsers look more common then they actually are.
These sites can be used to take a look at what your browser looks like, like you are looking in a mirror before you go out. It can be a nice educational resource to learn about what kind of ways you can be fingerprinted, but keep in mind that they are far from complete, and take the unique/ not unique part of those sites with a big grain of salt.
8 Likes