A security-focused, Chromium-based browser for desktop Linux inspired by Vanadium. Intended for use in secureblue.
Why I think this tool should be added
Trivalent is essentially secureblue’s take on Vanadium for the desktop, with many shared patches and hardening, including SELinux policies which aren’t available with any other browser.
This would require removing the following arbitrary minimum requirement which does not relate to privacy or security:
I don’t think a tool suggestion for Trivalent has ever been made so you should make one! It would need to meet all the desktop browser criteria which, are significantly different then the mobile browser criteria.
I don’t have enough expertise to make a suggestion on this matter, but I’ve been using Trivalent on Fedora, and it’s a browser that comes completely clean out of the box. On Fedora Silverblue/KDE Plasma, it doesn’t include Secureblue’s SELinux confinement or hardened malloc enabled, but as far as I understand, it retains the other security advantages that other Chromium-based browsers lack. It comes with Vanadium patches and other features that give it an advantage over Brave, and it requires barely any configuration tweaking.
Since ur here, do you know if Trivalent has updated it yet so that a blank homepage is possible? I remember trying it out a fewonths ago and i couldn’t get a blank homepage, so i always had cookies in non-incognito because the homepage had to be a specific search engine or something. If it was duckduckgo, i would have cookies from that. Vice versa with other engine like Google.
Interestingly, the criteria we have today were not chosen arbitrarily and prior to all tools. A lot of them resulted organically from dicussions like this, so criteria is always subject to change.
But I agree with your point. We shouldn’t fantasize and project our own criteria for them. If we do, it should be its oen separate suggestion thread.
Seeing that it is intended for use in secureblue only, should it really be considered for addition here? I mean, it’s pretty niche and esoteric of a product for one particular niche distro.
Also, what do you reckon is the primary use case for a browser like this? As an alternative to Mullvad Browser for semi regular or occasional use? For everyday use?
I think a browser should only be considered if it at-least supports one of the mainstream desktop OSs if not has support for all desktop OSs.
I mean Privacy Guides recommendations are by definition niche since Privacy is a niche so I’m not sure I understand your arguments. I’d prefer if products and services were evaluated based on their merits rather than the ad nauseam arguments about being too niche and/or esoteric.
I use Trivalent for all logged in accounts as its designed more for security rather than privacy and mullvad for everything else like searches general browsing etc.
My point is that when you clear all cookies and exit, do you gain search engine cookies again when you start up the browser?
Also, while you’re here, does trivalent allow clearing cookies on exit with exceptions? I currently use Brave for logging into internet accounts because I can set exceptions and clear unneeded cookies on exit. Can trivalent do this yet?
Mmm! Not sure , currently all my logged in accounts remain logged in, so useful for my use case. I haven’t needed to look for , whether I can clear cookies but keep some exceptions. I can check for you when I’m back in front of my desktop.
I don’t think it is. But this is where I imagine we’ll disagree on how we’re looking at things in and about privacy.
Merits should be the case. But if the product in question is not all that accessible to be used, you can recommend it all you want but if folks are not going to be able to use it, isn’t that a problem? Also, it’s not “ad nauseam”. I just mentioned a couple things… let’s not generalize it too much.
Not relevant right now. Create a criteria change and get it approved. This is how these discussions end up being framed around criteria that does not currently exist. See all the 1Password threads for examples.
EDIT:
I think if PG is going to recommend SecureBlue or GrapheneOS, its only logical for PG to also recommend the browsers, otherwise it causes unnecessary confusion for users as to why PG is telling them to use something else.
If that’s the recommendation, then the default thinking and logic would dictate that the tools within it (at-least those that come by default) within the recommended OS are also recommended by extension as they are a part of the OS with a fresh install. You are saying the same but don’t see it the same way as me at the same time. Why an explicit separate addition of said tools in the recommendations?
Also, I am just expressing my views here. I have no real dog in this race. Only pointing out the discrepancy in the thinking as I see it.
Trivalent therefore fails to meet the minimum requirements for desktop browser recommendations, as of 9 Dec 2025. To be considered, either (1) broad support for Mac & Windows needs to be added, or (2) the PG desktop browser requirements need to be modified to allow browsers that are not available on Windows, Mac & Linux
If that was the case there would be no need to have tool suggestions for Trivalent and Vanadium as they would be automatically added as recommendations since SecureBlue and GrapheneOS are recommended currently.
Maybe instead of outright recommending it In the browser section, we put a notice in the place where we do recommend Secure blue which says that we recommend to use Trivalent if already on Secure Blue.