All of the annoyances can be disabled in the settings.
1 Like
I would rather not have them at all.
1 Like
I actually agree with @Lukas, Vanadium is a lot nicer to use compared to Brave, and I definitely preferred using it when I had GrapheneOS. It’s a good browser and there’s no reason for it to not be mentioned (specifying that it’s GOS-exclusive).
4 Likes
I like Vanadium, it has pros and cons, since I use them both, but I’d definitely take it over brave anytime, as a long time gos and pixel user (this coming from a win brave user).
Im in favor of adding it to the list of recommended browser.
pros:
- its fast, clean, no bs
- overall feels more secure, fastest patches
- supports bitwarden inline fill (brave cannot use this feature, you need to activate all 4 options in bitwarden - overlay, accessibility etc. I hate this, so Im using brave only for loginless sites).
cons:
- cant have bottom toolbar (I am used to typing and having the sites on the bottom).
- ads on mobile (I do run my own adguard+unbound, but I dont always activate vpn (my wireguard server) when away and on mobile data - either I forget or I need baterry. Some ads do slip through.
- device dependent.
1 Like
Vanadium just sucks. No Adblocker, no NoScript, no cookie deletion by domain. Mull with UBlock Origin, Noscript and CookieAutoDelete fixes these
I just use Vanadium for shitty sites that need saved cookies.
1 Like
-
No per-site process isolation
-
Less security than on chromium-based browsers
-
A lot of extensions that add attack surface, more parties to trust, and make your fingerprint more unique
Congrats! Your setup is definitely less shitty /s
Firefox has dFPI enabled by default for months now. Mull has had it for years.
Don’t confuse per-site data and process isolation.
Read this: Browsers - DivestOS Mobile
Fission is on track to be default enabled by end of year from what I understand.
Mull explicitly only supports and recommends use of uBlock Origin as is repeatedly noted:
Without a content blocker, so too do untrusted third party malware scripts add attack surface.
2 Likes
I don’t have anything against using uBlock Origin. The guy who made that comment is using at least two more different extensions, excluding uBlock Origin.
Fixed that.
Mullvad Browser adds NoScript on top of uBO to protect against XSS. Isn’t that a good idea for Mull? Is NS even available for mobile FF?
afaik Mullvad and Tor Browser primarily use NoScript as part of the security toggle for controlling click to play.
I personally won’t use it in Mull, but you’re welcome to.
I’m really surprised you resorted to making such a sordid “argument”, Zeppelin. I’ve read lots of your posts over time, and all of them are informative and helpful, but this one is really off and took me aback. I’ve also been using your browser, Mulch (which I like), for a long time, because it’s the only good browser I’m able to run in my very specific circumstances. I’m very grateful for that alone, so I will donate to your project in the future. If there were no Mulch, I would be forced to use vanilla Chromium, and go through a painful process of updating it manually from time to time by downloading a 200 MB .zip file with an .apk in it, from the Chromium’s Google Storage API.
As for your comment:
First off: NextDNS provides 300,000 free queries per month, so there’s no need to pay at all. 300,000 queries are enough for three (!) users browsing/using the internet casually - I’ve tested it. So, for casual users, who don’t have any particular use-case which requires to use up a lot of DNS queries - this limit is an overkill even, as they will most likely never hit the limit.
Second: it genuinely feels like you just had nothing constructive/useful to answer to Lukas’s question about whether NextDNS can do CNAME filtering, and simply decided to do a backlash against NextDNS, and fuel it further by framing their question as if they are paying for the service. You put words into their mouth. It’s also weird: all your comments in this thread are good, up until that one. It’s like you definitely kind of glitched a bit there.
NextDNS has a clean reputation regarding their services, so I don’t see what’s your problem is, except that their server is closed-source. I don’t think you are the kind of person to have that GNU-like “Proprietary = malware!
” mentality of an arrogant and toxic zealot.
NextDNS repeatedly state that they don’t store logs unless the user themselves enables logging.
Furthermore, (oh, the irony!) PrivacyGuides itself has NextDNS as a recommended DNS provider. GrapheneOS recommends adblocking on a DNS-level, too.
If you are this paranoid about DNS providers - host your own DNS resolver. To use the internet, we have to trust somebody, one way or the other. At the moment, there are only two big players on the DNS field: NextDNS and AdGuard. Quad9 is really good too, I also like their chairman: I’ve read him a lot and watched his conferences. Would totally entrust my him with my DNS. I however excluded Quad9 for this case, because they don’t have adblock filtering). People usually choose between NextDNS and AdGuard for DNS-level adblocking, and that’s right, as both are really good options. Using these DNS providers isn’t awful at all.
And I’m not affiliated with NextDNS in any way. I just did my own research long ago before settling on a third-party DNS providers. I only decided to write this comment solely because it’s you, Zeppelin, who wrote it. If it was some random person - I would just pass by. But I’ve been perceiving you as a trustworthy person with a good faith, so I couldn’t walk past that. Using a reputable third-party DNS provider isn’t an “awful advice” in any way. An awful advice would be, for example, to use your ISP’s DNS when you are on a VPN.
1 Like
Some info on NextDNS logging:
I never needed per site isolation, I think? Noscript blocks XSS attacks.
Security blabla, Firefox is secure enough for many I guess.
“Extensions add attack surface”, they are open source, well known and block ads, Javascript selectively, or other useful things. No connections made that are not documented.
Vanadium is a great option for GrapheneOS users, but it is exclusively available on GrapheneOS. So, I don’t really see how recommending it to everyone would do any good.
1 Like
Site isolation and sandboxing is important, no matter if you realize it is or not.
On desktop this might be true, unfortunately not on Android.
Open source doesn’t help much in that context. It’s not a magical panacea. Using a content blocker is fine, since it also can help against some malicious ads and fishing websites. Although it would be better if the browser had this built-in, like on Brave. But using many extensions, like it is unfortunately still common in the privacy community, is not.
1 Like
In the context of this convo, they are just using 3 extensions (and all 3 are well known, well established, extensions, that have the ‘recommended by Firefox’ badge which means they undergo some vetting by the Mozilla team (unlike most extensions which are unvetted)).
I don’t think a recommendation for Vanadium would be useful, because it is only available for GrapheneOS, and it is already the default in GrapheneOS.
So the only group of people who can use Vanadium already have Vanadium. There really isn’t anyone else to recommend it to.
2 Likes
I prefer Vanadium over Brave for most tasks. When reading through the GOS channels, I get the impression that most users of GrapheneOS also use Vanadium. Vanadium has some security advantages, supports auto-fill, is faster (except some websites which benefit heavily from JIT) and unbloated. Brave has the advantage of having a content blocker and a few additional privacy features. It’s not really clear what is better. Nevertheless readers of PG shouldn’t get the impression that Vanadium is not recommended to use.
1 Like