No. But you can still use different browser profiles that act as different browsers instead of actually using different browsers.
And what about only one browser and only one profiles ?
Maybe my question is stupid and that means I just donât understand anything about privacy and security online
Nah youâre fine.
Yes, you can totally use one browser profile for everything.
But I would indeed recommend changing your browser settings such that cookies and site data is deleted upon every quit and restart of the browser. You can whitelist/save select websites you want to stay signed in all day everyday as you want.
And like you said, you are using a VPN so thatâs good. Make sure the kill switch is enabled.
You can look at the recommendations for browsers and settings to change: Privacy Respecting Web Browsers for PC and Mac - Privacy Guides
I use and recommend Brave. You can use Mullvad Browser in conjunction with Brave if you like. I donât think Firefox with or without arkenfox makes a lot of sense for most people anymore.
This makes no sense if you donât explain yourself in full as to how and why you have this highly opinionated view on the matter.
No, its not bad, if one browser meets your needs.
The people who use or advocate 2 or more browsers are usually doing so because they find value in optimizing each browser for a particular use case or they canât settle on one browser to meet all their needs. But you can absolutely use one browser for all of your browsing (and you can still have most of the benefits of multiple browsers, by using browser profiles if you like).
And what about only one browser and only one profiles ?
Realistically, this is what most people do, and itâs a totally valid option. Though Iâd encourage you to consider/experiment with profiles, they can be very useful and flexible.
Even Privacy Guides recommends using Mullvad browser over Arkenfox for âadvanced anti-fingerprinting.â So not only is Mullvad Browser better than Arkenfox in that regard, itâs also just nicer to have a pre-packaged browser that just works out of the box.
So if you want to use a Gecko browser, I would use Mullvad Browser; otherwise, use Brave. Firefox lacks many of the fingerprinting protections of both those options and lacks the advanced ad-blocking of Brave.
All of what you said is valid - if your threat mode warrants it. Arkenfox DIY is not for everyone though and not everyone can do it even if they wanted to. If you have an easy to use guide, please share so I can learn.
But thanks for explaining.
This is accurate, but it is also judging Arkenfox against a standard it wasnât designed or meant for. Combatting advanced fingerprinting is mostly out of scope for the Arkenfox project, and not really achievable with most browsers (short of Tor and Mullvad Browsers).
You mention personally using BraveâBrave also falls short of protecting against advanced fingerprintingâpresumably you still choose to use it because you feel that on the whole Brave is a good balance for you. It doesnât offer the strongest privacy, but it also doesnât come with the same usability tradeoffs/penalties that using Mullvad or Tor Browser fulltime entails. The premise is more or less the same with Arkenfox or Firefox + PG reccs.
itâs also just nicer to have a pre-packaged browser that just works out of the box.
IF the pre-packaged settings are a good fit for you/your goals, then yes, absolutely. If not, then another choice might make more sense.
Things like Letterboxing, RFP, and hard recommendation against installing extensions are things that make a lot of sense in the context of Mullvad Browser and Tor Browserâs design model, but are pain-points that many people would prefer not to have in a primary daily diver browser.
I think there is no single right choice here, just a set of tradeoffs, that people must weight for themselves, in the context of their own goals and threat model.
if you lead a normal life you donât have to do any big pull-ups
About thatâŚ
Compared librewolf.cfg with arkenfox user.js ¡ Issue #1809 ¡ arkenfox/user.js ¡ GitHub
THanks. But esoteric Github threads go over my head.
Are you saying Braveâs built-in ad-blocker is better than uBlockOrigin on Firefox?
No, uBlockOrigin is better, but it isnât installed by default and requires configuration to truly be much better, which a lot of users arenât willing to do. Brave having adblocking by default is also a benefit for the fingerprintability of Brave users since the default filter lists are the same for all users.
@Runway - Not sure if anyone has posted this yet. I kinda skimmed through the thread quickly. Anyway, have a look at this: