Could someone help me with the difference between Mullvad browser and LibreWolf? I keep getting confused because Mullvad has its own VPN.
Vivaldi has its own in-built extension that’s made by Proton: Proton VPN for Vivaldi
Mullvad Browser is basically Tor Browser without Tor.
LibreWolf is Firefox with some privacy changes and uBlock Origin added.
1 Like
Isn’t the TOR-Browser based on FireFox with privacy changes and sometimes also additional privacy features (like RFP which became later a privacy setting in FireFox)?
It is based on ESR not the regular releases of Firefox which they then rebase onto to include their own changes.
Yes this happens via the Tor Uplift project
Yes, Tor Browser is built upon FIrefox ESR (‘Extended Support Release’). The current version of Tor Browser (15) is built on top of Firefox 140 ESR.
like RFP which became later a privacy setting in FireFox
RFP and (iirc) FPI and a bunch of other patches were upstreamed to Firefox as part of the Tor Uplift Project, which was a collaboration between Firefox developers and Tor Browser developers, intended to ease the workload for the Tor Project, upstream privacy features into Firefox, and allow the Tor Project to base off of mainline Firefox. Here is a bit of context from a Tor Project blog post:
While [our collaboration with Mozilla] started bearing fruit with during our work on reproducible builds, it got fully up to speed with the Tor Uplift project. From 2016 on, Mozilla dedicated several engineers to help us get our code changes into Firefox and write patches from scratch for some of our missing defenses. This was a multi-year effort which started with our “first-party isolation” work, aimed at defeating cross-site linkability and continued with upstreaming patches against browser fingerprinting.
At least in this one point I agree: I‘ve read the posts from @any1 and @anonymous477 on that multiple times, like these
and I did research, but I couldn‘t find any technical difference. LibreWolf has also strong fingerprinting protection. Couldn‘t it be possible, that MullvadBrowser and LibreWolf made for different purposes, but they ended up being pretty much the same (that comparisons between it are allowed)?
I would recommend reading Privacy Respecting Web Browsers for PC and Mac - Privacy Guides from the start until you reach Brave.
Arkenfox only aims to thwart basic or naive tracking scripts through canvas randomization and Firefox’s built-in fingerprint resistance configuration settings. It does not aim to make your browser blend in with a large crowd of other Arkenfox users in the same way Mullvad Browser or Tor Browser do, which is the only way to thwart advanced fingerprint tracking scripts.
I’ve read that before but was confused by a few lines before:
Mullvad Browser provides the same anti-fingerprinting protections as Arkenfox
Well yes, in the next sentence:
Coupled with a VPN, Mullvad Browser can thwart more advanced tracking scripts which Arkenfox cannot.
But it only says coupled with a VPN, so it seems to me that MullvadBrowser is only better against fingerprinting with a VPN? And of course you can use FF+AF also with a VPN.
I don’t think they’re comparable until Mullvad Browser allows saving cookies. I use LW but could never use Mullvad Browser as my main browser for that reason alone. Looks like they may be working on it though.
All I want is a browser that is easy to use and grants me a reasonable level of privacy, security, and usability without too much fuss. Brave would also fit this use case, but I don’t like Brave personally for reasons that have nothing to do with privacy or security (the Brave CEO is a horrible person and I don’t like having to fight to turn off a bunch of web3 ad crap when I setup a browser or new profile). I’ve tried AF in the past but LibreWolf beats for me because it introduces quality of life features like an easy way to save cookies on a per-site basis and because the install/update process is much easier.
4 Likes
Read it again. Mullvad no VPN is Arkenfox ootb. Mullvad + VPN blends you in with other Mullvad + VPN users to have the same fingerprint, as long you don’t make any configurations. That’s something Arkenfox can’t do, even with a VPN.
1 Like
ArkenFox + VPN also blends you in with other ArkenFox + VPN users, because I’m sure there are many ArkenFox users who just configure ArkenFox and maintain ArkenFox but don’t change anything.
That’s not how Arkenfox is designed. It’s designed with the strictest settings and the end user use an override to make adjustments according to their preference. For example, I like my browser to open all of my previous tabs, I like to make cookie exceptions so that I don’t have to log-in all the time, but I don’t need to keep my browsing history. These settings are not enabled by default. Some people might want to keep their browsing history, some people might want to use Arkenfox like Mullvad and not keep anything on their browser, some people might want to install a number of different extensions. This will always change your browser fingerprint. Firefox (even with Arkenfox) still has to tailor to the end user’s personal preference. Mullvad is designed to be an ephemeral browser, and the user who uses it has to keep in mind that Mullvad should be used the way it is.
The way Tor browser is designed is that every Tor browser user looks the same, you belong to the pool of users with this browser fingerprint and Tor network ips
With Mullvad browser, the browser fingerprint part is covered, you look like other Mullvad browser users. Its already an improvement, but adding a vpn on top makes you belong to the pool of mullvad browser users using the vpn service, instead of belonging to the pool of Mullvad browser users on your own ip adres.
5 Likes
No. Don’t use Librewolf or Arkenfox for fingerprinting. If you want to be anonymized, use Tor browser or Mullvad Browser + VPN. They simply have different purposes. Mullvad Browser is not made to log in into website and should not be used for that (until a persistent mode comes out, I’m presuming with the Firefox profiles, we shall see). I use 3 browsers btw. When profiles will roll out in Firefox, I will probably use only 2.
I didn’t know a wiki for Librewolf even existed. For Arkenfox you have to read the wiki to use it. And not only go through the wiki, but understand what each config does: arkenfox gui
I agree, but once in maintenance mode, there are no headaches. I also have a NAS. My point still stands.
I think this is a misunderstanding.
If you are comfortable just accepting Librewolf’s defaults without question and without “understanding each config” there is no reason the same wouldn’t be true for you with Arkenfox’s defaults.
You don’t have to change anything if you don’t see the need to, the same is equally true of Librewolf. There is nothing stopping you from just using the Arkenfox template as is, and never going any further than that (beyond the occasional update)
If it’s not clear, regardless of whether you use Arkenfox, Librewolf, Vanilla Firefox, the settings are all the same, the defaults differ but these are all just the same built-in Firefox settings (same ones you find in about:config and in the GUI). Arkenfox isn’t adding any complexity, it’s just showing you the complexity that is already present.
Arkenfox strongly recommends you read the wiki (because knowledge is empowering, and because it’s a DIY oriented project), but there is no technical reason you need to understand every setting Arkenfox contains any more than you need to understand every Librewolf setting or Firefox setting.
As for the GUI, it is a super useful tool for DIYers, but it is not not necessary to get started with Arkenfox. Many people who have used Arkenfox have probably never even looked at it, many don’t even know it exists. Its just a reference tool (and it’s useful for all Firefox based browsers, Librewolf included, not just Arkenfox–because all of the settings you see there are Firefox settings).
2 Likes
It doesn’t stand because Arkenfox is recommended as a more secure option over Librewolf. You’re comparing it to self-hosting because “time component seem to be absent in all the recommendations” so “PG should only recommend products that are self-hostable” by this logic.
If you can’t self-host CORRECTLY, you shouldn’t be self-hosting. If you can’t self-host Nextcloud (for example), then you should use a cloud service provider like Proton, not because it’s more convenient, but because it’s more secure. I would even encourage using Google over self-hosting, depending on the end user. So time and convenience is not relevant here. If you can’t Arkenfox, Firefox would still be a more secure browser than Librewolf.
1 Like