SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A new study Web Browser Privacy: What Do Browsers Say When They Phone Home?, looked at the six popular desktop web browsers Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based), Apple Safari, Brave, and Yandex, to uncover what these browsers send back to the mothership.
If you just want the result, the study found that used out of the box, Brave "is by far the most private of the browsers studied" followed by Chrome, Firefox and Safari. Brave is the only web browser that did not use identifiers that allowed tracking of the IP address over time and did not share details of web pages visited to backend servers.
Where is my Moon?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
New Study Finds Most Private Browser
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 24 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Grelb's Reminder:
Eighty percent of all people consider themselves to be above
average drivers.
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Thursday February 27 2020, @02:58AM (4 children)
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=36250&page=1&cid=963248#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
There's no way that can be right!
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by carguy on Thursday February 27 2020, @03:43AM (3 children)
Thanks for the link, just went back and read all the comments on that item from yesterday.
Noobie question: It seems like one missing piece is locating a DNS that can be trusted to not share data -- have I got that correct? If so, how hard/expensive is it to set up a DNS?
Maybe with some more donations, SN could provide this service for registered members? No idea how this would work in detail, but my mental map suggests that a query to "SN-DNS" would be anonymized and passed to one or more of the big DNS servers and the reply would be passed back to the requester.
This sounds slow, and that would be OK -- that is just one way to limit the number of users to keep the scale manageable.
Fireproof suit on, I'm ready to be shot down in flames...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Thursday February 27 2020, @05:02AM (2 children)
IMO, the best you can do with DNS, is to set up your own DNS server somewhere on your network, using squid or some such - https://wiki.squid-cache.org/Features/Dnsserver [squid-cache.org]
Having your own DNS server isn't a cure-all, because squid still has to look up addresses before it can serve them. But, if squid only looks up an address once, those trying to track you don't know if you visited the site once, or loaded ten thousand pages from that site.
I wonder - maybe squid can be set up to use a round-robin lookup scheme? One request form Google, next request from 1.1.1.1, next request from - wherever. The more servers used for lookups, the less any one server can track you.
But, you will always have to use someone's server that you don't control. Best thing you can do is minimize that usage.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @07:09AM (1 child)
Don't use squid or its obsoleted dnsserver process for something like that. You want unbound or BIND or Knot or another recursive server set up on a trusted VPS (to hide it from your home ISP) to do the iterative process itself, rather than forwarding it on to another server. Another option is to use a recursive server setup with a global forward that does do round robin or has certain forwards set up for certain domains (e.g. google.com. always goes to 8.8.8.8), but the roots don't do DoT as far as I know so your local ISP can still snoop. Best case is to have a local server do DoT forwarding to a remote VPS running its own non-forwarding recursive server that can do the lookups for you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @01:09PM
There is some question in my mind whether doing recursion yourself is actually better. High volume caches hit the root less. So it is a question between corporate surveillance at the cache, or federal surveillance at the root.